So what's the verdict? Is climate change a hoax or what?

>another poster spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman

mfw it actually is

Why did I vote for this guy

Everyday I realize Trump was actually just retarded

lmao, Veeky Forums collectively BTFO.

>come from /pol/
>say dumb /pol/ shit
>get told to go back to /pol/
>LE BOOGEYMAN!!

Post origami in /po/. Post movies in /tv/. Post retard /pol/ shit in /pol/. Is it that hard?

Nice concern trolling, ShariaBlue shill

you're just incapable of understanding the many levels at which his brain works, brainlet

>Climate change
Can someone explain why it went from "global warming" to "climate change?"
That seems like a really fucking weaselly thing to do. Like now you get to be correct whether the temperature goes up or down.

Perhaps the real lesson here is for you to realize that you're also retarded.

Despite some of his twitter dumbassery, the guy has remarkably stuck to his campaign promises, even through media hellfire

I'm very pleased with my vote a year later

I wish user. Also stop samefagging.

Screw you

>Can someone explain why it went from "global warming" to "climate change?"
It didn't, that's just some canard that thrown out there to make the subject look shiftier. You can go to scholar and see for your self that the both climate change and global warming have been in use for decades. AFAIK climate change is caused by global warming.

spook is now what redpill used to be
great job

>literally only voted for him for illegal immigration and taxes
>both of those things lackluster
>last few months have been spent on fucking football politics and retarded twitter shit
>net neutrality repeal absolutely unfucking necessary

yeah no fucking thank you.

>science and match board
>doesn't accept climate change and supports a billionaire republican

/pol/'s really done a number on this place.

>>last few months have been spent on fucking football politics and retarded twitter shit
At least he hasn't destroyed our country like Hillary would have done by now

It was harder to (((shut it down))) due to the internet so they had to do go that way instead to not lose all credibility.

>It didn't
No, fuck you, I didn't imagine all those years of "global warming" growing up only to hear everyone start calling it "climate change" later on. It was always "global warming" during the 80s and 90s, I don't care if you find some random paper where someone mentioned the words "climate change" once a few decades ago, anyone who was alive back then knows "global warming" were the buzzwords thrown at you.

Indeed

>Every generation has their own climate catastrophe hoax
But every generation did have their own environmental catastrophe.
>yfw leftists say lead in the air is bad.

Why does the left react so emotionally when people are skeptical about climate change/global warming? No one cares at all when flat earthers or moon landing skeptics speak up

You're wrong. ICE has been as aggressive as ever. He got rid of DACA so that the Republican dominant Congress would have to revisit immigration and make an actual reformative bill.

Passed an "America First" executive order which is currently attacking H1-B at the core, which is major for American tech workers. Still trying to get prototypes of the wall and a bill in the works, although this one will get more pushback in Congress.

He also did pass comprehensive tax reform which will result in a cut for 95% of Americans (I will get a $2,000 cut making $61k a year) and more importantly, cut taxes for businesses who can use that to pay workers more and accelerate growth (rather than keeping that money in fat, inefficient, useless bureaucracy like it has).

Net Neutrality was always a needless regulation and a foot in the door for the federal government to control the internet, which is inherently decentralized. Do you remember any crazy problems 3 years ago?

So yes, still really happy. Keep trying though my good MSNBC hillbot.

Weak bait, only gave you a (you) because I liked the pic.

>What is semantic shift?

Did you look at scholar? I know you didn't other wise you would have seen that the incidence of the two are about the same. If you want to complain about the MSM then fuck off to somewhere else, it's not my fault you listen to those retards.

Because flath earthers are harmless. Climate change denialists could result in a mass scale catastrophe.

It's not bait. You are genuinely dumb if you do either of the forementioned things.

If anyone feels like they have to get furiously emotional when making a "point", it's usually because they are sitting on a foundation of sand and don't want to get picked apart by logic and reason.

That isn't a partisan trend btw, Repubs do it plenty with Muslims and the "War on Christianity"

>cut taxes for businesses who can use that to pay workers
Why would they do that? labor price is dependent on demand and supply. Not on the profit of the businesses.

>yfw leftists say lead in the air is bad.

>Ask for proof
>They deliver clear convincing evidence instead of squirming around fabricating data and spreading hysteria
>We solve the problem together in a matter of years

Cheers, you leftist cunts can be okay every now and then. Just don't expect me to fall for your lies because I trusted you when you spoke the truth.

