OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
How silly especially after I capitulated to the other side and already said you all won.
Sour grapes..
Sour grapes..
HACKERS REVEAL!! Climate change scientists have been manipulating and fixing data
- Thread starter Big P
- Start date
c5rftw
Well-Known Member
ill take your money for your carbon offsets man.. .i accept pay pal... you can complete trust me too. I work for the government
Woodstock.Hippie
New Member
Every Super-Secret Sane Scientist is aware Earth is Now at the End of an ice age.
BEFORE the heat cranks up.
BEFORE the heat cranks up.
doc111
Well-Known Member
The end of an ice age????? I thought the last ice age ended over 10,000 years ago.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
well for those of us that dont like war so much there does seem a better way of educating everyone. it seems that everywhere that women have a high level of education they choose to have children later in life only starting to have children when their counterpart would have had 4 or so alreadyThanks Woo, I'll check them out later.
Yes, population increases make all resources more scarce. Now we all can get behind the idea of culling animal herds which overpopulate, but when it comes to humans, it seems to be taboo.
We like to do it the old fashioned way. War.... We need more war.
so we got 3+ billion people to educate in the next 50 years perhaps if we manage that we'd be ok
Woodstock.Hippie
New Member
What is the best way to make lots of Catholics?
We love Catholics like everyone else.
Can we be in the End if it was officially 10,000 years ago?
Earth life always finds a way.
We love Catholics like everyone else.
Can we be in the End if it was officially 10,000 years ago?
Earth life always finds a way.
Shackleford.R
Well-Known Member
CrackerJax
New Member
It's not about education. 
It's about human nature. I don't condone war, no one does publicly, and yet man is always at war. We are a warlike species.
yes, we can all dream of the day man evolves to the next level, but we are still a superstitious ppl in many ways.
It won't happen anytime soon, and if you disarm early, ur society won't be around for the next jump.
It's about human nature. I don't condone war, no one does publicly, and yet man is always at war. We are a warlike species.
yes, we can all dream of the day man evolves to the next level, but we are still a superstitious ppl in many ways.
It won't happen anytime soon, and if you disarm early, ur society won't be around for the next jump.
jakethetank
Well-Known Member
If you dont believe climate is shifting or global warming is occurring your a moron. Look up the spruce beetle and and see how its habitat has spread as temperatures increase. Global seal level rise has increased, glacier thickness has gone down and retreat has increased. Oh also were pumping record greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which has been fluctuating our climate for the past 4 billion years.
CrackerJax
New Member
Few ppl believe the earth isn't changing. That is NOT what the issue is about.
Here's the reality of it. Few intelligent ppl believe MAN is causing the shift.
See the difference? Don't be fooled...
Here's the reality of it. Few intelligent ppl believe MAN is causing the shift.
See the difference? Don't be fooled...
Woodstock.Hippie
New Member
"Few intelligent ppl believe MAN is causing the shift."
Any Intelligents care to throw intelligent numbers down a Rabbit Hole and listen to what screams down there?
We believe if you were to define "Intelligent", then measure the number of Real People Aware of the Shifts,
the Real Numbers are Vast, not few.
Please Break Our Logic.
Any Intelligents care to throw intelligent numbers down a Rabbit Hole and listen to what screams down there?
We believe if you were to define "Intelligent", then measure the number of Real People Aware of the Shifts,
the Real Numbers are Vast, not few.
Please Break Our Logic.
CrackerJax
New Member
You owe $666.66 ... pay up!!! Oh and stop exhaling CO2 or ur bill will rise further.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
So rather than see the results of lessening CO2 emissions we should just keep heading towards that tipping point, when Greenland goes its bon voyage New York, London. The sure way to decide is to stop polluting for a set period and see what happens, do it the other way round and the choice will be gone.
Big P
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Developing countries boycott UN climate talks[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Email this Story[/FONT]
Dec 14, 8:58 AM (ET)
By MICHAEL CASEY
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif,Arial]
[/FONT]
COPENHAGEN (AP) - China, India and other developing nations boycotted U.N. climate talks on Monday, bringing negotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
Representatives from developing countries - a bloc of 135 nations - said they refused to participate in any formal working groups at the 192-nation summit until the issue was resolved.
The African-led move was a setback for the Copenhagen talks, which were already faltering over long-running disputes between rich and poor nations over emissions cuts and financing for developing countries to deal with climate change.
However, the move Monday was largely seen as a ploy to shift the agenda to the responsibilities of the industrial countries and make emissions reductions the first item for discussion when world leaders begin arriving Tuesday.
