Trump election and what it means for the environment

shameless self bump

help

>>8542944
Absolutely not. Trump will be out in 4 years after his fuckups and failures are mainstream news and a new government will be put into place. People are already freaking the hell out and he's not even in office yet. I think even conservatives are starting to wonder about a man who's putting oil shills in charge of our nation and probably don't want to actually live in a world where polluting is normal.

I will also quote my Fluvial Hydrology teacher. "I'm not handing this nation over to them"

>>8542953
LOL
expect 8 years of Trump followed by another 8 years of his hand picked successor

MAGA
Hail Trump o/

>>8542953
Thank you- the reassurance means a lot.

I went into this field because Im passionate about it AND its lucrative- and Ill be damned if Im gonna let a pampered brat fuck it for me cause he can't accept that climate change is a problem

>>8542963
You're scam industry is done little boy

You should go into mining or nuclear.

>>8542969


>Scam industry

You're mentally challenged

kek in what universe is environmental science considered lucrative

>>8542976
this one

Look it up

File: nasa-gatlinburg-fire-picture-space.jpg (87KB, 810x500px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 810x500px

>>8542910
>Long story short Im an Environmental Science major and Im worried that the projected job growth for the field will plumet given Trump's perspectives and plans of action.

I hear that a lot of firefighting positions are going to be opening up soon.

>>8543048
implying there aren't various other things I can do.

File: flooding-miami.jpg (109KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1200x801px

>>8543058
>implying there aren't various other things I can do.

Do you know how to build seawalls?

File: 1481781767202.png (944KB, 640x843px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 640x843px

>>8542979
>>8543058
>>8542910
should've gone with civil instead of a meme degree

enjoy your unemployment I guess

File: 2f93fd127e80acbb.jpg (34KB, 480x356px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x356px

>>8542910
>Im worried that the projected job growth for the field will plumet given Trump's perspectives and plans of action.

this is /sci/

your post is an economics issue

>>8542973
>Field with no productive applications except justifying leftist politics
>Not scam industry

>>8543335
Yep, definately challenged

Keep this shit off /sci/

>>8542910
>>8542953
tagging on to this thread:
How easy is it to enter the EnviSci field if I got my degree 4 years ago and don't have any work experience in the field (except an internship 6 years ago)?
I made the mistake of going to law school. Went to a highly ranked law school and did well, but the legal market is still dead so I can't get a law job. Been thinking of applying to envi sci jobs since that's my undergrad, but it's been 4 years since I graduated so idk if that would hurt me

>>8543660
"environmental science" isn't really a cohesive field that hires ppl with degrees in those areas. to get hired in any scientific field, you need experience doing research in the field you're interested in. That said, declining funding for environmental sciences has made these dwindling research technician jobs way more competitive than they should be, and ppl with master's and sometimes even Ph.D's in STEM fields are disproportionately getting them. I say this not to deter you, but to paint a picture of the state of the field(s).

>>8543241
>that pic
Do liberals actually believe this?

>>8542910
It obviously depends on the type of science you want to do, but you it'll probably be worse than under Obama. GWB, however, unpredictably increased funding to the basic and environmental sciences during his second term.

http://alandethic.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-to-get-wildlife-job-in-trump-years.html

>>8542910
> Economic Geology
Is that an actual field? What does one even do in this?

>>8542969
>using the word ''industry''
>totally unemployed and unemployable

>>8543660
what school?

>>8543844
>What does one even do in this?

How do you think resources are discovered?

>>8542953
>conservatives
>worried about putting oil companies in charge of the EPA
???

>>8542910
Just think about it this way. You'll have loads of work in four years when you have to find a way to clean up all the damage.

>>8545230
Ah. I'd never heard the term used before.

>>8542910
As a Solar PV Engineer the market seems pretty strong on our side. Most don't believe the Renewable Energy industry is in danger. That being said you could always travel to somewhere like France or Germany where eco stuff and cuckery is pretty strong. #MAGA

OP, what's your desired field of work?

