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 - Wayward Son

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 16, 2020, 06:26:19 PM »
That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

1) Nobody disputes the warming is happening, the cause is in dispute. (As are some of the methodologies being used to claim the extent of said warming)

2) Yes, how bad it is in dispute and anyone who claims it's only going to be bad has a very high bar to cross on that one.

3) "It's not our fault" was previously covered in #1, but it's also relevant that if we're seeing "natural variability" in play, nothing we do about "our contribution" is going to change anything, because in that case, we had little to do with what's being observed.

4) This goes back to #1 and #3, if it's mostly natural variability in play. We're not just talking about "fixing" our own contribution, we're talking about trying to counter-act mother nature herself. But in order to do that effectively,  we need to understand how Mother Nature is doing it. But as we're stuck in the clutches of the cult of we're doing it, we're not progressing very well on that front.

What you're missing in your thinking here, Deamon, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Which means that, as the concentration increases, it traps more heat, regardless of anything else.

So while much of the temperature increase may be due to "mother nature," our increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere (and the oceans) only makes it even worse. And as we continue to increase the concentration of CO2, it continues to make the warming worse.

It's like saying, "Well, most the temperature rise in our house in the summer is from the heat outside, so it doesn't matter if we turn on the furnace."  ???  If the increase of the heat is bad (and we seem to all agree it ain't good!), then making it worse is worse.

Maybe we can't get the temperatures back to where we want them, but we can make sure it doesn't get any worse because of what we do.

2
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 14, 2020, 06:38:58 PM »
If you got 'em, show 'em.

Otherwise, we gotta work with what we got.

3
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 14, 2020, 03:54:47 PM »

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Give me an extremely rough prediction model for global wildfires.  What are the factors?

Off the top of my head, drought and heat would be the major factors (to dry out the plants).  Periodic water to allow the plants to grow before drying them out helps, too.

So you would expect more wildfires in areas that become drier as AGW expands the desert zones.

4
Trump's favorite executive time toy

I bet he loves playing with it with his associates John Barron, John Miller and David Dennison. :)

5
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 14, 2020, 02:52:47 PM »
Quote
The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995, and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

6
General Comments / Re: Clean coal economics
« on: January 14, 2020, 01:42:20 PM »
The problem, of course, is that in rural West Virginia and such, there are no other high-paying job opportunities other than coal mining.  It's the problem with any one-industry town, as many of the steel towns learned a few decades ago.

7
General Comments / Re: Clean coal economics
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:55:30 AM »
Doesn't matter, Pete.  Any use for coal that doesn't involve burning it won't justify the mining of tons of the stuff each year.  :(

8
Then there's this.

Not really a quote, but a campaign ad by a fourth-grader for fourth-graders.

That's what the Republican Party has become.  ::)

9
Quote
به مردم شجاع و رنج کشیده ایران: من از ابتدای دوره ریاست جمهوریم با شما ایستاده‌ام و دولت من همچنان با شما خواهد ایستاد. ما اعتراضات شما را از نزدیک دنبال می کنیم. شجاعت شما الهام بخش است.

Wasn't that what he said to the Kurds? ;)

10
General Comments / Re: Trump Justice Department Clears Clinton
« on: January 10, 2020, 02:01:35 PM »
Since when does the President tell his supporters to "lock up" a supposed criminal?

Isn't he in charge of that??  ???

11
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 09, 2020, 06:41:38 PM »
Interesting to note that the trend of lightning-cause large wildfires is faster than those of human-caused large wildfires (see Fig. S3).

12
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: January 09, 2020, 06:29:44 PM »
Quote
While nobody in here is being histrionic about it, there is plenty of chatter going on everywhere about how the fires in Auz are "clearly the result of global warming" because they're so big, and so destructive. Typically logical fallacy material for a lot of AGW types, where any evidence of extreme weather is proof of AGW, natural variability doesn't exist for them.

The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Sure, AGW types tend to blame every extreme weather event on AGW.  But deniers tend to ignore the increasing frequency of these very same extreme weather events, and discount all of them as just being incidents of natural variability.

When the variability trends in one direction, that indicates a change.  And something is causing that change.

13
Do you refer to a US 2 star general as a “government official“?

I asked you to identify his government title. Is his military rank the best you can do?

No, I don't usually call a solider a "government official."  But that doesn't mean he isn't a government official.

This is especially true in countries where the military is closely associated with the government, if not part of or actually running the government.  So I really don't see high-ranking officers as an entirely separate category or even a lower category than a government official.

