Trump approval down to 33%, Republican Support is starting to crumble.

[Poopymonster]

Well, that administrations attempt to have a themed "week", yep. But in terms of having media/pundit dubbed "worst week ever", he's raking up an impressive number of those compared to what most presidents manage in a short 7 months. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already surpassed most presidents "worst week ever" counts during their first 4 years combined, already : P

Of course each week gets worse. "The president hit rock bottom, then acquired a shovel, and started further digging"

[Cthulhu 2020]

And despite how horrible of a candidate he was, he defeated Hillary and changed the electoral map. I wouldn't worry too much about those polls, those are the same people that told you there was a 98% chance Hillary would win! :P

I would much rather talk about ideas, responding to poll numbers is pointless and boring.

You guys really need to learn the difference between polls and prediction analysts. It's making you look REALLY bad every time you go "LULZ POLLS SAID HILLARY HAD A 98% CHANCE!" when that was one single prediction analyst, and all the rest had Hillary at 60-70% chance to win. And need I remind you what "chance" means.

Trumpkins are outnumbered in this country. They get on some circle jerk message boards where 100 of them all sit in awe at their sheer numbers, then declare themselves the American majority. Fucking lol.

[Breccia]

Trump Keeps Derailing His Own Agenda

A good summary piece on 538. While you're there, note that Trump's disapproval has improved to only 55%. Not sure which way the Bannon departure will take it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know what Trump is most likely setting the worst record for? The most "Worst week ever" awards.

There is an itemized list. He's up to six.

- - - Updated - - -

And the next person out is...George Sifakis, director of the Office of Public Liaison.

Yeah, I have no idea who that is, either. How many people does the WH have and/or need to get its message across? Because, quite frankly, none of them are doing a good job.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Trump Keeps Derailing His Own Agenda

A good summary piece on 538. While you're there, note that Trump's disapproval has improved to only 55%. Not sure which way the Bannon departure will take it.

- - - Updated - - -



There is an itemized list. He's up to six.

- - - Updated - - -

And the next person out is...George Sifakis, director of the Office of Public Liaison.

Yeah, I have no idea who that is, either. How many people does the WH have and/or need to get its message across? Because, quite frankly, none of them are doing a good job.

ROFL @ the comments section.

First one: "Who's going to be left to scoop Donald's ice cream?"

[Breccia]

Trump, despite knowing more than the generals, punts on the war in Afghanistan, despite having a single meeting on it once.

President Trump on Friday again deferred on choosing a path forward for the 16-year-old Afghanistan war, despite a high-level meeting at Camp David to discuss options with his core national security team.

The meeting included Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Vice President Pence cut short a trip to South America to attend the meeting.

This is not the first time the president was widely expected to make a decision on an updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan but held off, frustrating top national security and defense officials as well as lawmakers.

Administration officials expected Trump to pick a path in May prior to attending the NATO summit in Belgium. And Mattis in June promised lawmakers that a decision would likely come in July.

A variety of reasons are driving the delay, including the complexity of the conflict and the president’s hesitation to make a decision that may ultimately prove to be the wrong move, according to James Carafano, a defense policy expert at the Heritage Foundation

“We need a strategy that’s going to be sustainable maybe eight years. There is no short answer here,” said Carafano, who was a member of the Trump transition team.

“The burden really is on the national security team to show Trump they have the most effective strategy to do that, because this is then going to be his war, his responsibility.”

Members of the administration still hold disagreements on the best path forward for Afghanistan, which will include how to handle conflicts along the border of Pakistan. Military leaders are pushing for additional U.S. troops, but Trump has reportedly been wary of continued American presence in the region.

Mattis and National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. HR McMaster want to send 3,000 to 5,000 additional troops to the country to combat the Taliban, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and al Qaeda. Recently ousted chief strategist Stephen Bannon, however, had urged against it, saying that would amount to nation building.

Other options on the table include using private contractors, withdrawing altogether or keeping the current strategy, which consists of the existing 8,400 U.S. troop continuing to train, advise and assist Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban and conducting counterterrorism missions.

In July, Trump showed his reluctance to side with his military advisors by increasing troop numbers.

“We’ve been there for now close to 17 years, and I want to find out why we’ve been there for 17 years, how it’s going, and what we should do in terms of additional ideas,” Trump told reporters.

When asked about a possible troop increase, Trump only said, “We’ll see.”