EnvSci opens you a broad number of doors to open: research, public service, industry, consulting... you can get specialized in water, soil, air, fauna, flora, and an array of subsets within each field. You can make a decent living modelling atmospheric dispersion of gaseous emissions from stacks, just to name something. That's not going anywhere Trump or not Trump.

>>8542910
Maybe you should have chosen a real scientific field, rather than the garbage you chose.

I hope your student loans aren't to big. It will be hard to pay them off on a fast food salary.

File: 1422489332692.jpg (111KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 876x493px

>>8542910
Trump administration will do much to ruin environment. If something is ruined there is need to rebuild. This means demand for experts in environmental science will go up.

outside of guaranteeing that the oil field in texas is tapped ASAP and a move toward nuclear as metro-wide energy sources, I don't know what he's going to do to hamper environmental efforts.

I reallydon't think he's going to be any worse than Obama on this, minus signing treaties that are utterly meaningless or economic suicide.

>>8542953
>Trump will be out in 4 years
he won't survive the debates...
he won't win the nomination...
he won't win the general...

>>8546030
>implying Trump won't get assassinated by some liberal retard who is misinformed by the mass media.

>>8543789
neolibs do
classic liberals are okay i guess, but america hijacked that word

neolibs are essentially corporate fascists, just like DNC and GOP

>>8546038
this desu

Maybe if your meme degree in fee fee studies actually produced anything of economic value and your industry wasn't kept on life support by biting the government's tit you wouldn't be so fucked rn

Gg asspained Bill Nye enthusiasts

>what evidence do you have of anthropogenic climate change?
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE MALE

>>8546038
>implying Trump isn't loved by the police & Secret Service & doesn't have his own personal security too

>>8546184
>trying to kill Trump with a gun instead of using a small drone rigged to fire a dart laced with ricin

what a fucking amateur

>>8546038
>implying Pence isn't Trump minus the liberalism

>>8542953
> after his fuckups and failures are mainstream news
People who vote for Trump don't listen to news sources that are critical of him. They won't hear about anything that goes wrong, and they certainly won't blame him for anything. He'll be elected easily, especially considering that republican state governments will be able to restrict voting to people who will support republicans.

>>8546184
> implying he is
you even been watching the news?

>>8546721
>republican governors restricting voting from opposition
By far the most retarded thing I've read on this thread.

>>8542963
>its lucrative
>he can't accept that climate change is a problem
Conflict of interest detected.
The environment is far more than some harmless CO2 molecules floating around. Get over that and I am sure there is much work cleaning up after 7 billion monkeys. The environmental regulations will be your friends.

>>8542910
>Im an Environmental Science major

just because it has science at the end doesn't mean its science

>>>/lgbt/

His secretary of state is STEM master race and advocates cap and trade the oilman.

File: 19jbetclc1yx.jpg (118KB, 657x543px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 657x543px

>>8542953
lmao. whatever you say, nervous beta numale.

>>8546808
>lmao. whatever you say, nervous beta numale.
Back to your board >>>/pol/

File: CXXx6xG.jpg (54KB, 331x402px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 331x402px

>>8546841

>>8542910
Better to switch to a linguistics major and learn Russian. You'll be in high demand in a few years.

>>8542910
>>8542963
>meme degree in scam industry based around Marxist bullshit

Should have picked a real field.

File: three-little-boards.jpg (60KB, 700x490px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x490px

>>8546808
NOT BY THE HAIR OF MY CHINNY CHIN CHIN

File: foto-castle-in-the-clouds.jpg (2MB, 2721x1806px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2721x1806px

>>8547733
>/lit/

>>8542910
>Environmental Science major
So does that mean you were too stupid to do Chem?

File: hey pol.jpg (38KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x300px

>>8547733
fucking chequed

>>8547737
Exxon pls go

>>8546735
In the US, it is technically legal to bar people from voting for various reasons including political party affiliation. You just can't restrict based on race or sex. You can, however, ban anyone who is of a particular political party. It would be wildly unpopular with the people you're banning from voting, but if you're a governor you probably don't need to worry about that because your own supporters are numerous enough to elect you in the first place.

