Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DonaldD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:26:30 PM »
So Republicans in 2001 were the enemies of conservatives, and were murdering people, got it.

2
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:23:36 PM »
Annals of Internal Medecine: Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based, Risk-Based Approach
Quote
Although no direct evidence indicates that cloth masks are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence that they reduce contamination of air and surfaces is convincing and should suffice to inform policy decisions on their use in this pandemic pending further research.

Cloth does not stop isolated virions. However, most virus transmission occurs via larger particles in secretions, whether aerosol (<5 µm) or droplets (>5 µm), which are generated directly by speaking, eating, coughing, and sneezing; aerosols are also created when water evaporates from smaller droplets, which become aerosol-sized droplet nuclei. The point is not that some particles can penetrate but that some particles are stopped, particularly in the outward direction. Every virus-laden particle retained in a mask is not available to hang in the air as an aerosol or fall to a surface to be later picked up by touch.
Quote
Outward protection for cloth masks was extensively studied decades ago, and the results are highly relevant today. Compared with bacteria recovery from unmasked volunteers, a mask made of muslin and flannel reduced bacteria recovered on agar sedimentation plates by 99.3% to 99.9%, total airborne microorganisms by 99.5% to 99.8%, and bacteria recovered from aerosols (<4 µm) by 88% to 99% (6). A similar experiment in 1975 compared 4 medical masks and 1 commercially produced reusable mask made of 4 layers of cotton muslin (7). Filtration efficiency, assessed by bacterial counts, was 96% to 99% for the medical masks and 99% for the cloth mask; for aerosols (<3.3 µm), it was 72% to 89% and 89%, respectively.

3
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:50:51 PM »
My point wasn't about reality, but rather of perceptions of reality and consistency...

You can certainly believe that the COVID-19 death rate is not worse than that of the flu, if you don't believe the numbers.  But 50% of Republicans believe that the COVID-19 death counts are at least 100,000 in the USA, So at least 20% of those folks, (and likely a fraction of the other 50%, too) hold the completely conflicting opinion that the death rate from seasonal flu is just as bad as that of COVID-19.

4
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:39:09 PM »
Gallup poll on perceptions of COVID-19

A few factoids:
  • From the survey, 50% of Republicans believe the death count associated to COVID-19 is overstated.  Equivalently, 50% of Republicans believe that the death count is either understated or accurate.
  • From the survey, 40% of Republicans believe the death rate for COVID-19 is greater than the seasonal flu... meaning that 60% of Republicans either have no opinion or do not believe the COVID-19 death rate is greater than that of the seasonal flu.
  • 100,000 people in the USA have died in the past 2 months from COVID-19, while people have been self isolating, shops have been closed, etc, etc for the past 2 months.
  • The seasonal flu kills between 15,000 and 80,000 people, with normal flu seasons falling in the 30,000-40,000 range.
  • Seemingly, Republicans can't/don't/won't do math

5
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:30:30 PM »
I am also getting a mild laugh about how Donald's talking about forcings and various other external inputs and using pretty much the skeptics arguments about why the models have problems predicting the future as a justification for why correcting the older models should be considered permissible.
Again, you misunderstand - the models are not being changed - what you referred to as the 'math' earlier.  The GHG forcing input values are being changed.  That is not the same thing.  Also, the older models actually did not need input corrections to be consistent with actual GHG forcings, and were consistent with observed temperature increases (with the exception of the one model that ran cool due to, yes, predicted GHG levels being lower than actuals.

Basically, everything in that statement was off the mark.

6
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:15:17 PM »
The unaltered models were wildly wrong, and almost universally ran hot(as I said, a scant handful came close to the ballpark out of dozens). From what Serati is reporting, the "corrected" models still run warm, but are lurking within their error bars, so victory can be claimed by them, for now.
DonaldD, I was reacting to this claim that you made:  "Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures," when citing to the study.

That was false, if you don't qualify it - which you did not.  When TheDeamon quite accurately speculated about what they must have done, based on having seen the original studies, you claimed it was handwaiving. 
I think you are misreading the paper.