>Why would they do that? labor price is dependent on demand and supply. Not on the profit of the businesses.

They already have. The news has been full of stories of major corporations immediately announcing bonuses and raises.

>demand and supply

Supply, user. They have more money. They can compete more for high value workers (especially internationally, since our corporate rate is now on par with other developed countries), pay good workers more to retain them, and greenlight more projects that may have been on the backburner due to less available capital.

A business wants to grow. It only grows with its means. They now have more means. We're a service economy, they don't all sell toys. That is silly logic.

Now you're just being desperate. Here's one last pity (you).

>another /pol/ thread
why are those allowed here, it's not like you have /tv/ or Veeky Forums threads here

It was global warming until we froze our asses off a few years ago and the media was like "global warming? really? in this weather?" and even people were saying "global warming???" so a few guys upstairs said "call it climate change because it's not specifically warming!" or whatever to stop everyone from killing the EPA... which happened anyway so whatever. It's not like it matters when China and India and elsewhere are grabbing their ankles and shitting/farting skyward collectively regardless of whether it's called "global warming" "climate change" or not called anything at all. If people wanted to stop global warming they'd go to the worst offenders... USA is bad but we're not as bad as China India Russia... for China just look at their major cities and rivers

This. Veeky Forums is supposed to be a leftist echo-chamber, just like the academia is today. Veeky Forums has no place for alternative view points. This has to stop. Mods, do something.

I also get my scientific insight from a politician.

Except you have been delivered clear convincing evidence of climate change too. If anything the research is much more rigorous and convincing.
Instead you decided to believe in a twitting faggot.

Rude. Stop using strawmen

who the fuck is even talking about China? Why is the answer of most of you guys to deflect blame? Both of your countries need to stop emissions.

If I see two guys burning tires I don't simply stop one no matter the circumstances, I try to stop both.

>Supply, user. They have more money
That's not how supply works. A more profitable company doesn't pay more to their employees just because they can. They still pay only the market price.
>The news has been full of stories of major corporations immediately announcing bonuses and raises.
lel. How many corporations are there in US? how many announced raises? Is it so surprising some trump supporting corporations will announce raise?
Its funny the only major law Trump passed in his first year directly profits him. And he failed to fulfill any promises that doesn't affect him (helthcare, wall)

if it's not gonna do anything what the fuck is the repeal for? you can't be this fucking naive. ISPs used to regulate themselves, overstepped their boundaries, then the government stepped in.

Can you tell me any problems CAUSED by NN?

Why are brainlets in denial of the human activities that accelerate climate change? Is it a survival instinct? The first phase of grief perhaps? Or are they christcucks who think that a dead kike on a stick will come back and fix everything?

Most of the people I've met who deny climate change are also skeptical of evolution, vaccines, hell I'd bet a big chunk of them are flat earthers as well.

>That's not how supply works. A more profitable company doesn't pay more to their employees just because they can. They still pay only the market price.

Corporations have different budgets depending on their goals and industries. The services (the backbone of the American economy) are growth-oriented, and are constantly conducting R&D, and have growth and speculative projects filling up backlogs that they address when time or money allows them to. That is how a corporation grows, not twiddling their fingers and waiting for more customers to be born. They are trying to develop a business and product that continues to grow and bring in real revenue.

The "market price" isn't simply within the context of the United States. They have other countries and corporations abroad to contend with. More money means more purchasing power with regards to international competitors. Intranationally, they can afford to pay their value workers more to retain them and attract more. That would mean wages for workers would increase across the board since companies now have significantly more money to compete with one another. They only pay the market price, and the market price has just been bolstered significantly.

cont.

>lel. How many corporations are there in US? how many announced raises? Is it so surprising some trump supporting corporations will announce raise?
Its funny the only major law Trump passed in his first year directly profits him. And he failed to fulfill any promises that doesn't affect him (helthcare, wall)

I was just pointing out notable examples, and companies that publicly did so. It's going to benefit all of us across the board, as I mentioned earlier. "Trump supporting corporations"? Businesses are in the business of growing and making money, they don't have time for your petty reddit politics. Nothing about this presidential bid has been a profit for Trump, his net worth has estimated to have taken a hit of nearly $1B thanks to the negative publicity and money spent campaigning, this is just a pride thing for him. It's funnily enough why I trusted him to stick to his guns, he may say moronic shit and be uncouth but he has lost a lot to get this position, and he's getting old so he's doing it out of pride and sheer ambition.