The immobility on a plan also has bothered lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who earlier this month unveiled his own strategy for Afghanistan.

“Now, nearly seven months into President Trump’s administration, we’ve had no strategy at all as conditions on the ground have steadily worsened,” McCain said in a statement. “The thousands of Americans putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan deserve better from their commander-in-chief.”

Anthony Cordesman, a military strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the president is deeply frustrated with his list of military options, a complex formula that depends upon the backing of the Afghan government.

Foreign policy experts have expressed doubt that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will be able to stop corruption and effectively use American aid to bolster the Afghan National Security Forces. Pentagon leaders would depend on the forces to keep out terrorist groups once U.S. troops leave.

“The Afghan government is very divided, it's weak,” Cordesman said. “Even if [Trump] does all the military recommends, there is a 50-50 chance that the Afghanistan response is going to be effective enough. Everything we’re doing depends on the Afghans.”

Cordesman also suggested that Trump’s reported criticism of the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Nicholson, “likely stems from Nicholson told him the truth and the truth is unpleasant.”

Trump in July 19 meeting with his national security team pushed to fire Nicholson, NBC News reported earlier this month.

“We aren't winning,” Trump complained during the meeting. “We are losing.”

“The options are so uncertain and so complex and confusing,” Cordesman said. “Not the kind of forward, positive proposal that [Trump] may be used to.”

Cordesman added that the longer Trump waits to make a decision, the worse it will be for soldiers on the ground. Afghanistan’s fighting season lasts into the fall. With no plan yet given as of late August, “nothing you do now is going to be effective, you lost pretty close to a year to actually influence the situation on the ground.”

Even with no decision yet made, Carafano said it was significant that Trump and his national security team went off site to Camp David to discuss options.

“Obviously I wish the process had gone on sooner, I think part of that is the difficulty of the decision. Afghanistan involves a lot of moving pieces and you have to make a commitment that will stick longer over time,” he said.

Mattis, meanwhile, promised again Thursday that the administration is “coming very close to a decision, and I anticipate it in the very near future.”

Earlier this month, Trump assured reporters of the same thing at his club in New Jersey.

“We're getting close. We're getting very close,” Trump said. “It's a very big decision for me. I took over a mess and we're going to make it a lot less messy.”

Who knew the Afghanistan War would be so complicated?

Red text for McCain. Bolded for emphasis. Trump has many flaws, but at least he knows he's out of mistakes he can make at this point. Fucking up a war in the Middle East is not something he can afford to do with what's left of his administration, most of whom are generals, and Trump knows more than them.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I don't think me stating the fact that the Democrats have never been politically weaker is tantamount to casual dismissal. Is this fact incorrect? I feel you are the one casually dismissing this fact as irrelevant.

Now, if anyone here was willing to look beyond rhetoric and TYT talking points, they could have pointed out to me that Trump's protectionist trade policies are not only his most popular, but actually traditionally leftist policies. The left doesn't want to own that policy anymore, do they? What the hell is the point of the left now? To remind the other half how racist we are? Great plan!

Problem with the left in America is they get caught up in micro issues. When instead if they first focused on the macro ones the rest would fall into place.

[Arvei]

You guys really need to learn the difference between polls and prediction analysts. It's making you look REALLY bad every time you go "LULZ POLLS SAID HILLARY HAD A 98% CHANCE!" when that was one single prediction analyst, and all the rest had Hillary at 60-70% chance to win. And need I remind you what "chance" means.

Trumpkins are outnumbered in this country. They get on some circle jerk message boards where 100 of them all sit in awe at their sheer numbers, then declare themselves the American majority. Fucking lol.

It's pretty sad how uninformed they are. You'd think playing WoW or similar games that have chance mechanics (like critical strike chance) they'd have learned by now how this stuff works.

[Edge-]

Trump, faced with a hard decision with no easy way to at least appease his base, decides to go back to vacation rather than make a decision?

I'm shocked, truly shocked.

[Breccia]

Trump, faced with a hard decision with no easy way to at least appease his base, decides to go back to vacation rather than make a decision?

I'm sure he'll outsource his job, again. He's already done so with most of his Commander-in-Chief duties. At least he's surrounded by generals, so they might have a good plan.

Trump, naturally, has none. He's offered nothing new since he got here except bombing Syria to personally destroy Russian relations and the raid in Yemen that killed a little girl.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record, I don't agree with the conclusions, and while the NYTimes is a giant in the industry they might not be 100% unbiased (snicker). But the headline is just too good to pass up.