The models from the early 70s were very consistent with observed future temperatures.  Of the 17 models compared, 10 were already consistent with future observed temperatures, and all of the models from the early 70s fall into that category (well, with one exception, where the model under-predicted temperatures - and not coincidentally, the forecasted CO2 forcings for that paper/model were 'too' low.) The models that most benefitted from the corrected forcings were released in 1977, 1981 and 1988 - not the early 1970s.
Quote
Using the temperature versus time metric, 10 of the 17 model projections show results consistent with observations. Of the remaining seven model projections, four project more warming than observed—N77, ST81, and H88 Scenarios A and B—while three project less warming than observed—RS71, H81 Scenario 2a, and H88 Scenario C.
So 10 were consistent, 4 ran high, and 3 ran low.  And that changes to 14 consistent after using the corrected forcing values.

So no, the claim about the models from the early 1970s was not, in fact, false.

7
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:17:19 AM »
Two examples - the Montreal Protocol on (CFCs and other gases) was signed in 1987.  The resulting reduction in CFC emissions (CFC being a GHG) had the result of reducing effective GHG warming by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions associated to burning fossil fuels in 2006.

The Kyoto agreement had a similar effect on emissions.  The Montreal Protocol and Its Implications for Climate Change
Quote
With little new production, CFC banks alone are estimated to decline from 16 Gigatons CO2‐equivalent (GtCO2‐eq) in 2002 to 8 GtCO2‐eq in 2015, with most of the decline in the BAU scenario accounted for by emissions rather than controlled recovery. This cumulative decline is broadly equivalent to the entire global CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels in 2006.

Was the signing and implementation of GHG treaties a 'mistake' of the models ("yeah, they got it wrong the first time, but that's because we didn't have the math for modeling it then")?

This is the same argument we are seeing with COVID-19, where top line numbers are being quoted ("They said 2 MILLION PEOPLES WERE GOING TO DIE!!  It's only been 100,000!") while completely ignoring the context of the numbers. Changing the inputs is necessarily going to change the outputs of the models.

8
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:58:36 AM »
I have to assume you are still incapable of understanding what the models are, as opposed to being purposefully dense.

You claim that the models are wrong because a number of them have reality at the very low end of the 'range' of 'projected' warming, but then ignore the point that the 'range' spans a number of forcing input sets, and you don't exclude those ranges that do not match what eventually happened with the input forcings.

9
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 08:53:23 PM »
So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:
Quote
The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
as I read it, the study author's recalculated the models using observed results from 2018 on certain forcing concepts (that's section is technical, but it looks like it's the rate that increases in certain factors directly increase/decrease temperature).  They viewed this as fair because the rate of forcing was unknown when the models were generated and they had a number of them now calculated in 2018.  Based on the recalculation there was no over or under bias - I think if you looked at the actual predictions of the models (figure 2) you see the models are mostly on the high end of the observed trend. 
Yes - that was the point of the study - using actual emission rates of CO2 and other GHGs, as opposed to estimated future emissions, how accurate are the models.  Some of the papers in fact used a number of different scenarios, e.g., CO2 increases by 100ppm in scenario X, 75ppm in scenario Y and 50 in scenario Z, but the actual CO2 increase was, for argument's sake, 60ppm.  Rerunning 4 of the models where actual forcing were significantly different than the estimates yielded significantly improved results.  Here's the thing - the models never were meant as predictors of forcing - forcings are always inputs to the models.

Changes in technology, economies and natural processes like volcanoes and even solar irradiance were always going to introduce potential divergence from the models - but this should not be confused with error margins.  This is pretty basic.

Quote
I think one could just as easily read this a demonstrating the exact principal that models fail at predictions because of what the modellers don't actually understand and that their biases get incorporated in place of that understanding.  I mean take a look at the "hockey stick" reformulation - they call it H88 - and what you don't see is a hockey stick.  Is that a fair "test" of that model's prediction?
This would be a complete misunderstanding of what the models are designed to do - the models are completely dependent on literally hundreds of variables, and the forcing variables are not an output of the models; nobody ever claimed they were - quite the opposite.  That you think the "hockey stick" is somehow inherent in the model, as opposed to a result of both the model and the estimated forcing, is a challenge with your understanding.

I suppose you could blame climate scientists for not being able to read the future of economies and fossil fuel usage accurately enough, but again, that has nothing to do with the models.

