An update to Trump and what we can expect on Climate Change

An update to Trump and what we can expect on Climate Change

We have spoken at length on Trump's rhetoric on climate change, calling it a Chinese hoax. Many of us agreed to give him a chance. So let's see how he is doing so far. Who is he picking for his cabinet?

J.T. | November 20, 2016
SO | November 20, 2016

All I can say that is in 2 years, the democrats better get out and VOTE!!!!!!!! And continue to do so from here on out!

SCCRENDO | November 20, 2016

@JT. We can only hope. That is in fact what we are hoping for. However I doubt that Trump particular with the message he is sending can be helpful to climate change.
Btw we have alluded to this. So i think it is something important to read.

Tesla-David | November 20, 2016

@Soudman_S90D +1, yes!

carlk | November 20, 2016

And please democrats no see what this guy will do attitude. Do whatever you could now to stop this guy. It's not going to be pretty. More and more we can see it's not just campaign rhetoric. He really means to destroy it all for us.

Al1 | November 20, 2016

No, it's not going to be pretty. As much as I would like to give him a chance I can't help asking myself a chance to do what? His supporters have a long hate list from blacks and Jews to Tesla cars.

So what exactly is he going to do?

SCCRENDO | November 20, 2016

I am hopeful that his campaign was high on rhetoric and low on action. The good news is that he does walk back a lot of his real outrageous stuff to a certain degree. He has already stepped back on Obamacare. It dies seem like he may be limited in what he does in climate change although I doubt he will help the cause. Bottom line is that we have to be vocal and criticize and protest his bad decisions. So far his cabinet decisions look prettty poor.

lilbean | November 20, 2016

@sccrendo, you'll like this funny SNL video:

Jcollins | November 20, 2016

My concern is that this seems to be a repeat of the shift in emphasis in climate change after Jimmy . Carter by Ronald Reagan. Carter, as an example for others, had solar panels installed on the white house roof Ronald Reagan had them removed the day after Reagan was installed as president. It has taken nearly 40 years to get back to any semblance of governmental consciousness on the issue and now there is to potential to lose momentum.

SCCRENDO | November 20, 2016

@Jcollins. Agreed
@lilbean. Thanks. Saw it already. Enjoy SNL

SCCRENDO | November 20, 2016

Trump at least has his focus on the big issues. Here are Dan Rather's thoughts

Mel. | November 21, 2016

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a big Bernie supported , meeting with Trump today.

jordanrichard | November 21, 2016

There are a lot of things, campaign rhetoric, that he has started to walk back from. So, let's not just panic yet. If there are jobs to be had in the let's call it "Green industry", then Trump will be for it.

J.T. | November 21, 2016

Basil has the answer to panic.

jordanrichard | November 21, 2016

Also, if I may add. Every expert in the media are once again being sought after to get their opinions on what will happen next, so on and so forth. Ok, these are the same experts that said Trump would never win a primary. These are same experts that thought on the Democratic side it was going to be more of a coronation of Hilary, and yet.......

So why anyone is giving any credence to anything the pundits are saying is beyond me.

J.T. | November 21, 2016

I mean try this one

brando | November 23, 2016

After all Obama did, such as people he has killed/droned/bombed, Bankster still our of control, Healthcare still a mess, wages flat at best, why would anyone think another democrat would improve anything?

Note: about 875,000 making min. wage costs $14 billion. And last year, Wall Street bankers collected in bonuses over $28 billion and you can add in their salaries on top of that.

Suggest talks by Mark Blyth for straight forward explainations of macro economics which give some insights as to why working class might be just a little pissed.

lilbean | November 23, 2016

Cuz he said it was Bush's fault. And people said, "yeah".

Mel. | November 23, 2016

We are now rid of the Bush family and the Clinton family. Life is good.

J.T. | November 23, 2016

@Mel. A redneck, a Jew, and an African American are on a beach and they stumble on Aiaddin's lamp. They rub it and a genie appears. ""Okay, you each get one wish. Make it a good one."

The African American says, "We were ripped from our homeland and brought here for subjugation. I wish all of my race here on this continent are returned to our homeland in Africa."

The genie claps his hands and the black man disappears.

The Jewish guy says,"Every country in the world seems to have expelled us at one time and even in the US we still are a target a of hate. My wish is for every Jew on this continent to be delivered to our ancestral homeland in Israel."

The genie claps his hands and the Jewish guy disappears.

The genie asks the tedneck for his wish.