>>8542962
After Trump, the pendulum swings back to the Democrats, fool. The Americans are so gullible for change that they constantly switch the parties in power in hopes of making the country better again.

>>8547996
Source?

>>8547996
>hurt durr all republicans are fascists
Come on. No governor, no matter how despotic, would do something as insane as that, nor would said supporters be behind such an action. Plus, you're basing this off a technicality that arguably can be fought in court and have that decision easily thrown out. This is Alex Jones level of stupid, pls kys.

>>8548023
It doesn't matter what the American people vote for. Most of them didn't vote for Trump, yet he won anyway. In the US, it doesn't matter how many people vote for a candidate, it only matters where those voters are. You can win total control of the government with only a small percentage of the population supporting you as long as you have the right distribution of supporters. And guess what, the republicans have that.

The US is likely to remain under republican control for the rest of this century. Doesn't matter how far the pendulum sings back, the federal government is too insulated from popular opinion for that to matter.

>>8548068
> nor would said supporters be behind such an action
They wouldn't necessarily know, they could simply not listen to any news outlet that would actually report such an action.

For example, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but a majority of republicans believe that Trump won the popular vote because they simply do not listen to any news source that might say otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/

>>8543241
That isn't real is it?

>>8548068
> Plus, you're basing this off a technicality that arguably can be fought in court and have that decision easily thrown out.

In January the supreme court will have a republican majority, and it can only ever become more conservative now because the republicans will refuse to confirm anyone who isn't conservative. If there's a democrat in the white house, the senate will simply refuse to hold any hearings until there is a republican again. So there can't be any more democratic SCOTUS appointments, but there can be republican appointments.

>>8548106
>For example, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but a majority of republicans believe that Trump won the popular vote because they simply do not listen to any news source that might say otherwise.

That, and Republican news sources (Fox News, Breitbart, etc.) are peddling the myth of illegal immigrants voting en masse for Hillary.

>>8548068
It's not like it's unprecedented in US history. For example, in the pre-Civil War south you could be barred from voting for expressing abolitionist sentiments. In the past states have blocked people from voting because they didn't approve of the person's political views, and the majority of the population in those states happily went along with such restrictions.

>>8548121
>myth
Why don't you take a look at the recounts, then only places where they have actually had a close look at the votes? Masses of dead / repeated / nonexsitent people voting for your corrupt as fuck candidate.

>>8548106
>they don't agree with me? it must be because they're dumb and don't know
through the whole election cycle these "news" outlets showed how little they cared about facts. the DNC attempted to rig the election (introducing millions of unlawful votes). don't believe me? take a look at the recounts.

>>8548097
>the federal government is too insulated from popular opinion for that to matter
dead / fictional people and illegal immigrants don't really form part of the american popular opinion, you know

>>8548097
>You can win total control of the government with only a small percentage of the population supporting you
The people that support Trump don't make up a "small" percentage of the population.

>>8548150
Voting isn't a right, and universal suffrage is the fastest way to destroy a country ever divised

>>8548210
He didn't imply Trump there. He implied pure math. Run some simulation and give something like California 100% blue together with other big states but give no one here states 51% red for example. You can win the election with a pretty small minority.

>>8548217
Well thats a strategicly bad decision by dems to alienate 2/3rds of all the states, and to run up the vote hard in major states like Cali/New York

>>8548239
It's not about dem/rep but about political system. Dems are fucked mostly because their entire ideological all around the world is more popular in urban areas

>>8548214
If voting isn't a right you can never have truly fair elections. If voting isn't a right it allows the group in power to establish laws that prevent members of the opposition from voting thereby cementing that group's rule. At the end of the day this system is not democratic and might as well be replaced with a monarchy or dictatorship as that is basically what it is.

Voting has to be a universal right always, regardless of race, gender, class, or ideology. It will sometimes produce results you don't like but that's intentional and necessary.

