CanucksCorner.com Forums

The guy is a fracking idiot.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-accuses ... soc_trk=ma

How can anyone vote for this guy.

[url]ttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/gop-could-near-trump-breaking-144550682.html[/url]

Even a lot of his own party doesn't want him.

The guy is nothing but a hack, a reality TV hack who is laughing behind everyone's back because he doesn't give a rats ass if he wins or loses. He is in it for the show and lives the light being shined on him and his family.


The Republicans, yes a good group of people there, do a DNA test on them and majority are probably related to their uncle or aunt.

Reefer2 wrote:... he doesn't give a rats ass if he wins or loses. He is in it for the show and lives the light being shined on him and his family.

Now sure how true that is. Everything I've read about this guy is that he is obsessed with winning. He may have started it out as a publicity stunt for his brand, but I don't think he wants to 'lose'. I'm going to guess that running for president is so far out of his area of expertise that he really has no clue how to win at this point. Rather than lose, I expect him to drop out due to some 'conspiracy' by the 'elites' against him.

It's all about the brand, but it's not about losing.

Cornuck wrote:

Reefer2 wrote:... he doesn't give a rats ass if he wins or loses. He is in it for the show and lives the light being shined on him and his family.

Now sure how true that is. Everything I've read about this guy is that he is obsessed with winning. He may have started it out as a publicity stunt for his brand, but I don't think he wants to 'lose'. I'm going to guess that running for president is so far out of his area of expertise that he really has no clue how to win at this point. Rather than lose, I expect him to drop out due to some 'conspiracy' by the 'elites' against him.

It's all about the brand, but it's not about losing.

Read a good article about how Trump's strategy of saying outrageous things is a good way to get people's attention, which helps in a primary with sixteen candidates with very similar politics. It also attracted a loyal fan base of people who are fed up with politics-as-usual, and well, it worked. He won the primary.

The problem for Trump is that the presidential election is a whole different game. It's basically just two candidates that matter, and either of them has more or less 40% by default. The key to winning is to convince the 20% who are undecided that you are the better candidate. In this game Trump's strategy is a losing one. He is still just preaching for the choir, his loyal fan base, who cheer for everything he says, but the insult flinging and bullying that he excels in is alienating almost everyone else, including many dyed in the wool republicans.

It seems Trump has failed to grasp that in the general election his core voters aren't enough. He needs to attract other groups. And in the process of securing the republican nomination he has managed to convince a vast majority of blacks, hispanics, muslims, asians, women and college graduates that he is toxic.
So where is he going to find voters except for the ones he already has?

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

ukcanuck wrote: There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

You're assuming anthropogenic global warming is a major factor in global warming.

(see Griz's posts)

Nice passive aggressiveness but in fact you're the one making assumptions. I didn't say once that anthropogenic global warming is a MAJOR factor in global warming.

Ah but you did!

Your blue sentence says that the temp is rising and that more people would add to that effect.

Translation: People are a MAJOR factor in global warming.

Now it's possible you didn't accurately convey what you intended.

Yeah, not my problem Abdul.

BTW calling a poster on a fucking Canucks message board "passive aggressive"

... is one of the most passive-aggressive things a person could ever do!

ukcanuck wrote: (at this point, I am laughing to myself because instead of finding where I said the sky is falling you just make it up anyway. I suppose if one throws enough shit on the wall some of it will stick- amiright?)

The shit is sticking because of the blue quote above and the blue quote below:

"I'm not being chicken little here claiming the sky is falling, but as the seas rise and temperatures rise over time there will be a decrease in arable land, low lying cities and countries along coastlines will need to spend more and more to keep the seas at bay and it's going to take your tax dollars to do something about it. It may not be tomorrow or next year but it is inevitable."

Claiming to NOT be an alarmist (chicken little)... followed by making a major alarmist statement

is one thing.

Denying said shit after having one's nose rubbed in it is another.

If the shit sticks you must wear it my brown faced brother!

ukcanuck wrote: You are so predictable in this tactic Doc it is kind of funny...actually it is funny, seriously, many a time I have laughed out loud reading your posts where you destroy posters who take this much more seriously than I do- you definitely are one of my favourite posters. I mean that as a compliment.

Well then we have something in common.

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

ukcanuck wrote: doc you mean this from Griz? (gives random Griz quote followed by random scientific quote)

Why on God's green Earth did you give a random Griz quote followed by a random scientific quote?