Quote
You don’t get to pretend like we’re arguing something else and then question whether my point is relevant. You shouldn’t be using the word relevant if you’re not willing to remember the thread of the argument. Suffice to say that my answer is relevant to the foolish question you asked about Warren. This is the 2nd time in this thread that you have asked me a question and then obfuscated the context my answer. Do you need me to remind you what your question was, or can you take responsibility of remembering it yourself, or reading it above on this page?

Frankly, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.  You apparently are reading more into your words than I am, or perhaps I am reading more into them than you are.

My main point is that I haven't heard anyone on "the left in the West" who "viciously attacked people in the Middle East who celebrated the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis."  The only example given, calling Soleimani "a government official," is arguably true, and nowhere near a vicious attack.  So I still question this part of her essay.

If I am misconstruing your words or intent, I apologize.  I just want to make sure that my point is well made.  Because the last thing we need right now is the impression that "Much of the left in the West" condones the terrorist actions and murders of Soleimani.  I think the fact that numerous examples of vicious attacks on those celebrating his death pretty much speaks for itself.

14
Quote
I'd also be grateful if you'd tell me (1) what you think Soleimani's government position was, and (2) the relevance in this context of his supposedly being a government "official."   My understanding is that he was head of the non-government militia, so I question that he was any sort of government official.

According to Wikipedia (and mentioned in passing in the article),  Soleimani was a major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.  He was the commander of the Quds Force, which specialized in what we would call terrorist activities ("extraterritorial military and clandestine operations").

He was a government official because he was recognized by the government of Iran as an official, had a title and standing, and had the government's support in his operations.  Not to mention "was widely popular among Iranians, where his supporters viewed him as a 'selfless hero fighting Iran's enemies,'" as the Wikipedia article puts it.

Whether you acknowledge him as a government official or not is irrelevant.  The Iranian government openly acknowledged him, and we acknowledge the Iranian government.  Outside countries don't get to choose who is or isn't a government official.  Iran doesn't get to say if Trump is President.  (Heck, more than half of America doesn't get to say that, either. :) )  So why should we get to say if Soleimani was one?

15
Well, then it is obvious that the author is wrong, because calling Soeimani a government official is not attacking people who celebrated his death.

Heck, we celebrate government officials' deaths all the time without denying they were government officials. :)

16
Sorry, Pete, but you're wrong. :)

You said:
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Wayward Son on Today at 04:05:40 PM
Quote
Much of the left in the West (the same ones who describe themselves as progressives) also viciously attacked people in the Middle East who celebrated the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis.

Any clue to who on the Left the author was referring to as attacking people who celebrated the deaths of Soeimani and al-Muhandis?

Elizabeth Warren, for one, dignifying the master of assassins as "a government official"

This clearly says that Warren was a person who attacked people who celebrated the deaths by "dignifying the master of assassins as 'a government official.'"  I can see no other way to interpret your words.

17
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 07, 2020, 04:50:14 PM »
Wow.  How much do you think Biden will get for this video?

Or Obama for for this photoshopped picture?

18
Except he was a government official, if you haven't noticed.  You can't blame her for stating the facts.

Just because someone is a government official doesn't mean they can't be an assassin, too.

Besides, that isn't attacking someone for celebrating his death.

19
Quote
Much of the left in the West (the same ones who describe themselves as progressives) also viciously attacked people in the Middle East who celebrated the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis.

Any clue to who on the Left the author was referring to as attacking people who celebrated the deaths of Soeimani and al-Muhandis? 

Because I haven't heard it.  No one I've seen or heard has mourned their passing, or criticized those who celebrated it (unless their celebration was to justify escalating the situation in the Middle East).

As you said, I'd like to see what these numerous people of the Left said in context, rather than looking at what those who criticize them have said they've said.

20
Sure, in the long run Russia will fade from the world stage.

But, to quote Keynes, in the long run we are all dead. :)

21
It’s beyond deplorable for wayward to continue referring to Iran’s master of assassins and torturers as if he was a lead figure of “government”. He was equivalent of the USSR’s chief of SMERSH.

He was a government official. Just because you think he was guilty of heinous acts doesn't delegitimize his standing.

Did you really just say "just because you think he was guilty"?

There's no question he was guilty.  There's no question his actions have killed Americans last year and would have continued to kill Americans  in the years to come.  His "standing" is delegitimized by operating for a country that refuses to hold it's officers and government officials for terrorism and war crimes.  For literally targeting civilians and engaging in attacks to maximize collateral damage.

Doesn't matter what we think or know.  Only thing that matters is if the Iranian government and/or people consider him a lead figure in their government, and whether he is worth fighting to revenge his death.

I mean, Russia would have considered it an act of war if we had assassinated Stalin.  They wouldn't have ignored it just because he tortured and murdered millions of people and might not have been that popular.  Killing a leader like that is akin to attacking the entire government.  So the Iranian government sees this assassination. 