10
On Memorial Day, Trump attacks and lies about Marine Corps veteran Conor Lamb:
Quote
Sean Parnell is an American Hero. Connor Lamm has proven to be an American fraud, and a puppet for Crazy Nancy Pelosi. He said he would NOT vote for her for Speaker, and did. Will kill 2A. Voted to impeach (on nothing). A TOTAL & COMPLETE Sean Parnell Endorsement!

11
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 07:52:37 PM »
Yet her family said she had no heart condition and was in top health.
But what does her family actually say?  Foxnews: Twitter deeply sorry it hasn't deleted Trump's tweets
Quote
"Nearly 19 years ago, my wife, who had an undiagnosed heart condition, fell and hit her head on her desk at work. She was found dead the next morning. Her name is Lori Kaye Klausutis and she was 28 years old when she died. Her passing is the single most painful thing that I have ever had to deal with in my 52 years and continues to haunt her parents and sister,” Timothy J. Klausutis wrote. “I have mourned my wife every day since her passing.”

12
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 07:40:33 PM »
Oh, wmLambert, the pretzels you twist yourself into to avoid cognitive dissonance...

Can you admit that Scarborough announced his resignation two month's prior to Klausutis' death?  And can you answer why Scarborough's divorce, two years prior to his resignation, is even pertinent? (let's not even get into how '2 years later' can be characterized as 'suddenly')

Can you admit that the autopsy listed the cause of death, head trauma, as precipitated by complications of a heart condition, and that her death was ruled accidental? (as an aside, there have been professional athletes that have died from undiagnosed heart conditions - it is not exactly unheard of.)

Can you admit that Scarborough was in Washington at the time of her death?

As for "When the MSM doesn't give any coverage to an issue, and the few news outlets that do are all taken down and not archived" I provided you a link to the wayback machine archive of the Florida Times Union story from 2001.

As for the family, what do they say?  Well, we don't have to guess - here is what her widower is saying right now:
Quote
The frequency, intensity, ugliness, and promulgation of these horrifying lies ever increases on the internet. These conspiracy theorists, including most recently the president of the United States, continue to spread their bile and misinformation on your platform disparaging the memory of my wife and our marriage.
It would seem the family isn't so much upset with Scarborough as with Trump spreading lies about how she died (and presumably, internet wack jobs that repeat those conspiracy theories.)

13
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 01:27:22 PM »
Also, why did he suddenly resign and drop out of sight?
You are insinuating here that Scarborough left Congress in some way as a response to Klausutis' death... but he announced his departure from Congress 2 months before she died. The question is how could you not have known this?  You are parroting a conspiracy theory and slandering a real person - why would you not do even the most basic fact checking?

14
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 01:13:12 PM »
Have you even seen a reference to the autopsy, wmLambert?  If not, why are you making baseless accusations?  If you did, why are you making baseless accusations?

15
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:48:56 PM »
Just three weeks ago - long after the IMHE model blew up and was abandoned, the CDC said (and the NYTimes breathlessly echoed) we'd currently (as in right now) be experiencing a doubling of infections and 3K deaths a day by June 1st. Someone needs to ask these experts the same question Marge once asked Homer: "don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time"?
Is this actually true - did "the CDC" actually say this? 

I found the New York Times article in question: A Trump administration projection and a public model predict rising death tolls.
Quote
As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of coronavirus cases and deaths over the next several weeks. The daily death toll will reach about 3,000 on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, a 70 percent increase from the current number of about 1,750.

The projections, based on government modeling pulled together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases a day currently.

The numbers underscore a sobering reality: The United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks to try slowing the spread of the virus, but reopening the economy will make matters worse.
“There remains a large number of counties whose burden continues to grow,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned.
So, this was a leaked internal projection put together by FEMA.  We also don't know what parameters they were using to come up with the increase in infections, although we do know the projection is based on at least some amount of restriction relaxation (and we know that those assumptions can change projections drastically - which may be why the administration wasn't sharing the numbers.)

All the CDC is saying in the article is that there are still many counties where infection rates are rising.

16
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:01:34 PM »

Here's a link to the Hausfather paper, TheDaemon, with an excerpt of the inclusion criteria for papers/models being evaluated.Evaluating the performance of past  climate model projections
Quote
We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria
Feel free to link to papers that meet these pretty basic criteria and which were excluded from the study.