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

I clearly called you out on your assumption that global warming is man-made and referred you to Griz.

See, Griz was the only one in this here thread to address that "97% of scientists BULLSHIT"

(and hey it shut Per up)

Easy to find, by golly I do believe the only time I've ever given the man a thumbs-up was here:

I notice that you don't actually refer to the link but instead refer to it as my “random scientific link,”

once again the passive aggressive tactic, but it doesn't wash with me, I knew even as I pressed send there was no way in hell you would comment directly on a study dealing with anthropogenic global warming which fairly gives attention to the uncertainty with said assumption.

You're doing it again:

Claiming to NOT put much stock in anthropogenic global warming

... followed by pushing a study which suggests anthropogenic global warming is a big deal.

If I had commented on your linked study... MY POINT... would have been even more lost on you.

You continue to miss the point.

The answer you claim to be looking for is in Griz's videos... but you don't actually want an answer.

ukcanuck wrote: which I guess begs the question,
Why did I bother?

I am not the only asking that question-
I think thats actually what I read from Per which is probably why he has gone silent on the matter more than anything.

Oh you think that do you?

Reading comprehension.

Per asked that question just before Griz posted those videos.

Those videos contained the answer to Per's questions.

Per had no answer for those videos.

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote: 97% of scientists BULLSHIT”

Almost makes me want to scramble for my bible

Personally I hate quoting statistics in debates as it’s exceedingly hard to tell whose ass they came out of. However, I always thought that consensus is how science arrives at its conclusions, you know, preponderance of evidence and all that?

OMG "preponderance of evidence" has nothing to do with Science... and everything to do with lawsuits!

Hard Science (Climate Change = "hard science") is based upon exactitude + objectivity.

Consensus, on the other hand, is all about opinion.

... and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Having said that, there is not much in the way of "Scientific Consensus" in this matter (see Griz videos).

ukcanuck wrote: Anyway in the interest of being fair I will watch those links you suggest

UMMMMM... why didn't you watch them BEFORE wasting everyone's time with this post?!!

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Well now that you mention it...

Computers are only as good as the data/facts you give them!

Garbage in, garbage out.

"red herring" ... stick to ESL buddy!

I guess from now on we are restricted to superstition, religion and magic as “garbage in garbage out” is a two edged sword

we are forever doomed to "your stuff is shit and my shit is stuff…"

Are you really this stupid?

Computers are only as good as the data/facts you give them.

Doc what do you (and Topper) really think.

Don't quote anyone or any site or a book or anything. Right now do you believe that humans are having an impact on the earth that is causing the earth to warm faster than it should?

Do you believe that air pollution caused in other parts of the can impact the air quality or the temperature in your area (where ever that is)?

Reefer2 wrote: How can anyone vote for this guy.

Cornuck wrote:Rather than lose, I expect him to drop out due to some 'conspiracy' by the 'elites' against him.

Per wrote:In this game Trump's strategy is a losing one.

Hmmm I wonder if we can agree to a friendly wager of some kind.

No way will Crooked Hillary win this race!

(hey Corn, is a vote for Hillary a vote for the 'elites'... thinkabootit!)

Strangelove wrote:
Computers are only as good as the data/facts you give them.

hmmm...

garbage for the input output machine? or lies wrapped in a thin veneer of truth?

Stefan Molyneux : The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!
m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU m

Stefan Molyneux : Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case
m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc m

Professor Bob Carter : The Faux "97% Consensus"
m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4

well well well

I watched your links and I gotta say the penny has dropped.
Silly me, and here I thought we were talking about climate change and global warming

but we aren't are we?

We’re talking about politics. more specifically libertarianism, white supremacy, ultra conservative christianity, deregulation and paleo-conservative free markets


talk about starting from a biased position.

lets have a look shall we?

Stefan Molyneux
Extreme libertarian and cult activist

The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!
Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

its all a conspiracy according to the man from Freedomainradio (FDR) currently on the list of suspected cults by the Cult Information Centre in the UK for among other things:

-advocating deFOOing disassociating from family origins ( hello Jehovah's Witnesses)
-Groupthink (that thing that connies do where they engage in irrational and dysfunctional decision making in order to limit dissension and reach consensus without critical evaluation)

The man who rubs elbows with and has had as guests on his show

Walter Block
a proponent of the legality of the “voluntary Slave Contract”
a contract where it is ethically moral to allow someone to sign away all their human rights
a man who actually believes that women and blacks should be paid less as they are less productive


Alex Jones
known Russian propagandist who among other things believes in:

transcendent order by divine revelation
orders and social classes to emphasise natural distinctions
that freedom is intrinsically linked to property ownership

is against:
legal immigration
multiculturalism
affirmative action
foreign aid

Jared Taylor
White supremacist, or more properly, a White Nationalist who believes that the USA should be considered a white country.