>>8542910

Madman climate change is a hoax

>>8542910
depends on what is your field of study
if it's centered around theory like climatology or ecology, you might want to change that no matter what, most biologist end up signing up for the same jobs you would like to do
if it's more practical like analytics or enviromental technology (water treatment, decontamination, etc.), you have nothing to fear

of course petroleum engineering and prospecting is where the $$$ is

>>8548258
?
You are fucking insane
The point isn't "fair elections"
The point is the continuation of the country, of the nation, of the race, of the civilization

>regardless of race, gender, class, or ideology.
Non-whites should not be voting, period
Thats the whole point of self-determination.

>It will sometimes produce results you don't like but that's intentional and necessary.
Yea ok because if the whole world died in a nuclear war due to a democratic election, that would be both moral & ethical?

Absolute idiocy

You have elevated democracy into being a religion

>>8548315
Your opinion is shit and any attempt to impose it on America should be met with bloodshed.

The reason we even had a Revolutionary war was to escape from exactly what you are proposing.

File: Antarctica_02.jpg (66KB, 812x609px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 812x609px

>>8542910
Switch to Archaeology, trust me.

>>8548331
The founding fathers would have exactly agreed with me
They weren't a buncha cucks & liberals like exist today.

>>8542953
>I will also quote my Fluvial Hydrology teacher. "I'm not handing this nation over to them"
Did your teacher hold the entire nation!?

>>8542963
>you're upset that your circlejerking degree might be worthless

kek

>>8546841
Do you not want to deal with peoples differing opinions or something?
Cant take the heat?

>>8548121
>myth
you do understand they found more votes in Detroit than actual voters in that area right?

>>8548413
Source?

File: 1423954014700.jpg (58KB, 580x679px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 580x679px

I made fun of my hillary supporting roommate because all the hillary supporters were extremely smug the entire time about how easily she would win.

I don't think Trump is a good candidate at all but I wanted him to win because I thought it would be funny, and by god was I right.

However, the other day when I was poking fun at him he said trump wanted to decrease government subsidies to research universities. Is there any truth to that? Haven't been keeping up with it all very much, figured this is the place to ask

>>8548574
It's a bit unclear. He's been highly critical of the NIH and says he wants to cut their budget, but beyond that he's been fairly opaque on the whole issue of science funding.

>>8548574
universities are hives of commies
Government funding of makework garbage or commie propaganda should be ended

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-19 at 6.37.30 PM.png (141KB, 766x634px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 766x634px

>>8548603
>Government funding of makework garbage or commie propaganda should be ended
>Saddam Husein had weapons of mass distruction! We need to stop him!
>The United States has been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin! We need to stop them!
>A foreign government just elected a leader the joint chiefs disapprove of! We need to stop him!

>>8548603
while I agree that some programs at universities are pretty useless and probably shouldnt get as much funding as they do, some programs (ie hard sciences) really do need dosh in order to get any results

>>8548150
Last time I checked, we don't live in Pre-Civil War era when not everyone had their rights. Now, committing an act that most (yes, republicans too) consider to be criminal would throw this country into chaos. Pretty sure everyone's read a fuckong history book and can see where that would lead. The power to take away the vote of the opposition may be there (and I still have no source on this so fuck you), it's unlikely that it will ever be used. What's so hard for you to understand?

>>8548753
>and can see where that would lead.
Yea it led to a first world civilization
Supporting race mixing is what led to south america

>>8548120
>implying conservatives lack any sense of morality
>again, implying all repubs are fascists
My god you have a thick skull, you're as bad as /pol/

>>8546038
>Implying Mike “if you like the cock you get the shock” Pence isn't insurance against this.

Trump is shrewder than he looks.

>>8547996
This would be struck down in Court in days.

>>8548780
>tfw Mike Pence never actually said anything about being pro-gay conversion therapy

all he said was he wanted to move funds to organizations that help people change their sexual behavior in order to contain the spread of AIDS. That could be as harmless as sex addiction orgs or organizations that discourage promiscuity. And we all know promiscuity is the biggest cause of AIDS spreading.