The redneck says, "All the blacks are in Africa?"
"All the Jews are in Israel?"
"Okay, i'll have a beer."

Mel. | November 23, 2016

It is happy hour, on the east coast.

SCCRENDO | November 23, 2016

Happy thanksgiving guys. JT got a head start on us.

flight505 | November 27, 2016

Trump strikes me as one of the old guys that listens to right wing hate AM talk radio.

SCCRENDO | November 27, 2016

@flight. He doesnt need to. He has Steve Bannon in the whitehouse

codyb12889 | November 28, 2016

Don't forget he also likely has a tablet dedicated to Alex Jones' youtube.

Remnant | November 28, 2016

@flight505 (November 27, 2016)

<< Trump strikes me as one of the old guys that listens to right wing hate AM talk radio. >>

And what kind of hate do you belong with, to make you produce such a flight of fancy? Is it on FM perhaps?

compchat | December 3, 2016

You liberal Hilarian (biliary-like) democrats really hate President Trump. The intensity of the hate amazes me as he hasn't taken office yet. Obvioulsy he was elected with a pretty decent margin of victory indicating that the silent majority supports his positions (most of them anyway).

Get on the Trump train and make America Great Again. It's going to be an 8 year trip which will be painful for the extreme Hilarian democrats. Take it in your Tesla and enjoy the ride.

SCCRENDO | December 3, 2016

Remnant. Many of us listen and read accross the spectrum. I regularly listen to PBS, MSNBC, BBC, CNN, FOXnews as well as ABC, CBS and NBC. I read newspapers across the spectrum and in fact my cousin's kid is an editor at Breitbart and a strong Steve Bannon supporter so trust me I am exposed to all opinions. Many here shun most media and seem to get their news fro very limited sources in particular one individual who spews hate filled diatribes and even calls middle of the road balanced CNN a leftist news channel. Frankly I thought CNN for example went too far overboard in allowing too much airtime to all those Trump surrogates.

carlk | December 3, 2016


First he did not win by a pretty decent margin. He lost the popular vote by a pretty decent margin. 2.5 million votes is pretty significant. Majority of Americans, silent or not, did not want him to be the president. Regardless Trump should not even be there if every voter is willing to educate himself and not to avoid truth even if that is against his self interest. That we all know is too much to ask. But you people will not get the last laugh either. When economy tanks and you suddenly find there is no safety net anymore, or worse we go to another war, nuclear nonetheless, you and your kids will suffer just like anyone else.

Remnant | December 4, 2016

@carlk (December 3, 2016)

<< He lost the popular vote by a pretty decent margin. 2.5 million votes is pretty significant. >>

The Founders, the Framers, and subsequent generations of constitutional scholars deemed that a simple majority of voters would not reflect the constitutional structure of the country, in that it would favor the larger cities and States over the smaller, less populous States.

The Electoral College adds together the total number of Representatives+Senators which weights the simple "popular" vote, in order to correct for this bias. It has not changed since 1911. The only years of discrepancy though have been 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016.

carlk | December 4, 2016

I have no issue of how we elect a president. I was just pointing it out when someone is trying to imply more people wanted Trump to be the president. It's quite the opposite.

SCCRENDO | December 4, 2016

@carlk. Agreed

Remnant | December 4, 2016

@carlk (December 4, 2016)

<< I was just pointing it out when someone is trying to imply more people wanted Trump to be the president. It's quite the opposite. >>

It's not just an implication, but the correct statement is that a larger CONSTITUTIONALLY WEIGHTED number of people wanted Trump to be the POTUS in 2016.

From Trump's NECESSARILY CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint, his victory has been a LANDSLIDE, which he has been emphasizing fairly often lately.

We should agree to Trump's view of his electoral victory, because it's the constitutionally correct one. We should not bypass or ignore our constitutional constraints in the interpretation of electoral results, either because of personal preferences or because there are alternate interpretations that ignore our Constitution, especially the States' Rights.

carlk | December 4, 2016

Yeah right Assad, Castro or Kim also has more of their CONSTITUTIONALLY WEIGHTED number of people who wanted them to be their leader.

SCCRENDO | December 4, 2016

Remnant. We need to separate 2 issues here. Trump won fair and square with more electoral college votes. That is the way we elect our president. And nobody is essentially disputing that. However to claim that Donald Trump won in a landslide is incorrect. More than 2 1/2 million people more voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. As the winner it is his prerogative to run the country his way but he does need to realize that if he is going to run the country effectively he needs to take into account the beliefs of the rest of the country as far more people didn't want him to President compared th those who did.