Bill Whittle
Tea Party supporter

David Friedman
Paleo-Conservative - (Word of the Day) a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.

Of interest, a card carrying member of the movement? one Donald J Trump


Robert (Bob) Carter
The Faux "97% Consensus”
Its all propaganda says Bob:

Emiritus fellow and science advisor to the ultra conservative and libertarian Institute of Public Affairs (Australian version of that oh so virtuous Fraser Institute)

An advocate of free markets and deregulation
Against anti racial legislation

And laughably argued that plain packaging off cigarettes discriminated against tobacco maker’s intellectual rights…


Oh what a pretty picture this all weaves.

Global warming absolutely must a be hoax because if global warming was real then that would mean more regulation and the political sidelining of all these “wonderful” values advocated by such heart warming individuals as the ones listed above.



You know for a while there, I thought that maybe global warming was off topic for this thread but I was wrong.

Clearly this "hoax" is politically motivated and a paleo-conservative is running for president.

As for the science ?

Well no one here to my knowledge is a scientist

but really it aint about the science is it Doc?

More republicans jumping ship:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... story.html

"... the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton is uncomfortable to me, as if Dr. Van Helsing were compelled to vote for Dracula.

But the only prospect more terrifying than voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting for her."

Strangelove wrote:
Per asked that question just before Griz posted those videos.

Those videos contained the answer to Per's questions.

Per had no answer for those videos.

Actually, I haven't had time to watch them yet, as I have better things to do, and I found it hard to comment on them without watching them. Might get around to it this weekend.

This is not me:

Strangelove wrote:

Reefer2 wrote: How can anyone vote for this guy.

Cornuck wrote:Rather than lose, I expect him to drop out due to some 'conspiracy' by the 'elites' against him.

Per wrote:In this game Trump's strategy is a losing one.

Hmmm I wonder if we can agree to a friendly wager of some kind.

What do you have in mind?

Gotta love the headline: Anthrax-Spewing Zombie Deer Are the Least of Your Warming Planet Worries

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... et-worries

Reefer2 wrote:Doc what do you (and Topper) really think.

Don't quote anyone or any site or a book or anything. Right now do you believe that humans are having an impact on the earth that is causing the earth to warm faster than it should?

Do you believe that air pollution caused in other parts of the can impact the air quality or the temperature in your area (where ever that is)?

Why are you asking Doc for my opinion?

I am and have been very clear in conveying what is occurring.

Topper wrote: Why are you asking Doc for my opinion?

I am and have been very clear in conveying what is occurring.

I think he has noticed how Doc enjoys to tell us all what we all are thinking.

You think the dataset is too small to draw any conclusions, right? I think you've been very clear on that.

And I'm not 100% certain of the next, but I think you also believe anthropological effects on the climate are negligible? This part I don't think you've been quite as clear on though.

Personally I agree that if you take the long term perspective over millions of years, the climate has swung between far hotter and far colder than today.

I do however believe that the current trend towards a warmer climate is too a large extent man made, and we're entering an era that is hotter than at any time before in the history of mankind (insignificant as it may be).
We have climate data for the past 400,000 years, twice as long as modern humans have been around, and within that range, the current peak is extreme.

It may be an insignificant blip on the geological timeline, but it's significant for us.
Much like a pack of cormorants, we are destroying our own habitat.



edit: and googling, I find that it should be a flight of cormorants rather than a pack, but, nah.

Topper wrote:

Reefer2 wrote:Doc what do you (and Topper) really think.

Don't quote anyone or any site or a book or anything. Right now do you believe that humans are having an impact on the earth that is causing the earth to warm faster than it should?

Do you believe that air pollution caused in other parts of the can impact the air quality or the temperature in your area (where ever that is)?

Why are you asking Doc for my opinion?

I am and have been very clear in conveying what is occurring.

Sorry Tops, I meant to ask both you and Doc for your opinion.

Not good at using iPhone to do this