"I don't think the talks are falling apart, but we're losing time," said Kim Carstensen, of the World Wildlife Fund. The developing countries "are making a point."
The dispute came as the conference entered its second week, and only days before over 100 world leaders including President Barack Obama were scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen.
"Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard of Denmark bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.
Poor countries, supported by China, say Hedegaard had raised suspicion that the conference was likely to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which limited carbon emissions by wealthy countries and imposed penalties for failing to meet those targets.
Poor countries want to extend that treaty because it commits rich nations to emissions cuts and imposes penalties if they fall short. The United States withdrew from Kyoto over concerns that it would harm the U.S. economy and that China, India and other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to take action.
"We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
It was the second time the Africans have disrupted the climate talks. At the last round of negotiations in November, the African bloc forced a one-day suspension until wealthy countries agreed to spell out what steps they will take to reduce emissions.
An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.
U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer said Hedegaard was holding informal consultations with delegates "to get things going."
In Washington, The White House on Monday announced a new program drawing funds from international partners to spend $350 million over five years to give developing nations clean energy technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming.
The program will distribute solar power alternatives for homes, including sun-powered lanterns, supply cleaner equipment and appliances and work to develop renewable energy systems in the world's poorer nations.
The funding plan grew out of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) established among the world's top economies earlier this year.
The U.S. share of the program will amount to $85 million with the remainder coming from Australia, Britain, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, the White House said in a statement.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Energy Secretary Steven Chu is to coordinate with partners in the group to insure immediate action on the program.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said he would arrive in Copenhagen on Tuesday - two days earlier than previously planned - in an attempt to inject momentum into the climate talks.
"His view is that these negotiations can't wait until the last minute. He believes that we have learnt the lessons from the G-20, that it takes leadership to get involved and try to pull together what is required as soon as possible," Brown's spokesman Simon Lewis told reporters in London.
Lewis denied that Brown - facing a national election by June - was seeking to personal credit if a deal is struck. "He is not seeking to push himself forward, but he has taken a personal view that it is important that, if world leaders can, they should get there early," the spokesman said.
Earlier Monday, British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said it's up to him and his counterparts in Copenhagen to help bridge that gap between rich and poor countries and "not to leave everything" to the world leaders.
"There are still difficult issues of process and substance that we have to overcome in the coming days," Miliband said. "Can we get the emission cuts we need? We need higher ambition from others and we will be pushing for that." ---_
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Email this Story[/FONT]Dec 14, 8:58 AM (ET)
By MICHAEL CASEY
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif,Arial]
[/FONT]
COPENHAGEN (AP) - China, India and other developing nations boycotted U.N. climate talks on Monday, bringing negotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
Representatives from developing countries - a bloc of 135 nations - said they refused to participate in any formal working groups at the 192-nation summit until the issue was resolved.
The African-led move was a setback for the Copenhagen talks, which were already faltering over long-running disputes between rich and poor nations over emissions cuts and financing for developing countries to deal with climate change.
However, the move Monday was largely seen as a ploy to shift the agenda to the responsibilities of the industrial countries and make emissions reductions the first item for discussion when world leaders begin arriving Tuesday.
"I don't think the talks are falling apart, but we're losing time," said Kim Carstensen, of the World Wildlife Fund. The developing countries "are making a point."
The dispute came as the conference entered its second week, and only days before over 100 world leaders including President Barack Obama were scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen.
"Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard of Denmark bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.
Poor countries, supported by China, say Hedegaard had raised suspicion that the conference was likely to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which limited carbon emissions by wealthy countries and imposed penalties for failing to meet those targets.
Poor countries want to extend that treaty because it commits rich nations to emissions cuts and imposes penalties if they fall short. The United States withdrew from Kyoto over concerns that it would harm the U.S. economy and that China, India and other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to take action.
"We are seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol," said Djemouai Kamel of Algeria, the head of the 50-nation Africa group.
It was the second time the Africans have disrupted the climate talks. At the last round of negotiations in November, the African bloc forced a one-day suspension until wealthy countries agreed to spell out what steps they will take to reduce emissions.
An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.
U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer said Hedegaard was holding informal consultations with delegates "to get things going."
In Washington, The White House on Monday announced a new program drawing funds from international partners to spend $350 million over five years to give developing nations clean energy technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming.
The program will distribute solar power alternatives for homes, including sun-powered lanterns, supply cleaner equipment and appliances and work to develop renewable energy systems in the world's poorer nations.
The funding plan grew out of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) established among the world's top economies earlier this year.