Sorry, Mike Pence, You're Doomed

The other day, from the Naval Observatory in Washington, you heard a howl of such volume and anguish that it cracked mirrors and sent small forest animals scurrying for cover. Vice President Mike Pence was furious. He was offended. Someone — namely, my Times colleagues Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns — had dared to call him out on the fact that he seemed to be laying the groundwork for a presidential bid.

Problem No. 1: His president is still in the first year of his first term. Problem No. 2: That president is Donald Trump, who doesn’t take kindly to any glimmer that people in his employ are putting their vanity or agenda before his. Just ask Steve Bannon. Or Anthony Scaramucci. They were too big for their britches, and Trump snatched their britches away.

The Times report put Pence in similar peril, so he pushed back with an operatic outrage that showed just how close to the bone it had cut. When a story’s actually wrong, you eviscerate it, exposing its erroneous assertions without ever breaking a sweat. When it’s a stink bomb at odds with your plotting, you set your jaw, redden your face and proclaim it “disgraceful,” never detailing precisely how.

That was Pence’s route. And his rancor, I suspect, reflects more than the inconvenient truths that Martin and Burns told. It’s overarching. It’s existential. On some level, he must realize that he’s in a no-win situation. Without Trump he’s nothing. With Trump he’s on a runaway train that he can’t steer or brake. If it doesn’t crash, Trump can scream down the tracks straight through 2020. If it does, Pence will be one of the casualties.

So why has Pence formed a political action committee, the only sitting vice president ever to do so? Why is he taking all these meetings, building all these bridges? I guess there could be some imaginable future in which Trump falls and Pence is left standing strong enough to soldier on. But mostly he’s in denial, and he’s living very dangerously.

Many Republicans wonder if Trump will remain in the picture and viable in 2020. He could implode — even more than he already has, I mean. He could be run out of town, one way or another. He could stomp off. The scenarios are myriad, and to prepare for them, Pence indeed needs an infrastructure and a network of his own. But there’s simply no way to assemble those without looking disloyal to Trump and courting the wrath of alt-right types who know how to go on a Twitter jihad.

Other would-be successors to Trump aren’t in the same bind. They don’t owe Trump what Pence does. They never pledged Trump complete allegiance. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, whose unofficial 2020 campaign commenced even before Trump’s inauguration, can raise money, stage news conferences, take up residence on CNN and pick apart Trump’s proposals all he wants. It won’t endear him to Trump’s base, but it won’t make him a marked man.

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska can style himself as a humble, homespun remedy to Trump’s cupidity and histrionics. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas can take a calibrated approach, more hawkish than Trump on foreign policy but eager to link arms with him on immigration.

Pence, though, is squeezed tight into a corner of compulsory worship. And despite his behind-the-scenes machinations, he has done a masterful job of appearing perfectly content there.

In news photographs and video, you catch other politicians glancing at the president in obvious bafflement. Not Pence. Never Pence. He moons. He beams. It’s 50 shades of infatuation. Daniel Day-Lewis couldn’t muster a more mesmerizing performance, and it’s an unusually florid surrender of principles.

I’m not referring to policy and the fact that before he agreed to become Trump’s running mate, he blasted Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, tweeting that it was “offensive and unconstitutional,” and fiercely advocated free trade. I’m referring to Pence’s supposed morality.

He trumpets his conservative Christianity and avoids supping alone with any woman other than his wife, then turns around and steadfastly enables an avowed groper with a bulging record of profanely sexual comments.

He publishes a testimonial, “Confessions of a Negative Campaigner,” in which he invokes Jesus while vowing never to repeat such political ugliness in the future, then turns around and collaborates with a politician whose ugliness knows no limit.

No wonder he wants and expects a reward as lavish as the White House itself: He sold his soul. But I don’t think he studied the contract closely enough and thought the whole thing through.

There’s no political afterlife in this equation, just the loopy, mortifying limbo in which he and so many of Trump’s other acolytes dwell.

Maybe the howling is cathartic. Won’t change a thing.

Bolded for masterful metaphor.

Few things of note.

One, we've had light discussion before about Pence running in 2020 after Trump steps down. Not everyone agrees that's likely. But, if Pence really has a PAC, maybe Pence thinks it's likely. And that's telling.