>>8548770
>race mixing led to South America's current State
I was referring to Hitler, since the left loves using him as a comparison to other people

Go back to /pol/ please. This shit is so fucking dumb.

>>8548785
Fucking thank you!

>>8548560
Look up "Jill Stein's recount effort uncovers voter fraud in Detroit."

>>8548778
The point of being a conservative, is that if things keep changing you stop being a conservative and start being a reactionary

Most republicans are well past that point

>>8548785
Voting is not a right, it is limited in various ways, non-citizens aren't eligible, under 18s aren't, felons aren't allowed in many states, etc

>>8548778
They've already started playing that way. When Scallia died, they refused to even consider holding hearings on a replacement. When they thought Hillary would win, they flat out said that they wouldn't have hearing during her entire term. The SCOTUS will be permanently republican controlled because no democratic nominees will ever get hearings.

File: IMG_1500.jpg (32KB, 537x531px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 537x531px

>>8548409
I don't like trump because he doesn't have our best interests in mind
>you're a FAGGOT
b-but he replaced all our politicians with corporate CEO's
>you're a FAGGOT
but his stance on climate change, foreign policy, and human rights could actually and realistically bump America down from a democracy to a corporate run dictatorship!
>YOURE A FAGGOT
ok go back to /pol/
>lol what's wrong numale can't stand a little constructive criticism?

File: IMG_7715.jpg (90KB, 636x421px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 636x421px

>>8543048
>party rock fire

>>8542910
>Environmental Science
>worried about the projected job growth
And people still unironically believe that the AGW hoax isn't financially motivated

>>8549150
Thanks for your response. I was running out of crybully tears to masturbate with. Political correctness is killing science and needs to die off. Hearing weasels like you bitch and moan means progress for technology. So to propel humanity forward I will be looking for ways to find the maximum yield for your produced tears

>>8549150
>climate change
not my problem desu. it's not going to be a problem till after 2050ish. by then i'll likely be dead. and that's assuming the worst possible model.
>foreign policy
yeah because peace with the other biggest nuclear power is so bad for us. you care about the climate yet somehow nuclear winter is of no concern. lmao.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mNgElVy7eQ
>and human rights
well memed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMnoa8dLw8

>>8548753
> What's so hard for you to understand?
Because I don't think the US is very good at remembers the lessons it has learned in the past, and thus I'm not willing to simply dismiss the idea that we could repeat some of the awful things that this country actually has done before.

Consider the financial sector. 1929 and 1930 saw a catastrophic banking failure that plunged the US into a depression. After that, we examined what had happened, learned a few lessons, and instituted new regulations to guard against a similar failure in the future.

Some decades passed in which there weren't 1929-style crashes, and as a result the country completely forgot all the lessons that had been learned. Throughout the 1980s, 90s, and early 2000s regulations on the financial sector were eased, removed, or reinterpreted to allow for riskier behavior. Anti-trust laws and regulatory rules were reinterpreted in order to allow for mergers to create bigger and bigger banks.

And then 2007-2008 rolled around, and it all blew up again and sent the country into a recession. Afterward, some new regulations were passed to try to patch up the gaps that had allowed the financial crisis, however within less than a single decade the country had completely forgotten all those lessons yet again and now we've elected a man who intends to completely dismantle what little safeguards are left on the financial sector.

Now consider the fact that the conservatives on the supreme court have done much the same thing to the voting rights act, declaring it to no longer be necessary and gutting it in order to let the states do as they please when it comes to restricting voting. Again, we've completely forgotten that when states were allowed to bar entire swathes of the population from voting for political reasons, they did exactly that.

You seem to think that the US can't possibly do something that we have already done before. I disagree.

