🇺🇸Father Trump Talk-🚨The Official Thread of the Week Magaverse🚨Lady Squissy 🚨 Whole Lotta Rosie Going Bye-Bye 👋

[GutterBoy 2,899]

6 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Links from the 70s!  

In an effort to educate the morons here:

The whale concern is about the type of construction.  Only an idiot would read Trump's comments and think a whirling blade many meters above the ocean's surface is what anyone is talking about.  Translation: You're foking dumber than Trump is.

This construction is happening now and the construction is slated to happen over the next several years if not decades.  When someone says, "“windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before” they are most certainly talking about windmill construction. 

1) The link is not from the 70s.  There was no internet from the 70s.   The species of whale you brought up as being endangered has been endangered since the 70s.

2) No one here ever mentioned that the windmill blades are slicing up whales   Of course Trump doesn't believe that, I don't believe that, only an idiot like yourself would mention this as a possibility.

3) Yes, the concern is windmill construction, and I already provided links saying that there is no evidence it's causing any whale deaths.

Now, you can provide some evidence that is does, or you can just repeat what your hero Trump says, and look the fool.  What's it gonna be?

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

7 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

This construction is happening now and the construction is slated to happen over the next several years if not decades.  When someone says, "“windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before” they are most certainly talking about windmill construction. 

Why hasn't other construction affected the whales at all?  Why is this only a story now?

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

3 hours ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Shame on you Libs trying to take away his 2nd amendment rights

It's against the law for him to attempt to purchase a firearm or even possess one.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It's against the law for him to attempt to purchase a firearm or even possess one.

Why?

[FrancieFootball 96]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

 

Wow.

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

 

Where were you when Obama had no idea we had 50 states?

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

14 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Why?

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

• who is a fugitive from justice;

• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

• who is an illegal alien;

• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

• who is a fugitive from justice;

• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

• who is an illegal alien;

• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

What applies to Father Trump?

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

2 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

What applies to Father Trump?

He's been indicted for a federal crime.  It is illegal for him to purchase a firearm.  I doubt he can get in any trouble for just holding it though.  If he did not purchase or receive the gun as a gift then I don't think he did anything wrong.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

He's been indicted for a federal crime.  It is illegal for him to purchase a firearm.  I doubt he can get in any trouble for just holding it though.  If he did not purchase or receive the gun as a gift then I don't think he did anything wrong.

He hasn’t been convicted 

[HellToupee 1,775]

2 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

He hasn’t been convicted 

Loopholes 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

4 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

He hasn’t been convicted 

He doesn't have to be convicted according to the law.  Sorry, I didn't copy and paste this with my above post.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition. 

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,855]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

He doesn't have to be convicted according to the law.  Sorry, I didn't copy and paste this with my above post.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition. 

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

Meh.  The fact it’s bogus charges from a rogue state and he touched the firearm in a free state makes this all moot. 

[RogerDodger 798]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Why hasn't other construction affected the whales at all?  Why is this only a story now?

It's always a concern.  It's only a story now because Trump said it.

Here is a good article by ENR.

https://www.enr.com/articles/56508-americas-first-two-big-offshore-wind-projects-ramp-up-construction

If you go down to the left hand photo in the middle of the article, that is a giant hydraulic hammer in the process of driving piles (long steel or precast concrete beams) into the ocean floor.  You can actually see the amount of energy transferred into the surrounding water.  If you don't think that has the potential do damage to sea life and and structure I don't know what to tell you.  It absolutely harms anything within a certain radius. 

Quote

Opponent lawsuits have also dogged Vineyard Wind, including those claiming harm to fishing interests as well as to marine mammals and other life. But earlier this month federal courts dismissed one that claimed project construction and operation violates U.S. law in potential harm to the endangered North Atlantic right whale and another brought by a fisheries group, stating its claim of harm was brought too late.

Too late?  Timing seems an absurd excuse if it actually involves an endangered species.

One thing is abundantly clear: It's not just something crazy Trump dreamed up and said like General Tso and Midget Brain portrayed.

And it's funny that the anti-Trump crowd is going against the environmentalists in this case, just because But Trump!

 

 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

Just now, RogerDodger said:

It's always a concern.  It's only a story now because Trump said it.

Here is a good article by ENR.

https://www.enr.com/articles/56508-americas-first-two-big-offshore-wind-projects-ramp-up-construction

If you go down to the left hand photo in the middle of the article, that is a giant hydraulic hammer in the process of driving piles (long steel or precast concrete beams) into the ocean floor.  You can actually see the amount of energy transferred into the surrounding water.  If you don't think that has the potential do damage to sea life and and structure I don't know what to tell you.  It absolutely harms anything within a certain radius. 