And note that, notwithstanding your claim, the IPCC assessment reports did include the results from a number of these models in their analyses.

17
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 11:26:48 AM »
So, more hand-waving.

18
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 11:07:58 AM »
So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:
Quote
The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.


19
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:39:05 AM »
And you also continue to overlook that whole matter of the models consistently running on the hot side, often by very significant margins
I know this is an article of faith, but it is simply not true.

Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
Quote
In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

20
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 26, 2020, 09:31:44 AM »
Probably less than 1% of the population is currently infected with the virus, Crunch.  What do you think?

21
General Comments / Re: You have no right
« on: May 25, 2020, 11:33:06 PM »
Uh, Seriati's "batting average" is a fair bit higher than wmLambert's on that front, not sure what you've been sniffing lately, but it must be "good stuff."
This might help:
Quote
Seriati get(s) it "right" every time, but not in the way that you mean.  You're "right" even more than he is.

22
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 25, 2020, 11:24:16 PM »
Do you ever ask yourself why you believe what you believe?  Why you believe that, as a guy who works, and spends so much time thinking about COVID-19, sheriffs, the constitution and Joe Biden, that your very rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics is just so much more thorough than literally thousands of people who have spent their careers, full time, thinking about these topics? That solar irradiance is somehow less understood by them than by someone with no education in the subject matter and who has invested, oh, dozens of hours into it?  That this low-hanging fruit never occurred to anybody else?

23
General Comments / Re: You have no right
« on: May 25, 2020, 09:48:51 PM »

24
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 25, 2020, 08:39:01 PM »
I'd strongly suspect the sickle cell trait is contributing in that statistic. 
Why would you think so?  Seriously, why would you not assume it to be beneficial, or neutral?  As opposed to say obesity, hypertension or diabetes?

25
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 25, 2020, 08:32:33 PM »
Solar irradiance has been trending downwards for more than 70 years, and steeply downwards for 30 years, the exact opposite of the temperature trend.  Are you suggesting the resulting signal response for solar irradiance has a delay of more than 60 years?

26
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 25, 2020, 07:10:29 PM »
But where does this certainty come from?  Is it from your full time job studying the changes to solar irradiance and their effects on climate?

The very first graph in the link you yourself provided should have at the very least made you question your certainty. As for waiting to see "what happens should things continue", we are currently experiencing the lowest solar irradiance for 100 years, and have seen a steep decline in irradiance for the past 30 years, yet the temperature trend completely diverges from the irradiance, and has been doing so for the past 80 years.  How much longer are you going to wait?

27
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 25, 2020, 05:17:16 PM »
Assuming a grand minimum equivalent to the Maunder minimum of the 1600s, meaning a reduction of 0.25% of solar irradiance over the 20th century average, we would expect to see, using the largest uncertainty factor, a -0.3oC reduction in temperature by 2100 (Feulner and Rahmstorf) as compared to modelled increases of 3.7oC and 4.5oC respectively for the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios.

So yes, assuming a really deep grand minimum actually occurs, and using the outer bounds of the uncertainty, there could be a temporary offset of less than 10% of projected warming over the next century using the most likely emission scenarios.

28
Not to mention - the data does NOT currently support having ~10,000 people from every state and many if not most counties in the country mingling in enclosed areas for days on end.

The only way you get there in August is by trusting models and correct me if I'm wrong - but the people who resist questioning Trump on this topic are those most cynical about modelling...

29
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 25, 2020, 02:27:51 PM »
If nothing else moves you, we have to think about the world we're going to leave to Betty White

30
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 25, 2020, 01:43:53 PM »
Sobering thought: health outcomes related to poverty and correlated ethnicities cannot be ignored.

Twitter: Dr. Tung Nguyen
Quote
In the midst of all the things that have turned our world upside down, the one that has stuck to me the most?

1 out of every 2,000 African Americans have died from #COVID19

In 3 months


31
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 25, 2020, 01:12:25 PM »
What did poor Jeff Sessions ever do to Trump?

32
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 25, 2020, 01:08:59 PM »
To date, there have been about 1,700,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the USA.  Even if that is off by an order of magnitude, that would still mean less than 5% of the population of the USA has been infected.  That simply isn't enough to significantly slow down the spread of the virus, even assuming, best case, that those people can no longer carry or spread the virus themselves.

