One of the problems with Trump is that even he doesn't know what he'll do. He doesn't seem to like input from anyone if it is not what he wants to hear. He paraded around Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, like he did Mitt Romney, just because he could. These people had to try, but it was all theater.
When he wanted a seawall at his golf course, climate change was a really serious issue. When he didn't, it was a hoax created by the Chinese. (When a comment doesn't go well he sometimes later says he was being sarcastic or making a joke, or kind of at least partly, like when he encouraged Russia to hack emails) The list of issues he has been on both sides on is extremely long, probably encompassing a vast majority of the issues he has given an opinion on, sometimes changing within a span of days, minutes and even within a sentence. (Seriously, there's in-depth articles documenting it. It's nuts.)
In regard to climate change in his interview today:
"I'm still open-minded. Nobody really knows,' Trump said. 'Look, I'm somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It's not something that's so hard and fast. I do know this: Other countries are eating our lunch.'"
He says things, but there is no answer there. He has done that most every time he speaks. I really believe the man has serious mental issues. He rambles on, people scratch their heads, and there is no followup question from the media. (Or like the other day on CNN when Pence was asked a question about something over a half-dozen times and he simply gave the same answer every time, without answering the simple yes or no question.)
The media was not prepared for Trump. In an effort to attempt to cover both sides equally, they let Trump off so very, very easy. The serious reporting came late, too late, since most thought it was all a joke, he would never make it. He didn't get pressed for actual stances on issues. You could simply find a clip of Trump supporting your opinion. On most issues he had one opinion, and then the opposite opinion. I think some Trump supporters took this as something he had to do. They knew, or rather thought they knew, what his actual position was, and when he said the opposite they knew he was just trying to reach independents and some Democrats. The media was able to focus on mainly one or two issues with Clinton and with Trump there was so many you couldn't cover them all so that people could understand. And when the media tried to bring up each and every falsehood, it was spun as the mainstream media at it again, being biased.
When Clinton was accused of not doing press conferences, didn't people understand that Trump's version, when he did do them, were just as bad as not having one? He didn't let reporters have their questions recorded with a microphone so people watching usually couldn't hear the questions from the reporters and Trump could say whatever, and sometimes attack the reporter for being unfair too. Sometimes he called things press conferences, but he never took questions. Sometimes he just promoted his brand.
Some of the media also assumed, especially early on, that they could play Trump speeches all the time and that people would realize how nuts he was. Enough people didn't. Instead they got indoctrinated. What he said became normalized.
The conspiracies being floated around though are insane.
I was reading an article about a week ago from one of the major papers Trump attacks. It was trying to give the whole story about one of the people Trump appointed, Flynn, saying the appointee probably didn't actually spread some false conspiracies that may have helped lead to an armed incident at a pizza restaurant, it was his son who was his Chief of Staff who did that. The funny part was that it was trying to be very clear in its reporting. It was the son who spread some of the false conspiracy theories of a child prostitution ring lead by Clinton at a pizza restaurant. That was all started by someone on an obscure message board saying "pizza" was a keyword for "child prostitution" in one of the hacked emails the Russians released. The person who will now be National Security Advisor, a position that requires no Senate confirmation, was instead likely spreading false conspiracies about another
child prostitution ring that Clinton headed. This media organization was literally trying to be as accurate as possible in their reporting. It shouldn't be necessary to say, but these were all lies. (This particular appointee has plenty of other crazy stuff that he has said.) I remember this stuff before election day, on various social media. And some supporters of Trump believe all these newspapers and other media simply report fake news all day long.
Tonight I was reading about how someone else who has been considered for Secretary of State, Bolton, won't rule out the U.S. possibly being behind the hacks, rather than Russia, as a possible political operation by Obama. Meanwhile, Trump can't admit that Russia could have possibly been involved because it would mean he might not have won the electoral college otherwise. He won that, assuming electors vote for him, but then claimed he would have won the popular vote if the three million people who voted illegally were not counted. That came from a random Tweet from someone who doesn't trust the media enough to provide the evidence of that. (Of which there is none of course, I could make the same claim the other way around and say prove I'm wrong.)
I look at these things and then I think about how science is going to be treated. If you can't prove something is false, then it must be true. That's not how science works, but that is how so much in this campaign has been done. And I can't help but think millions of people are starting to think this way. So many people in the new administration think this way. The media is being sidelined. Why have a press core at the White House? Why ever take any questions? If the media is shut out, how will it do its job going forward? We need the media to continue asking questions and demanding answers, on science and everything else.
Regardless of political ideology, we need to start dealing in facts again, not having feelings about what someone wants to be true or thinks to be true to be equivalent to, or considered greater than, actual facts. Oxford Dictionary's word of the year was "post-truth". ("relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief")
Science and logic have been thrown out the window. If someone can't understand the science, doesn't want to take the time to try to, or it isn't politically convenient to even consider it, it's just thrown out.
I've been reading articles from concerned scientists. Not just in regards to the climate though. It's like we're throwing out the scientific method. The science doesn't matter. It isn't real, if someone thinks it isn't. That's where we are. Many of the people who will shape and set policy believe these things. That alone is frightening, let alone all the rest of the stuff that we won't get into.
In more news though, the new likely Secretary of State of the U.S., Tillerson, who received the Order of Friendship award from Putin, is the CEO of ExxonMobil. Trump is drawing it out, but that seems at the moment to be the most likely person for the pick. (He does this kind of thing for suspense, but sometimes he might do something else just to remain unpredictable.) As CEO Tillerson has been more supportive of climate change, but we don't know what his personal views are. (And in the new administration some of the oil companies might go back to some of their old ways.) He has to make it through a Senate confirmation if picked and may not for his Russia ties. At this point it's like hoping for the best out of the worst in regards to some of these picks.
I should note that I don't mean to offend any Republicans. This is not about a particular party losing. That's just how things work in a democracy. But this is different. We need to make sure that we continue to base decisions off facts. That has never been much of a question until now. Regardless of who is in power, that must always remain constant.