Too late?  Timing seems an absurd excuse if it actually involves an endangered species.

One thing is abundantly clear: It's not just something crazy Trump dreamed up and said like General Tso and Midget Brain portrayed.

And it's funny that the anti-Trump crowd is going against the environmentalists in this case, just because But Trump!

 

 

What about all of the oil rigs?  Wouldn't they have had to drive piles into the ocean floor as well?

[RogerDodger 798]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What about all of the oil rigs?  Wouldn't they have had to drive piles into the ocean floor as well?

No.  Most oil rigs are actually floating with relatively small anchors as compared to driven piles.

By far the most environmental impacts are seen if containment of the oil head is breached.  As we've seen.

[HellToupee 1,775]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What about all of the oil rigs?  Wouldn't they have had to drive piles into the ocean floor as well?

Please take it to the whale thread. Search Hartford

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

4 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Please take it to the whale thread. Search Hartford

Why?  It's on topic.

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

8 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

No.  Most oil rigs are actually floating with relatively small anchors as compared to driven piles.

By far the most environmental impacts are seen if containment of the oil head is breached.  As we've seen.

I managed to find an article about the concerns of oil rigs and their affect on whales.  Why doesn't Trump say anything about this as well?

https://baleinesendirect.org/en/what-is-the-impact-of-offshore-drilling-on-whales/

[GutterBoy 2,899]

15 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

It's always a concern.  It's only a story now because Trump said it.

Here is a good article by ENR.

https://www.enr.com/articles/56508-americas-first-two-big-offshore-wind-projects-ramp-up-construction

If you go down to the left hand photo in the middle of the article, that is a giant hydraulic hammer in the process of driving piles (long steel or precast concrete beams) into the ocean floor.  You can actually see the amount of energy transferred into the surrounding water.  If you don't think that has the potential do damage to sea life and and structure I don't know what to tell you.  It absolutely harms anything within a certain radius. 

Too late?  Timing seems an absurd excuse if it actually involves an endangered species.

One thing is abundantly clear: It's not just something crazy Trump dreamed up and said like General Tso and Midget Brain portrayed.

And it's funny that the anti-Trump crowd is going against the environmentalists in this case, just because But Trump!

 

 

Trump didn't dream it up, it's a right wing talking point.  My assumption is they are against wind and in favor of fossil fuels.

Trump just repeated the lie, and now you are too.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

Also environmentalists are usually crazy.  It's funny that Trump is partnering with environmentalists to stop Alternative energy.

[RogerDodger 798]

17 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Trump didn't dream it up, it's a right wing talking point.  My assumption is they are against wind and in favor of fossil fuels.

Trump just repeated the lie, and now you are too.

If you're going to call me a liar I'm going to ask for a link to exactly what I said.   Because as usual, it's probably your 3rd grade reading level interfering again.  

[RogerDodger 798]

17 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I managed to find an article about the concerns of oil rigs and their affect on whales.  Why doesn't Trump say anything about this as well?

https://baleinesendirect.org/en/what-is-the-impact-of-offshore-drilling-on-whales/

You really need me to explain that to you?

Besides the obvious, there is probably an element of economy.  

[HellToupee 1,775]

13 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Trump just repeated the lie, and now you are too.

Why are the whales washing up in the northeast? There is no answer, Donald believes the offshore wind power theory. It’s not a lie

[RogerDodger 798]

Just a reminder.  The whale hijack all started because some idiot claimed Trump was "old", "senile" and "nuts" because he claimed windmills made whales go crazy.

Hopefully everyone can see that is a false talking point, despite the numerous media reports, whether you believe the environmental impacts to whales are valid or not.

Libs love to go off the rails in a completely different direction.  It like they're on the spectrum or something.

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 hours ago, RogerDodger said:

It's the construction process of anchoring giant windmills to the bottom of the ocean that is the problem.  Pile driving construction creates a lot of sound and vibration waves that whales are very sensitive to.

 

44 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

If you go down to the left hand photo in the middle of the article, that is a giant hydraulic hammer in the process of driving piles (long steel or precast concrete beams) into the ocean floor.  You can actually see the amount of energy transferred into the surrounding water.  If you don't think that has the potential do damage to sea life and and structure I don't know what to tell you.  It absolutely harms anything within a certain radius. 