And it still leaves a pool of potential victims 19 times the size of those already infected.

33
Anybody who makes a commitment now about what will be allowed in August is not being completely honest.

And anybody asking for a commitment now for what will occur in August is simply posturing, politically.

Agree with the first but not the second. If we're basing policies on science, why shouldn't commitments be made if/when the data supports them? Unless you're saying that there is no data that would ever support a commitment for August? The fallback used to be "just wait 2 weeks" but as everything remains relatively stable it's shifted to 'there's just so much we still don't know".

Reminds me of a crude joke that ends with the hunter telling the bear "I definitely get the feeling you're not a normal bear." to which the bear replies "I definitely get the feeling you're not out here just to hunt".
A commitment made now is written on tissue paper.  Anybody can make a commitment for August, but does anybody really believe that if things go sideways in late July, even if just in certain geographical areas of the country, that new regulations would not be implemented, and that those regulations just might restrict attendance to groups of the size of political conventions?  And that these restrictions would not be contingent on a 'guarantee' made by one politician to another politician in May?  I guarantee that everybody in the RNC already knows this.


34
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 25, 2020, 12:52:49 PM »
After 100K deaths in the US, Covid now appears to have the same mortality rate as seasonal flu for relatively healthy people under 60. It appears to be much more deadly than the flu for those over 85, and a statistical non-factor for anyone under 30, in fact flu is much deadlier for younger people than Covid. These are highly inconvenient facts for the "masks outside - show respect!" crowd, but reality has a habit of eventually winning out.
Hmmm...

In the USA, for those above 18 and below about 60, COVID-19 is about 5 times deadlier than the average flu (different flu strains have different age-related death rates): Business Insider: flu vs COVID-19

The death rates for children in the USA may be slightly worse for the flu, but the difference is in the range of 1/100s of percentage points.

Worldwide, however, even those in the 10-19 age range have higher COVID-19 death rates (0.2%) than for the flu.

35
Anybody who makes a commitment now about what will be allowed in August is not being completely honest.

And anybody asking for a commitment now for what will occur in August is simply posturing, politically.

36
Quote
I love the Great State of North Carolina, so much so that I insisted on having the Republican National Convention in Charlotte at the end of August. Unfortunately, Democrat Governor, @RoyCooperNC is still in Shutdown mood & unable to guarantee that by August we will be allowed full attendance in the Arena. In other words, we would be spending millions of dollars building the Arena to a very high standard without even knowing if the Democrat Governor would allow the Republican Party to fully occupy the space. Plans are being made by many thousands of enthusiastic Republicans, and others, to head to beautiful North Carolina in August. They must be immediately given an answer by the Governor as to whether or not the space will be allowed to be fully occupied.

37
Quote
When will they open a Cold Case on the Psycho Joe Scarborough matter in Florida. Did he get away with murder?
:o

This man is the head of the US government...  the real one, not just on The Simpsons .
...and... Trump doubles-down on the stupid
Quote
A blow to her head? Body found under his desk? Left Congress suddenly? Big topic of discussion in Florida...and, he’s a Nut Job (with bad ratings). Keep digging, use forensic geniuses!

38
General Comments / Re: You have no right
« on: May 24, 2020, 05:40:27 PM »
I'm unclear if you are referring to the quoted evidence of sheriffs ignoring legislatures as somehow evidence of anti-second amendment animus, but if so, let me put your mind at ease - that was just an example showing that the sheriffs we're proposing to ignore duly passed laws, not governors' fiats.

As for disputes between legislatures, my understanding is those are brought before your judicial system when a conflict arises. 

39
General Comments / Re: You have no right
« on: May 24, 2020, 05:12:23 PM »
Presumably the position they are stating (I'm not familiar with the movement) is that a governor or Congressman doesn't have the authority to tell them to do things that they see as unconstitutional.
Not familiar, yet you felt it necessary to try to interpret wmLambert's incisive as usual post, and debate Kasandra's dispute of that post's contents...

So what is the 'movement about? google is your friend...
Quote
A debate centering around New Mexico Senate Bill 8, which would call for universal background checks for gun buyers in New Mexico, ignited a fervor among county sheriffs who said such laws are unconstitutional as they infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights – the right to "keep and bear arms." 