>>8549214
>Consider the financial sector. 1929 and 1930 saw a catastrophic banking failure that plunged the US into a depression. After that, we examined what had happened, learned a few lessons, and instituted new regulations to guard against a similar failure in the future.
actually:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke
>Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

>Some decades passed in which there weren't 1929-style crashes, and as a result the country completely forgot all the lessons that had been learned. Throughout the 1980s, 90s, and early 2000s regulations on the financial sector were eased, removed, or reinterpreted to allow for riskier behavior.
no regulations were put in place that guaranteed they can take these risks and be bailed out. if failure actually means they are out of the game they wouldn't take risks.

>>8549230
> no regulations were put in place that guaranteed they can take these risks and be bailed out.
What changed is that the US started allowing banks to get ridiculously huge, to the point where a failure would have been catastrophic.

> if failure actually means they are out of the game they wouldn't take risks.
Not exactly. The individual actors weren't thinking that far ahead. They were more concerned with running record profits year after year in order to justify massive compensation. They were essentially burning the bank's long term viability in order to run up the score in the short term and thus take home a massive bonus. The people running the banks didn't really care if they failed, they would still be immensely wealthy men even if that happened. The fear of failure wasn't doing to prevent the financial crisis. The conduct itself being illegal was needed to prevent it, but it wasn't.

>>8549214
Nope. The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation, even more regulation wouldn't have prevented it.

>>8549257
>The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation
Woo boy, good one.

>>8549250
> What changed is that the US started allowing banks to get ridiculously huge
That's exactly what too much regulation does fuckwit. More regulation = small businesses can't afford to do business = only big businesses left. This is why big businesses fucking love having mountains of government regulations, it keeps them from actually having to compete by getting the government to stomp on other businesses for them.

>>8549260
Name a single regulation that has been removed.

Doesn't happen. Year after year, the government keeps piling on more laws, more regulations, more rules, more red tape, more bureaucracy. And guess what? Things keep getting worse. Face it, your precious government regulation isn't a solution. It's the problem.

>>8549250
>What changed is that the US started allowing banks to get ridiculously huge
they would've never been able to get so big so quickly had they not had all these safety guards.

> The people running the banks didn't really care if they failed, they would still be immensely wealthy men even if that happened.
they would've been even wealthier had they not failed which is why this narrative fails.

>>8549267
>Name a single regulation that has been removed.
I used google for you.

http://cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

>>8549269
> they would've been even wealthier had they not failed which is why this narrative fails.
Not really. The recovery has been very kind to the wealthiest people in the country, even as it sucked for everyone else. The executives and managers at the banks made out like bandits, and most of them are still in business. The whole financial industry has a vaguely incestuous quality to it. People move around from bank to bank, firm to firm, but it's all the same bunch of people. They rode the banks they worked at into the ground, jumped ship, and moved elsewhere, using their stellar record profit numbers as a selling point and deflecting the blame for the eventual collapse onto poor minorities who were supposedly conning the banks and government regulators who were supposedly forcing them to make loans that they didn't want to. If there's one thing any good businessman learns to do, it's take credit for good things that have nothing to do with you and avoid blame for bad things that are actually your fault.

>>8549275
>Repealing Glass-Steagall
>Separately, starting in the 1980s Congress debated bills to repeal Glass–Steagall's affiliation provisions (Sections 20 and 32). In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999,[22] to repeal them. Eight days later, President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
>Clinton
and you voted for his wife.

>>8549280
That a nice attempt at distracting from you being obviously and easily wrong.

>>8549277
the recovery that functioned by bailing them out with billions of dollars from dem jesus president. yup yup.

>>8549280
And Trump picked literally the president of Goldman Sachs for top economic advisor in his administration.

>>8549283
just double down. lmao.

>>8549286
clinton's campaign was entirely bankrolled by wallstreet.

>>8549288
more or less. i know how autistic this board can be.

>>8549285
The bank bailout was under Bush, actually. Dodd-Frank, which was under Obama, actually reduced the amount allocated to the banks under TARP.

>>8549290
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
>Signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009
i didn't know cnn was this effective at brainwashing. wow.

>>8549267
>>8549288
>"Name a single regulation that has been removed".
>Spend 5 seconds googling "financial deregulation".
It was just this easy. I know you don't care about the truth, but you should at least pretend.