 

You're claiming that the construction of the windmills is killing whales.  This is a lie.  There is no evidence to support this.

I've already linked a bunch of sources supporting that.  Here is one more:

Quote

 

However, NOAA Fisheries insists that wind turbines are not to blame.

“[T]here is no evidence to support speculation that noise resulting from wind development-related site characterisation surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales, and no specific links between recent large whale mortalities and currently ongoing surveys,” it says.

 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/21/fact-check-are-wind-turbines-killing-whales-off-americas-atlantic-coast

Trump said he saw 3 dead whiles over the weekend in South Carolina, obviously a lie too, but I dont think you defending that.

20 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

If you're going to call me a liar I'm going to ask for a link to exactly what I said.   Because as usual, it's probably your 3rd grade reading level interfering again.  

I linked your quotes above.

 

[RogerDodger 798]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

You're claiming that the construction of the windmills is killing whales.  This is a lie.  There is no evidence to support this

Just one link, that's all I ask, to where I actually said this.

I simply provided evidence to why Trump may think this, rather than the cause being his senility.  

 3rd grade reading level confirmed.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,425]

Biden said he used to swim with whales in Scranton. 

[RogerDodger 798]

3 hours ago, RogerDodger said:

  Pile driving construction creates a lot of sound and vibration waves that whales are very sensitive to. But, we will put you on the list of not giving a chit about that.  

True statement.  Is it the 100% the cause?  Who knows.  Did I say it killed all the whales?  No.

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

If you go down to the left hand photo in the middle of the article, that is a giant hydraulic hammer in the process of driving piles (long steel or precast concrete beams) into the ocean floor.  You can actually see the amount of energy transferred into the surrounding water.  If you don't think that has the potential do damage to sea life and and structure I don't know what to tell you.  It absolutely harms anything within a certain radius. 

True statement.  Is it the 100% the cause?  Who knows.  Did I say it killed all the whales?  No.

 

Do both of those things provide insight to why Trump may have said what he did?  Yes.

@GutterBoy  does that help Tiny Brain?

[GutterBoy 2,899]

11 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

True statement.  Is it the 100% the cause?  Who knows.  Did I say it killed all the whales?  No.

True statement.  Is it the 100% the cause?  Who knows.  Did I say it killed all the whales?  No.

 

Do both of those things provide insight to why Trump may have said what he did?  Yes.

@GutterBoy  does that help Tiny Brain?

OK, this is a good BACKPEDAL.

You put forth two theories as to why someone might believe what Trump said, but you're not saying you believe it.  You're just saying it's possible.

And I've provided multiple links as to there being ZERO evidence that any of this harms whales, but you still think it's possible.

[RogerDodger 798]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

OK, this is a good BACKPEDAL.

You put forth two theories as to why someone might believe what Trump said, but you're not saying you believe it.  You're just saying it's possible.

And I've provided multiple links as to there being ZERO evidence that any of this harms whales, but you still think it's possible.

Reading is so hard for you.

What's even better than the reading gaffes are the 3rd grade summaries of events.  Like little insights to how your little brain works.  

[thegeneral 3,209]

31 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Biden said he used to swim with whales in Scranton. 

Until those GD windmills showed up!

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

2 hours ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Meh.  The fact it’s bogus charges from a rogue state and he touched the firearm in a free state makes this all moot. 

Trying a little too hard here 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

2 hours ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

What applies to Father Trump?

You seriously call him this?

That's creepy in a der Fuhrer kind of way.

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

6 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

You seriously call him this?

That's creepy in a der Fuhrer kind of way.

Actually it’s closer to Stalin. Hitler was the aloof “leader”, but Stalin was considered, like Lenin and the Tsar before him, to be Father to the people. But your point is well taken. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Loose windmill blade causes Gulf catastrophe.

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Actually it’s closer to Stalin. Hitler was the aloof “leader”, but Stalin was considered, like Lenin and the Tsar before him, to be Father to the people. But your point is well taken. 

Yeah, it just underscores MAGAturdism's fanatical aspect.

[gas 157]

18 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

You seriously call him this?

That's creepy in a der Fuhrer kind of way.

They're just trolling when they call him "Father".

It's like they pooped their pants, and then laughed because a Lib smelled it.

[RogerDodger 798]

5 minutes ago, gas said:

They're just trolling when they call him "Father".

It's like they pooped their pants, and then laughed because a Lib smelled it.

Not the best analogy to use for a Biden Bro.  

[RogerDodger 798]