The bill was passed by the New Mexico Senate of Friday.
So no, it's not about the right to ignore a governor or Congressman, it is literally about sheriffs having the authority to decide when to ignore laws passed by legislatures - the people. Either sheriffs have no authority to enforce state laws, or they are responsible for enforcing them all (at least, those under their jurisdiction) - and if they have a problem with that, they do have an option - and it isn't ignoring the laws that they don't want to enforce.

40
General Comments / Re: You have no right
« on: May 24, 2020, 10:33:11 AM »
No. You completely misrepresented it. Strawman fallacy ....again
Explain what part, specifically, you think is a strawman

41
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 23, 2020, 03:53:33 PM »
Quote from: ScottF
edit: just for grins I went to MSNBC and CNN just now and the story is no where to be found. All those hard hitting Tara Reade articles must be putting space at a premium.
I have no doubt that CNN focuses more on negative Trump spin, whereas Fox focuses more on negative Biden spin, but here's another CNN article currently on the 'front page':   GOP Sen. Tim Scott says Biden's black voters comment is 'condescending and arrogant'

42
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 23, 2020, 01:39:00 PM »
The US has the 3rd highest daily growth in the fatality rate/million from COVID
Are we speaking in absolute terms (raw numbers) or in per-capita numbers?

44
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 22, 2020, 05:16:15 PM »
Trump was on video talking with a black interviewer earlier today and said  "If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Biden, then you ain’t black."

I'm surprised the mainstream outlets aren't making this front and center - seems kinda racist but they seem to be ignoring it completely.
I guess you don't consider CNN to be "mainstream"...

45
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 22, 2020, 03:38:41 PM »
See? That is a stupid thing for Biden to have said.  Whereas bringing up the "I'm going to be Joe Biden" was a partisan invention.

46
General Comments / Re: The Great Unmasking
« on: May 22, 2020, 03:09:41 PM »
What do you think, Fenring?

47
Quote
When will they open a Cold Case on the Psycho Joe Scarborough matter in Florida. Did he get away with murder?
:o

This man is the head of the US government...  the real one, not just on The Simpsons .
I find it refreshing that there are some statements made by the president that are just so indefensible that no one here even attempts to, well, defend them.

48
Keeping with the original theme of this thread "what would convince you..." I would say that if we start seeing a trend of more quarantine-related suicide deaths than covid deaths, we may have gone too far. Unlike covid, suicide and depression are equal opportunity killers and don't tend to primarily target the old and sick.

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-during-pandemic-death-by/6201962/
I find suicide references to be interesting - it is a matter of faith in some areas that economic instability will lead to increases in suicide rates, and that these should be factored against the COVID-19 deaths.  But suicide is complicated.  There are many reasons, not directly economically related, that factor in, but which are ignored by, the "recession will kill people" crowd.  For instance, debilitating illness, chronic pain, chronic illness, the premature death of family, hospitalization... For some reason, these factors, the ones that might be palliated by reducing the effects of the virus, tend to be ignored...

49
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 22, 2020, 02:10:52 PM »
..I think people are really straining to make an equivalence to Trump, who has seemingly devolved into speaking like an 8 year old.

What is it with you Never-Trumpers and needing to insult? They insulted Reagan as an "uncouth actor who never had a real thought in his head and just read scripts." He was later acknowledged as "The Great Communicator." Trump communicates very well - even with the complicit MSM distorting every thing he says. What is so startling is how so many Left-wing sycophants believe what the MSM says he says, and not understand what he actually did say.
You are nothing if not consistent, wmLambert.  Crunch would be telling you "Orange man good" all day long, if he was truly able to diagnose TDS.

BTW, just because Reagan was a good communicator, doesn't mean everybody else is.  Try comparing Reagan's extemporaneous statements (circa 1980) to anything Trump says without the benefit of a teleprompter... but what am I saying?  Trump is, in your opinion, an even better, more effective orator...

50
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 22, 2020, 01:57:42 PM »
i know there is no way you can admit to yourself that Trump is a bully, wmLambert, so let's just skip over that part... do you really believe that Trump does not insult?  That he does not believe it to be clever?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29