Second, apparently Kasich is already running his 2020 campaign. Huh. Expect to see more of that next year, I guess, as moderates attempt to flee before the coming storm.

But most importantly, this was published August 8th, and man, hasn't a lot changed since then?

[Ripster42]

Trump Keeps Derailing His Own Agenda

A good summary piece on 538. While you're there, note that Trump's disapproval has improved to only 55%. Not sure which way the Bannon departure will take it.

- - - Updated - - -



There is an itemized list. He's up to six.

- - - Updated - - -

And the next person out is...George Sifakis, director of the Office of Public Liaison.

Yeah, I have no idea who that is, either. How many people does the WH have and/or need to get its message across? Because, quite frankly, none of them are doing a good job.

That list doesn't even include his sons emails.

[Dug]

It's pretty sad how uninformed they are. You'd think playing WoW or similar games that have chance mechanics (like critical strike chance) they'd have learned by now how this stuff works.

Mimirons Head 2% chance of dropping? LOL FAKE NEWS BLIZZARD I JUST GOT IT ON MY FIRST ATTEMPT KEKEKEKEK

[Breccia]

It continues.

The Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was due to release its findings in 2018. Fearing that Trump would disband them, they completed their work early and, surprise surprise, a draft got leaked. It details how, as you're 97% likely to guess, human activity is responsible for global warming.

Trump is responding by disbanding the council. by my count the sixth in the last week. Also, he's probably putting his fingers in his ears and going lalalalaalala.

Trump still thinks he can raise his poll numbers by firing people who disagree with him. Perhaps the term "echo chamber" applies to the White House, not because it's filled with yes-men, but because the halls are that empty?

[DarkTZeratul]

Trump is responding by disbanding the council. by my count the sixth in the last week. Also, he's probably putting his fingers in his ears and going lalalalaalala.

Trump still thinks he can raise his poll numbers by firing people who disagree with him. Perhaps the term "echo chamber" applies to the White House, not because it's filled with yes-men, but because the halls are that empty?

This link seems to be broken. Also, sick burn.

[Breccia]

This link seems to be broken. Also, sick burn.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-change-report and I'll fix the original, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Axios went and asked a bunch of WH staff why they're sticking with the Trump administration. The results are a spectrum of defiant to flat-out morale killing.

We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale:

"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.

"General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses.

"Trump's not as evil as portrayed": All of them talk up the president as more reasonable off Twitter and TV than on it. This gives them hope (though almost all increasingly say it's fleeting hope) he will listen to his better angels, or at least the pleas of Ivanka.

"We like the power": Well, no one comes out and say it this blatantly. But working in the White House, even this one, is intoxicating and ego-stroking. They have enormous say over regulations and rules, invites and implementation, government jobs and access to the Oval. They also know they are one step away from an even bigger job in government, so it's hard to just walk away.

One White House aide had a memorable response after I asked the question: "It puts Trump's tortured staff in a bigger jam: How do they look their African American friends in the eye, and rationalize their support of Trump?"

The aide gave me permission to share the thinking, which synthesizes what we hear from many administration officials:
I have absolutely no difficulty looking anyone in the eye. Here's why:

Will I have the same, incredible opportunities to make a true difference somewhere else? No.

If I leave, who will take my spot? Someone with my heart for making things better for ALL Americans? Maybe, maybe not. Huge value to country in good people serving right now.

The Presidency is bigger than the person. And the WH has expansive influence on execution of broad range of administrative authorities.

Be careful: This White House and key federal agencies are starving for well-intentioned talent. The possibility of a catastrophic crisis, abroad or at home, is real. Rookies or boot-lickers are not what we need in those moments.

Italicized to match article. Bolded for questionable grammar. Trump is not being "portrayed" on Twitter and TV. He is on Twitter and TV. I do like the "he's not as evil as he appears to be in person" defense, that's just giving up on the whole defense entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone else notice the stock market is kind of losing steam? So did Forbes.

Donald Trump Is Beginning To Lose To Obama In His Favorite Metric: Stock Market Performance

President Donald Trump is beginning to fall behind his predecessor President Barack Obama on one key gauge of his agenda: The stock market.

From Trump's Inauguration Day to present, the S&P 500 Index has gained around 7%. That's less than a third of the 25% gain the S&P posted over the same horizon after Obama took office in 2009. Going forward Trump, who ran on an agenda of business-friendly policies such as tax cuts and deregulation, may find Obama a tough foe when it comes to stock market gains.