Remnant | December 4, 2016

@carlk (December 4, 2016)

<< Assad, Castro or Kim also has more of their CONSTITUTIONALLY WEIGHTED number of people who wanted them to be their leader. >>

Well, that's an ignorant statement. There's nothing constitutional about those dictators

SCCRENDO | December 4, 2016
Remnant | December 5, 2016

@carlk (December 4, 2016)

<< Assad, Castro or Kim also has more of their CONSTITUTIONALLY WEIGHTED number of people who wanted them to be their leader. >>

Comparing the "constitutional" charters of such dictatorships with the US Constitution is certainly inappropriate, but it also reveals a surprising ignorance of constitutional matters.

The "constitutions" of dictatorships are mere descriptions of government functions, but they have no binding "Bills of Rights" and no provisions for "Checks and Balances", "Separation of Powers", "Limited Powers", or guarantees of fairness in the distribution and use of the Franchise. Governing there takes place by arbitrary, unconstitutional executive orders or DECREES.

It has been properly pointed out that the US Constitution also contains anti-democratic provisions, designed to prevent the country's slippage into a "mob rule" mode, or the infiltration of government by foreign agents, etc. The Electoral College, the "natural born" presidential requirement, the judicial review of legislation, the POTUS veto power are some major examples of it.


However, the overall result of the US Constitution is individual freedoms (speech, travel, residence, etc.), freedom of the press, assembly and religion, a right to bear arms, and Political liberty, which includes free and democratic (although constitutionally weighted) elections. None of these are available under the dictatorship "constitutions" that you tout as similar or comparable to ours.

grega | December 5, 2016

Sorry Remnant. Although I'm avoiding the Trump debate itself, you can't redefine constitution to mean US constitution. We have a constitution here in Australia but no Bill of Rights. Are you saying our constitution is not legal or binding (or similar) because of that?

I get what you're saying. The US gives more weight to smaller states, an agreement made hundreds of years ago to ensure the smaller states weren't ignored or taken advantage of. That's what you decided was fair back when the states united. We have something similar here for our Senate.

You don't get to define what the word constitution means. You can say you don't like another country's constitution though of course. :)

carlk | December 5, 2016


You can never tell a sarcasm when you see one? My point is very clear. The simple fact is more American people do not want Trump to be their president than those who do. You can't explain it away by how the constitution is written.

SCCRENDO | December 5, 2016

@carlk. Remnant has a very narrow focus and is a bigot against anything non US. He once claimed I was ineligible to vote because I was born in another country even though I have spent more than 30 years living in the US which is half my life. He tries to use the constitution as his source of reference and made some outrageous statements about me and claimed it was all in the constitution. I even pulled up the constitution and asked him to show me exactly what he was quoting and he failed to respond. So logical discussion can only be achieved up to a certain point with him.

Yes Remnant. I was only being sarcastic quoting the election laws in dictatorships and personally I would agree with you that the American Constitution is likely the best in the world. But that would be our personal bias. Many other countries have good constitutions such as apparently in Australia and Grega is pretty happy with their constitution. So while it may be our opinion that we have the best constitution it is a bit presumptuous to claim that ours is the best the world. Have you read the Australian constitution, have you visited Australia, do you really know whether their constitution works for them and what are the flaws.

Remnant | December 5, 2016

@grega (December 5, 2016)

<< ... You can't redefine constitution to mean US constitution. >>

My first impulse was to say, "WTF, why not?", but then i said, "OK, Let's develop our vocabulary."

So, make a proposal. Here is a possibility:

Let's call the US Constitution and alike, "Freedom Charters" or FreCha,
and the regular, "Common Constitutions" or ComCon.

Now it's simple and clear to talk about them in a very precise fashion, "Hey, Man, what do you have in your home country, a FreCha or a ComCon?

<< We have a constitution here in Australia but no Bill of Rights. Are you saying our constitution is not legal or binding (or similar) because of that? >>

Not at all, Mate. You're good to go. Your Constitution is binding enough, even a bit over-binding under that s.18C glitch that some Americans would find rather un-American, yet quite compelling under a "micro-aggression" PC heading. You're really modern, Mate, you've got constitutionally required PC.