>>8549293
dude we've all had a good laugh at paul krugman's insane ramblings. they're far from the truth.

>>8549292
That's the stimulus. The bank bailout was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

And then there was TARP, also in 2008 under Bush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

>>8549292
He said the bank bailout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
>The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.
"But can it read?"

>>8549295
Again, nice attempt at distracting from you being obviously and easily wrong. I don't know what you expected when you made that stupid request to name one instance of deregulation ever, but you clearly didn't expect someone to use google for some reason.

>>8549296
so both did it and trump is hated by both parties.

>>8549296
>>8549297
> BUSH! BUSH! BUUUUUSH!
Is that literally all you shills can say to defend king nigger? Every single time someone points out how much he's fucked up, that's all you come back with.

>>8549303
Someone said the bank bailout wasn't under Bush, and he was corrected that yes it was. Do you even read?

>>8549305
Do you? Obongo did a bailout too. That's the whole point.

>>8549296
>Then-senator Barack Obama addresses the Senate on the financial crisis and argues in favor of the bailout bill

>>8549308
>The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.
So the answer is no, you don't.

>>8542910
trade wars with china = less greenhouse gases.

way less than hillary could ever hope to achieve.

>>8542910
> Economic Geology
nice meme

>>8549302
Trump agrees with the republicans on most issues, which is why he ran as one. There are some things like trade where he disagrees with the main republican stance, but he's basically not going to be able to do anything on those because congress won't send him bills that would do something like raise tariffs.

However on things like regulation, Trump and the GOP are good buddies. He's in favor of giving the financial sector free rein to do whatever it wants to do.

>>8549323
he's already saved jobs at utx and ford. sure with tax incentives, etc. but still he's already proved he can do things as prez-elect. so so much for that bit about him not being able to do anything.

meanwhile look at hillary's donors. you really think they would've backed her if she wasn't their most profitable pick? no, trump is fucking the financial world hard by closing those tax loopholes which allow wallstreet et al. to plunder the country.

and no bernie would've just tanked the country.

>>8543791
Just wanna say reading that article and the comments was really fucking reassuring for me. I was wondering if all the work I'm putting into my degree is worth it. Thanks.

>>8549338
> he's already saved jobs at utx and ford. sure with tax incentives
Which is something that the GOP loves. As was said earlier, Trump will be able to do things when he and the traditional GOP agree, which is on most things really. But things that the GOP doesn't approve of? Not happening.

And btw, Trump wasn't the one who actually made the deal with Carrier. Pence did, cause he's the governor of Indiana and thus he was the one who had the power to do things like give them massive tax cuts. Trump just claimed credit for it.

> no, trump is fucking the financial world hard by closing those tax loopholes which allow wallstreet et al. to plunder the country.
No he isn't. You really think that he's going to functionally raise taxes on anyone? The plans that he has proposed are all massive cuts, especially for wealthy wall street types. Plus, he's been stocking his administration with people from Goldman Sachs. You really think that's a sign that he's going to rein in Wall Street?

Lost of /pol/ shit on /sci/ right now.

>>8549599
>But things that the GOP doesn't approve of? Not happening.

??
Which is why he goes with Paul Ryan to a rally in wisconsin
And tells paul ryan that if he crosses him, he's going down
And the crowd cheers

You are delusional if you think the GOP won't work with Trump
I bet he could find some democrat votes if someone like Mccain tried to be a faggot.

>>8549803
> You are delusional if you think the GOP won't work with Trump

They will on most things. Like massive tax cuts, removing regulation on industry and finance, and other things that they agree on. But on trade, nothing is going to happen. Trump talks a lot, but he doesn't actually have much leverage to get the tariff increases that he's talked about, and he's going to need Congress in order to do that.

Besides, Trump doesn't actually give a damn about the issue. Again, he talks a lot, but at the end of the day he has no real beliefs beyond wanting more fame, wealth, and power for himself. His only interest in trade was as a way of getting elected, as soon as he meets resistance from the GOP he'll flip flop and drop the issue.