During Obama's eight years in office, the S&P 500 returned 235% or 16.4% annually, one of the best performances of any recent president, as markets recovered from the carnage of the financial crisis and the U.S. economy emerged from the "Great Recession." By the time he left office, Obama's stock market performance was in-line with gains posted under President Ronald Reagan amid a curbing of inflation, a revival of growth and the market's quick recovery from the 1987 crash. President Bill Clinton holds the mantle for the biggest gains of any recent president, having held office during the technology boom of the 1990s.

Though comparisons of stock market performance between presidencies don't tell the whole picture, they can hint at an administration's accomplishments.

President Trump was elected on an agenda that promised healthcare reform, tax cuts and financial deregulation early on in his presidency. Investors took his election as reason to continue bidding up stocks from their record highs, on expectation that Trump's policies would bolster growth and corporate profits. From Election Day in 2016 to present, the S&P 500 has gained nearly 14%, underscoring investor enthusiasm for the Trump agenda. That's still slightly ahead of Obama's performance, but a recent string of confidence-sapping failures has stalled the so-called "Trump bump."

Trump's proposed repeal of Obamacare failed to gain enough support to make it out of the Senate and it now sits in limbo despite Republicans holding the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Tax reform, the big carrot for global investors, is still being worked on, though Trump and his pro-business cabinet such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn had promised tangible legislation by now.

This week may have been decisive for Trump's agenda and the stock market roll that he has bragged about on Twitter so often.

Trump's response to the attack last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia was so problematic two of his much-hyped business councils quickly disbanded, and one on infrastructure was never even formed. In one fell swoop, America's CEO president lost the ability to convene the country's greatest business minds at the White House for photo opportunities that might inspire confidence in his agenda. He also alienated executives overseeing a collective trillions of dollars in stock market value and millions of workers around the United States, powerful allies when selling an ambitious slate of legislation.

Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan, said it best after the fallout. "I strongly disagree with President Trump's reaction to the events that took place in Charlottesville over the past several days," Dimon told his employees in a letter that was released to the public. "Constructive economic and regulatory policies are not enough and will not matter if we do not address the divisions in our country. It is a leader's role, in business or government, to bring people together, not tear them apart."

This week, polls like Rasmussen that have previously skewed towards Trump continued to cast a decidedly negative review on his performance. As of Friday, Rasmussen showed Trump's approval index at -22%, down from the positive figures recorded early on in his presidency when issues like healthcare and tax reform had more momentum.

That's not to say all data is souring on Trump. The nationwide unemployment rate is 4.3% and monthly job gains continue to trend at around 200,000. Measures of consumer and business confidence continue to test new decade highs, gross domestic product continues to grow (albeit at a sub 2.5% rate). Rising inflation has allowed the Federal Reserve to begin consistently hiking interest rates, a boon to the financial sector.

This data underscores the stable canvas that Trump is working with as he tries to revive his agenda. There are pressing economic issues in the country, as JPMorgan's Dimon noted, but there aren't raging financial fires such as crises to get in Trump's way. In that sense, perhaps comparisons between the Trump and Obama stock markets will prove a fair gauge of their accomplishments.

Obama was elected and took office during the worst global financial panic since the Great Depression. Had recovery measures overseen by Obama, his cabinet, and the Federal Reserve proven to be ineffective then markets would not have entered a steady climb from their March 2009 lows. These efforts required constant communication with allies around the world, in addition to business leaders. One can only imagine how markets would have responded if bankers like Jamie Dimon had left the White House near the March bottom with their arms up in the air.

Stock market comparisons between Obama and Trump will only get tougher, but they may hint at truth. At this time in 2009, Obama's principal task of recovery from crisis was well underway, while Trump's agenda appears to be stalled. It's no surprise the market's 1.5% drop since Wednesday is among the biggest declines of the Trump presidency.

Bolded for emphasis. Obviously the market is volatile, it changes all the time, but this is Forbes we're talking about here. Also, the author is likely referencing Mnuchin saying the stock market is a report card and Trump agreeing when asked.

[Blur4stuff]

Trump has mostly coasted on what Obama had put in place regarding stability. Obama had a cool head and a steady hand. Trump is the complete opposite. It's only a matter of time before that has an effect even if no major legislation gets passed.