Most politicians (Bush/Obama/etc) are in the business of politics, which means they are much more prone to money. They exited office with a net worth much higher than when they entered.

The only mass scale catastrophe is African and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe and the United States.

>what the fuck is the repeal for

Republicans are expressly anti-regulation and this is a presumably needless regulation. And since it was passed through a simple commission it is easy as fuck to get rid of. That's it.

Blame Obama for not trying to get this actually hammered out into law through Congress. Then it could have been debated on its merits and whether it was necessary or a regulatory overstep by a power hungry government.

youtube.com/watch?v=cjxJsltLDrw

>He's actually trying to argue climate change is not real at this point
Wew lad.

I see no wall.

It has been in the works and he has not shied away from it. Congress has had a busy year with the attack on ACA and then the big Tax Bill.

Honestly, I don't think a big wall is as important or effective as actually ENFORCING our laws and boosting up ICE and border patrol, but won't be that upset if he gets it into the budget, which will be tough.

>stuck to his campaign promises
and those are?

That was his main campaign promise. He has no wall. I will like him when he builds the wall, but he won't, because he's a crypto-jew.

repealing ACA, boosting immigration enforcement/going after H1B, cutting taxes, stopping Muslims

he hasn't "won" all of these battles, and that's just our political dynamic in action, which is fine, but he has gone after them in earnest, and under constant screaming from the media

The guy isn't in it to be popular and that is important. When your dad makes tough but important decisions for his kids and family it is rarely popular but oftentimes critical.

Trump's a populist axe man and that's exactly what we've needed after a streak of globalist neocons.

>Businesses are in the business of growing and making money, they don't have time for your petty reddit politics.
I can point out that your entire post is groundless speculation, but this line here just shows how fucking naive you are.
>Nothing about this presidential bid has been a profit for Trump,
He doesn't even make his tax public like he PROMISED he would and you still keep believing everything he says.
I don't know if he is doing it for personal profits or if he genuinely thinks tax cut is better for the country, But throughout the campaign, he obviously cared about tax cut more than he cared about any other issues, including the wall.
And I doubt he would ever pass any law that hurts himself or his family, He would consider that a cuck move.

Also the campaign promise was Mexico will pay for the wall. He still hasn't said how mexico will pay for it.
Also he deported less people than Obama in first year.

>cutting taxes
leading to long-term budget deficits and probably another economic crash
>stopping Muslims
by banning Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egyp- oh wait, he didn't even ban those countries. He banned warzones that already had limited immigration to the U.S. to appease low information voters. Looks like it worked :^)

To be fair, /tv/ and Veeky Forums also have a lot of /pol/ threads. Same with almost every other board in this site.

>repealing ACA
failed at that so hard they had to do it through a tax reform. it will most likely be repealed in the future, but not yet. there is also a record number of people signing up for ACA.
>stopping Muslims
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack
>cutting taxes
to the wealthy yeah but over time it will increase for several middle class people

>but he has gone after them in earnest
literally giving him an A for effort.

>I can point out that your entire post is groundless speculation, but this line here just shows how fucking naive you are.

It isn't groundless speculation. I'll reiterate, not only doesn't it logically follow, but there are plenty of companies who have already publicly pledged to do so. The idea that we live in some kind of box, where the only economic growth comes from how many people are buying how many toys, and how many jobs we can directly derive from that supply chain, is the groundless naive, childlike speculation. I work at a software company, in software and tech the impetus is to develop and constantly innovate and there are limitless projects on the backlog to do so. More money means more resources to pursue that, with new positions or more to offer valuable assets who can help you do it.

>He doesn't even make his tax public like he PROMISED he would and you still keep believing everything he says.
I don't know if he is doing it for personal profits or if he genuinely thinks tax cut is better for the country, But throughout the campaign, he obviously cared about tax cut more than he cared about any other issues, including the wall.
And I doubt he would ever pass any law that hurts himself or his family, He would consider that a cuck move.

You're ranting now and it isn't really worth discussing anymore, you believe what you believe.

>Also the campaign promise was Mexico will pay for the wall. He still hasn't said how mexico will pay for it.