> I bet he could find some democrat votes if someone like Mccain tried to be a faggot.

First off, that unlikely at this point. The Democrats have basically been trimmed down to just the safest seats, representing places that absolutely despise Trump. They're not going to be inclined to step in to save Trump from what few disputes he has with the mainstream GOP.

Second, the way Congress works is that bills only advance if the majority party's leadership wants them to. Meaning Ryan and McConnell. They would have to allow the bill to come to the floor in the first place for the number of votes to even begin to matter. And they're not going to let something like the 40% tariffs that Trump has proposed get anywhere near an actual floor vote. They won't even have to do anything, they can just sit back and do nothing, which is something that Congress is exceptionally good at.

>>8549829
> he has no real beliefs beyond wanting more fame, wealth, and power for himself.
He already has plenty of money and he is the most famous and powerful person in the world now. Why would he care about those things anymore? And if he was trying to get more money, how do you explain the fact that he self-fund his whole campaign?
Your whole narrative makes zero sense.

>>8542910
Yes, either ABORT

OR

Change you study to - Determining the real causes for climatic changes an aberrations.
Because what mainstream 'Academia' is promoting is basically Govt propaganda - not REAL SCIENCE !
Explore McCanney's Plasma comet model

>>8549829
>But on trade, nothing is going to happen
TTP is already dead
And the GOP can see the widespread voter support for trade reform
So they will report it
These people need to win elections, they can't fuck with Trump too much because Trump will tweet about it.

>>8549829
>representing places that absolutely despise Trump
There are 10 democrat senators up for election in 2018 in red states

If Trump wants to push a universal health care bill, he'll find a lot of support among the dems for it.
Pelosi has already said she'll work with Trump on some stuff.

>>8549866
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. You think that Trump only caring about his own image would mean that he would just quit once elected? That makes zero sense.

>>8549961
>>>/x/

File: maga.png (408KB, 810x780px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 810x780px

>>8542910
>worried about worthless degree
heh

>>8542953
Trump is going to throw all you scientist welfare moochers out of government and make America great again. He's going to be closing down all those useless money sinks like the NOAA, EPA, DOA, and NASA. The government shouldn't research or fund science, it should be up to corporations or universities.

>>8549829
Trump can cut off trade deals with military action though. If he doesn't want to trade with Mexico, just bomb Mexico City or something and that would be enough to get them to call off trade for the next couple of decades.

>>8546070
>corporate fascists
this is the exact opposite of what they are.

much closer to totalitarian communists

>>8550067
No, they're pretty much corporate shills. Look up Neoliberalism and New Democrat. They're extremely liberal on identity politics (if not by rhetoric more then policy), but conservative on economic policies.

>>8550046
>governments shouldn't fund sciences, universities should
Wew lad

>>8542910
You can always go over to Europe or something. It's not looking good for "politicized" science over in the United States. They're even considering defunding/grounding NASA's earth monitoring satellite network.

>>8548112
no both the response and the original are parody accounts

>>8542910
Trump is the Least of your problems:

Majority of the GOPs were hand picked and lobbied by the Free-Market Right that aimed for the Deregulation of just about everything, health, labor, and environment, for unlimited profit of the 0.001%. Trump's just here for the ride; and once they dominate the Senate in 2018, they'll kick him out and let Pence take over.

>>8548785
Not really,

They could fire the entire Supreme court and replace them with Corporate Shills once they go with the Constitutional Convention in 2019.

>>8550479
Yeah, I don't think the Repubs are too big on his fuck Europe and China, acquire Russia policy. If he's really as much of an existential danger as some people think, Congress would remove him before he starts lobbing nukes around.

>>8550490
Pretty much:

the GOP will have complete control over all three forms of federal government, and will enact on the laws pushed forward by corporate lobbyists.

>>8542910
Get a minor in Astrology and get a job a Nasa so you can help them built Giant Orbital Space Colonies.