[Breccia]

I'm sure you've all seen it, just want to make sure.

Trump's polls have tanked in three states he barely won. Those 35-36 percents are about the same as the rest of the country, according to Gallup and 538 (36 and 37 as of today). In those states, his R-approval is between 70 and 80 percent. Indy, 31 to 35.



How's it going, Rasmussen?

- - - Updated - - -

In the ongoing attempt to fix relations with Russia, the State Department is cutting visas from Russia.

Trump cannot blame this on Obama, the Democrats, or Congress. He is doing this himself, and it directly contradicts his campaign rhetoric. But what else is new?

[Paranoid Android]

It continues.

The Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was due to release its findings in 2018. Fearing that Trump would disband them, they completed their work early and, surprise surprise, a draft got leaked. It details how, as you're 97% likely to guess, human activity is responsible for global warming.

Trump is responding by disbanding the council. by my count the sixth in the last week. Also, he's probably putting his fingers in his ears and going lalalalaalala.

Trump still thinks he can raise his poll numbers by firing people who disagree with him. Perhaps the term "echo chamber" applies to the White House, not because it's filled with yes-men, but because the halls are that empty?

Sadly because of money interest and us as humans don't give a fuck about the environment. This looks to be where Trump and his administration is doing the most damage atm. I mean Pruitt is going buck wild right now on shitting on our environmental policies.

Sadly this will not help on jobs but just add to the coffers of business, yet the Trumpkins and uniformed voters will still think that deregulating the environment creates them jobs/jerrrrbs!

[rogueMatthias]

It continues.

The Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was due to release its findings in 2018. Fearing that Trump would disband them, they completed their work early and, surprise surprise, a draft got leaked. It details how, as you're 97% likely to guess, human activity is responsible for global warming.

Honestly, they really need to just shut up for a while about global warming. If there are so many people that don't believe it (even though "97% or whatever agree) then they've seriously got the way they're presenting their message completely wrong. More data just saying the same thing everybody knows already won't fix this.

The public has proven it doesn't really give a crap about this. I mean.. we like to moan about it and call the deniers morons, but it's not like everyone's making any real effort to change anything. To be honest, if everyone did as much as possible in the US to help, its' pretty clear it would have minimal effect anyway.

There's so many other environmental issues that people really can make a difference with though. There's measurable ways that people can improve their local environment. Trump's been rolling back some pretty huge ones of these - even just factory waste and disposal environmental laws - but this seems to all just be getting lost in the global warming hype.

[Garnier Fructis]

Honestly, they really need to just shut up for a while about global warming. If there are so many people that don't believe it (even though "97% or whatever agree) then they've seriously got the way they're presenting their message completely wrong. More data just saying the same thing everybody knows already won't fix this.

It's not that they're presenting their message completely wrong. It's that technical subjects are incredibly easy to twist and misrepresent, and we've had groups dedicated to systematically spreading misinformation for decades.

The public has proven it doesn't really give a crap about this. I mean.. we like to moan about it and call the deniers morons, but it's not like everyone's making any real effort to change anything. To be honest, if everyone did as much as possible in the US to help, its' pretty clear it would have minimal effect anyway.

Because individual action is rather effectively meaningless compared to government action: higher investment in R&D, updating our energy infrastructure with renewable technologies in mind, and facilitating the move away from fossil fuel through a price on carbon.

That's why it matters that people deny it. Because politicians who know better are forced to do the dance of their electorate who don't.

[Breccia]

Trump's been rolling back some pretty huge ones of these - even just factory waste and disposal environmental laws - but this seems to all just be getting lost in the global warming hype.

Oh, there's other stuff too. Like Trump ordering the end of an independent investigation to the health effects of coal mining. Not the mining itself, mind you, just the health effects of the people living nearby.

The cease and desist letter calls out $100,000 in grants, or roughly 60% of one Secret Service agent for one year. As I've already posted, Trump's use of the Secret Service has run them out of pay for their agents, as over 1,000 agents have hit their annual maximum and it's still August. So it's not about money.

Trump is not just against global warming. He's steadfast in his push for coal, and the only way he thinks he can convince people Clean Coal exists is by killing the independent research that was about to say it doesn't. Unfortunately, that still leaves all the other research that says it doesn't exist, and the tanking prices in the market because everyone knows it doesn't exist. So it's not just an anti-environmental policy, it has no redeeming economic features either.