The U.S. share of the program will amount to $85 million with the remainder coming from Australia, Britain, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, the White House said in a statement.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Energy Secretary Steven Chu is to coordinate with partners in the group to insure immediate action on the program.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said he would arrive in Copenhagen on Tuesday - two days earlier than previously planned - in an attempt to inject momentum into the climate talks.
"His view is that these negotiations can't wait until the last minute. He believes that we have learnt the lessons from the G-20, that it takes leadership to get involved and try to pull together what is required as soon as possible," Brown's spokesman Simon Lewis told reporters in London.
Lewis denied that Brown - facing a national election by June - was seeking to personal credit if a deal is struck. "He is not seeking to push himself forward, but he has taken a personal view that it is important that, if world leaders can, they should get there early," the spokesman said.
Earlier Monday, British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said it's up to him and his counterparts in Copenhagen to help bridge that gap between rich and poor countries and "not to leave everything" to the world leaders.
"There are still difficult issues of process and substance that we have to overcome in the coming days," Miliband said. "Can we get the emission cuts we need? We need higher ambition from others and we will be pushing for that." ---_
[/FONT]
Big P
Well-Known Member
RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Job Approval Falls to New Low at 44%...
http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5235/1131554/0/170/AdId=566376;BnId=1;itime=802372227;key=4547+key2+key3+key4;nodecode=yes;link=http://www.grassfire.com/122/petition.asp?pid=2316200
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.
Thats a one point improvement from yesterday when Obamas Approval Index rating fell to the lowest level yet recorded. Prior to the past three days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obamas time in office (see trends).
As the health care plan struggles in the Senate, public opposition remains stable.Fifty-six percent (56% ) oppose the plan working its way through Congress while just 40% favor it. In Nevada, the health care bill is causing problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids bid for re-election.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Thats the lowest level yet measured for this president. Previously, his overall approval rating had fallen to 45% twice, once in early September and once in late November.
Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while
80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval.
The President earns approval from 37% of White voters and 98% of African-American voters.
(More Below)
Check out our review of the weeks key polls to see What They Told Us.
Rasmussen Reports has released updated polls on the 2010 Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and California.Overall, the results confirm the conventional wisdom that the mid-term election season is off to a tough start for the Democrats. However, there is a long way to go until November.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters ,health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.
In the 2009 New Jersey Governors race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment,If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen! During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record
in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup. During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling errorfor the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last weeks key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking
http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5235/1131554/0/170/AdId=566376;BnId=1;itime=802372227;key=4547+key2+key3+key4;nodecode=yes;link=http://www.grassfire.com/122/petition.asp?pid=2316200
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.
Thats a one point improvement from yesterday when Obamas Approval Index rating fell to the lowest level yet recorded. Prior to the past three days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obamas time in office (see trends).
As the health care plan struggles in the Senate, public opposition remains stable.Fifty-six percent (56% ) oppose the plan working its way through Congress while just 40% favor it. In Nevada, the health care bill is causing problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids bid for re-election.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Thats the lowest level yet measured for this president. Previously, his overall approval rating had fallen to 45% twice, once in early September and once in late November.
Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while
80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval.
The President earns approval from 37% of White voters and 98% of African-American voters.
(More Below)
Check out our review of the weeks key polls to see What They Told Us.
Rasmussen Reports has released updated polls on the 2010 Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and California.Overall, the results confirm the conventional wisdom that the mid-term election season is off to a tough start for the Democrats. However, there is a long way to go until November.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters ,health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.
In the 2009 New Jersey Governors race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment,If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen! During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record
in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup. During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling errorfor the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last weeks key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
climate issue^^^^^^^^^^^?????????
CrackerJax
New Member
If there is a tipping point. Carbon just isn't the culprit in global warming. It is easy to identify and tax however.
When science gets hijacked by politics.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
I understand the concerns you raise, fortunately Britain is not using carbon offsetting etc to gain in monetary terms to the degree the US seems to be. Did you watch those links I posted before? Methane is a huge issue CJ. There is no historical parallel to compare with the output of methane that is present today.
Big P
Well-Known Member
i think its related. when your trying to charge somone fees and threatening thier jobs over a bogus / unproven claims
usually its not takin too kindly by the people they are trying to hustle
i have a feeling obama decided early on he would not run for a second term after his first one ends
i think he realizes he is still very young and can always run again in several years
think about it
then he can say to any president who replaces him to not retract his policies or "he'll be back" to fix it
hes gambling i know thats for sure, and why not gamble when you were thrown the presidency of the united states on a whim without any credentials that garantee the office would be safe in his hands.