Remnant | December 5, 2016

@carlk (December 5, 2016)

<< The simple fact is more American people do not want Trump to be their president than those who do. You can't explain it away by how the constitution is written. >>

Of course I can, and I have.

The Electoral College is one of the prominent instances that clearly require an Electoral Rule filter, though not a disimissal, of the voters' unqualified (or simple) majority. Not a "simple fact" at all ... !

Some issues are too complex, too aleatory, or too contingent on other factors, to be decided, or steered, by an unqualified majority of deciders. Scientific truth, Supreme Court's finding a Law unconstitutional, a hung jury are examples of such counter-majoritarian events.

My suggestion is that you might reconsider your inflexible majoritarian view of presidential elections.

SCCRENDO | December 5, 2016

@Remnant. The electoral college no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. Although to change it is impossible. You are correct in that they didn't trust the electorate. However in this election most Democrats and many Republicans felt that Trump was not qualified to be president. Many Republicans chose him as the best of 2 bad options. So if the electors do their job they should not elect him and either elect someone else or just not vote. If he doesn't get 270 it gets turned over to Congress. Frankly I hope it doesn't happen because he may be a better option than the person congress decides to elect.

Mel. | December 5, 2016

I understand that Australia refuses immigrants. They have been stranded on islands, while trying to get to Australia.
Obama is now taking these poor people to the U.S.
There is a wee bit of land in Australia, why not take some immigrants?

SCCRENDO | December 5, 2016

Mel. Nobody wants to live in the outback. You want to send all our Mexican's and Muslim's there? Perhaps ask them first.

compchat | December 6, 2016


Take a break. Your are suffering a psychotic break from reality at this point trying to accept President Trump as your leader. It's all a bad dream and will end in 8 years, or maybe sooner if Trump decides to push the nuclear button. I know you lie awake at night worrying about President Trump sending a barage of nuclear warheads towards China, Russia and Iran. Nothing YOU can do about it.

Now take your haldol and go to sleep.

grega | December 6, 2016

Hi Mel.
Yes Australia's treatment of refugee applicants is horrendous. Liberals are in power and guided by their conservative members, very similar to Republicans in the focus on returning to the good days of coal being unquestioned, people getting their jobs back in production lines that have moved to China etc. There's a fear of immigration driven by this group and targeting "illegals" (not called refugees) and treating them badly is supposed to act as a wall to keep them away.

It's also supposed to stop people dying at sea, and stop the people smugglers making money - which is fair enough - but we are not treating them to the standards any human should be treated.

As for immigration, we've gone from 50k to 200k in the last 30 years. US has gone from 500k to 1million in the same time. Given our relative populations that's about the same. We have a lot of desert here, though I'd like to see some better development outside our main areas.

Back to refugees - our intake has hovered on 14k for those 30 years. The recent doubling for 1 year to allow more Syrian refugees is certainly not doing what Europe is doing, not sure about the US figures.

None of which really relates to whether we have a constitution, or trump or climate change.

grega | December 6, 2016

I should add that our government believes that a true refugee is fleeing their homeland, and doesn't care what country they flee to. To that end, they propose swapping refugees with other countries. That way any refugee that is specifically wanting to be an Australian does not get that wish, but any genuine refugee will be happy to resettle elsewhere.

Sounds good in theory, but it needs to be implemented well and that hasn't happened yet (once off deals don't count).

SCCRENDO | December 6, 2016

@grega. Just like Australia the US was built on refugees. (Of course our initial refugees came from different sources. LOL). More recently the world has again become overwhelmed with refugees. The cause relates to disruption of countries particularly in the middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan war followed by the Arab Spring), globalization with people having more freedom of movement and indeed climate change where causes displacement of people. On the other hand the world wide crash accompanied by increased automation many have lost jobs. Many then turn to scapegoating. In Europe and Britain it is the Muslims and Africans that get blamed whereas in the US the Republicans and more recently Trump that have always blamed the Mexicans and now more recently Muslims and a handful of Syrian refuges. They have been pretty well vetted and very few relatively speaking have been let in. Hillary wanted to increase that significantly but still not a high number and got slammed for it.

Bottom line is that Europe is showing signs of cracking apart with more conservative leaders coming in in Europe and France. Only Merkel remains. Internal border fences springing up in Europe, Brexit and now Trump.

As a Jew I am always reminded of the US cutting US immigration quotas and the British preventing Jewish refugee ships from entering Palestine during the second world war. It's a real shame that the world is becoming isolationist. Does not bode well for our long term future.