Guess we'll find out how much he'll stick to that. Already said he may use some of their federal aid to finance it.

> Also he deported less people than Obama in first year.

Common misconception, Obama redefined "deportation" to include people turned away at the border and those caught and sent back at the border. Not just those caught within and operating in the U.S. That's why it "rose". It was a clever way of hiding the fact that he was going to pursue a pro-illegal immigrant agenda.

>repealing ACA,
He did nothing to repeal ACA. he approved every bill the senate or the house proposed. He doesn't have any clue about how health care works and he doesn't care.
>boosting immigration enforcement/going after H1B,
I wish he would reform H1B visa. But he has done nothing.
>cutting taxes,
I will give you that.
>stopping Muslims.
It was a like throwing a bone to his base. banning 5 muslim countries isn't going to do shit and he has no plan of expanding that.

>leading to long-term budget deficits and probably another economic crash

Our GDP has been growing at a really slow rate anyway, you can look at the quarterly numbers compared to their historic rates during "growth periods". Hopefully this can boost that. If the economy grows enough to offset the inevitable correction (and there is always a correction), then it is still a good bet.

> by banning Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egyp- oh wait, he didn't even ban those countries. He banned warzones that already had limited immigration to the U.S. to appease low information voters. Looks like it worked :^)

He issued an executive order to stop immigration from high danger zones with low amounts of vetting. These countries have no infrastructure and no way for us to vet arrivals. Not all Muslims, but still some of them, and about as much as he could do without seriously hurting our business here, since the others are big countries with ties. Admittedly he couldn't pursue a total ban, that was unrealistic anyway.

>failed at that so hard they had to do it through a tax reform. it will most likely be repealed in the future, but not yet. there is also a record number of people signing up for ACA.

It failed because Republicans aren't a bunch of cucks who tow the party line, a few dissented. That's fine, checks and balances are good. He still stuck to his word, that is all I claimed he was doing. Still has to get through Congress.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack
When did I ever mention totally stopping any and all terrorist attacks across this enormous country?

>to the wealthy yeah but over time it will increase for several middle class people

All net taxpayers will see a cut. If you pay more in taxes you see a bigger cut. That is simple math.

>literally giving him an A for effort.

The start of this post chain was simply me saying he has put in the effort. Durr

You don't know shit about economics. Increasing income does not increase market price, only quantity demanded. For comparison, lowering the market price would have the same effect. And companies are already raking in record setting profits and have been throughout the recession so giving them slightly more money isn't going to provoke them to buy more labor they aren't buying currently.

>He did nothing to repeal ACA. he approved every bill the senate or the house proposed. He doesn't have any clue about how health care works and he doesn't care.

How can you say "nothing". He obviously did, since he approved every bill and publicized his stance. Congress didn't agree. That's it. No flip flopping or dropping the issue, he went down with that ship. Soft ass Presidents don't do that.

>I wish he would reform H1B visa. But he has done nothing.

Wrong my friend.

money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/technology/business/h1b-visa-renewal-uscis/index.html

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies

He's going to the mattresses on it. I fucking love it as a software engineer.

>It was a like throwing a bone to his base. banning 5 muslim countries isn't going to do shit and he has no plan of expanding that.

I think that's always been a give a dog a bone issue. I'm aware that plenty of his stances were fairly lowest common denominator but that's politics, his leftist counterpart was offering "free college" and magic money for everyone, which is equally inane. You aren't going to stop violence through rhetoric and bans. He still passed the executive order.

>ut there are plenty of companies who have already publicly pledged to do so
What percentage of companies promised that?
>You're ranting now and it isn't really worth discussing anymore, you believe what you believe.
What did I say wrong? He did promise he will release his tax. He hasn't, still you keep believeing him.

Because you grew up not reading scientific papers. 'Climate change' goes back clear into the 1950s

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

We've also had a journal called 'Climatic Change' ever since 1977
link.springer.com/journal/10584

It's an international market you dumb fuck. We have the highest corporate taxes in the Western world.

Irrelevant. Cutting taxes does nothing to raise the international market price for labor. You could argue that it will increase employment because companies now have the money to buy more labor, but they will still predominantly hire the cheapest workers on the international market.

>money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/technology/business/h1b-visa-renewal-uscis/index.html
>bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies
Thats not a reform. He is just making the process less transparent.
>He's going to the mattresses on it.
He has only 11 more months to do anything.
>as a software engineer.
Ah. This explains why you are a low IQ faggot.

>It's an international market you dumb fuck
Yes. Corporates were hiring the cheapest labor from the international market and they will keep doing that.

>When did I ever mention totally stopping any and all terrorist attacks across this enormous country?
you said stopped muslims. either you meant he has stopped some attacks of which there is no way of knowing so only a brainlet would think this, or you meant no muslim attacks have occured which is what the uninformed would claim.

the rest of your post is literally, "b-b-buht trump is t-t-trying."

>all corporations only look for bottom feeder international trash workers to ruin their companies

Sounds like you guys have a ton of industry experience. Surely highly valuable skilled workers do not exist or add exponentially more value to their company.

>as a software engineer.
will there ever be an engineer that doesn't fit the faggot stereotype?

>Thats not a reform. He is just making the process less transparent.

He has significantly raised the requirements, which culls out 50-70% of the people manipulating the system who are qualitatively trash

>Ah. This explains why you are a low IQ faggot.

Veeky Forums memes aside it explains why I value the H1-B issue so highly and can see the tangible effects of this ramped up enforcement.

brainlets are content with reform meaning a tiny change

Why do I of all people live in the land where math doesn't exist? It's not my way to be other than professionally mathematical. Therefore, CHECK OUT MY NEW BOOK:

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>Surely highly valuable skilled workers do not exist or add exponentially more value to their company.
Companies will pay more to hire a more skilled labor, However they will not pay more than the market price for that skilled labor. The profit margin of a company has absolutely shit to do with this.
You are right about companies expanding due to corporate tax cut. You are absolutely wrong about companies giving pay rise to employees due to tax cut.

>which culls out 50-70% of the people manipulating the system
I see no mention of ths 50-70% in any of the two links you posted. Did you pull this out of your ass. Tell me what requirements he changed.

Again they're already getting skilled workers at a bargain in other countries. You obviously have no idea how businesses work.

>turd world
>skilled

They just desperately try to flinch from their responsibilities to change something.
Its a lot easier to just deny the reality than to actually change your life style

>You are absolutely wrong about companies giving pay rise to employees due to tax cut.

If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.

Corporations can spend (or save) the money as they wish, and if some decide to commit to personnel it will give them a competitive leg up over those who decide to save or use it for other things.

At the end of the day, we depend on business in order to live and get income, and anything that is good for business is good for us, to some degree. Big government proponents are going to cry about a tax revenue rollback but it has plenty of merits.

Veeky Forums gets flood by these trumptard bait posts...

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright?
Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

Its a combination of lack of trust of authority (as a result of the 2008 housing crash and subsequent fixes to the problem), combined with rationalizing their need to consume excess amounts of resources (which is fun, really) and not allowing their competitors to win.

For the latter, they kind of need to do this in order to win the game without losing their sanity. They dont really have a choice if you think about it. They need to toss out a few morals in order to win.

>You are right about companies expanding due to corporate tax cut.
He's not even necessarily right about that. If companies were hard up for cash then that'd be one thing, but because interest rates have been so low for so long these companies could easily borrow funds to expand if they thought they'd increase their profit margin by doing so. Instead they've been using that free money to buy outstanding stock and finance overseas expansion and automation programs. Which is almost certainly where most of these tax savings are going to end up.

It's sad, because the day will come when people will wish their ancestors had heeded the warnings, and wonder why in the face of all the evidence, they chose to laugh at scientists and carry on as if everything was fine.

>If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.
You are being told this a thousand times and you still don't get it. This is because the supply of skilled worker has not gone up. As long as the supply and the demand of the skilled worker stays the same the pay will remain the same.
You can argue that due to expansion of the companies companies will hire more and that will increase demand and that will drive a pay rise. But this is not the argument you presented and at this point it is too difficult to say if this will happen or not.
>Big government proponents are going to cry about a tax revenue rollback but it has plenty of merits.
It is nice when you can simplify an argument into big government vs small government because that's easy to process in your simple mind but that's not really the argument here. Instead you are arguing that the current corporate tax rate(~20) is the best possible tax rate. Not 15% and not 25%. Lower taxes has merits, but it has drawbacks too.

>If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.
Because economics simply doesn't work that way. Increased income does not increase market price. Period. Take an econ class and maybe you won't get swindled next time.