You might consider him "delegitimized."  You might consider the whole Iranian government delegitimate.  But that won't stop them shooting missiles or coordinating the defense of their nation.  To them, he was legitimate.  And that is the only things that counts when we consider their reaction to it.

22
Quote
What I fear is that we may have lost credibility.

From what I’ve read around the globe USA credibly is at a all time low.

If the administration Iran strategy fails, the task of creating a coalition of the willing this time around won’t be easy.   The problem with having a leader that talks/tweets the way Trump does is that the country pretty much loses any moral authority.  Illusionary as that has always been or not, the illusion seems to matter.

I doubt Trump will go with a land war option with Iran, we've already "been there, done that" with Iraq. We're not likely to be going down that road again anytime soon.

It'll be a bombing campaign, we'd knock out any military assets of note. Possibly do a solid number on command and control as well as basic infrastructure in order to prevent a rapid recovery,  then declare an end to active operations on our part. When they can't shoot back, the "formal" part of the war is concluded. Then Iran can stir up all the terrorists they want, and can deal with the international repercussions from doing that.

You're forgetting one last step that Iran will take: allying more closely with Russia for their "mutual protection."

We'll probably see Russian troops and Russian ships in the area from here on, "to protect Iran from American aggression," adding to Russian influence in the Middle East.

A solid win for Putin, care of Donald Trump.  :(

23
Quote
...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

Directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments.  Check out U.N. Resolution 2347, which was written specifically to condemn ISIS destruction of heritage sites, and passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

Which sites are those that are on Trump's list of targets?

So are you saying, Seriati, that after assassinating Iran's #2 leader (or at least someone in the top 10), which brought out tens of thousands of mourners into the streets, and causing the Iranian government to vow revenge, that maybe Trump is simply threatening to take out a road-side marker to keep them from retaliating? :)

If they aren't significant cultural targets, then why bother?

And if they are significant, what makes you believe that none of them will rise to the level of those protected by Resolution 2347?

Quote
Speculation is not evidence of a war crime.

No, I haven't accused him of any war crimes, yet.  As the original post said, he is threatening to commit war crimes.  Threatening to take out Iranian cultural targets.

You guys haven't been paying attention.  There are several mind readers on this forum.  They know his inner thoughts and motivation for every decision he makes, sometimes even before he does.

Since when has reading someone's words and trying to understand what they mean reach the level of reading someone's mind?  That's what words are supposed to be for, aren't they?  To communicate to other people know what you are thinking.  ;)

Besides, no Democrats believes you can read Trump's mind.  You can't read something that doesn't exist.  ;D

24
Quote
...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

Directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments.  Check out U.N. Resolution 2347, which was written specifically to condemn ISIS destruction of heritage sites, and passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

Quote
Noting the recent decision by the International Criminal Court, which for the first time convicted a defendant for the war crimes of intentionally directing attacks against religious buildings and historic monuments and buildings, ... Affirms that directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments may constitute, under certain circumstances and pursuant to international law a war crime and that perpetrators of such attacks must be brought to justice...

Trump isn't satisfied in imitating the worst of (alleged) Democratic behavior.  Now he wants to imitate some of the ISIS' behavior.

You guys must be so proud of electing him right now.  He looks to ISIS for his, and your, moral guidance.  ;D

25
General Comments / Re: British elections!
« on: December 13, 2019, 04:24:48 PM »
Regardless of where the blame might fall, let's just hope this good economy goes in the crapper soon so the dems have a chance to fix it.

Well, somebody has to fix it!  :D

I suppose you'd prefer we just wait quietly while Trump's policies put the economy in the crapper.  Then he could blame us for not warning him that it would happen.  ;)

26
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 13, 2019, 04:19:59 PM »
LOL, Scott!  You're seriously criticizing AGW supporters for leaving "no nuance or room for uncertainty of any kind!"  ;D

When deniers claim that scientists fake data every day?  When record breaking temperatures come almost every year and deniers say it proves nothing, then turn around and say every snow storm proves that AGW is a lie?  When the same deniers say global warming isn't happening, and it isn't caused by CO2, and it isn't as bad as scientists say, and we can't stop it anyway so why try??

Verses scientists who spend millions of dollars and thousands and man-hours to test and check their theories using supercomputer programs; scientists who make careful measurements of the heat in the atmosphere and the oceans; scientists who check and verify each others works, and argue over the results and the meaning of the results in conferences; these are the people who are part of "the cult of Greta?"  ::)

Deniers thrive on wishful thinking and overblown, unverified scientific hypothesis (or worse).  That is because they have no solid evidence to prove that AGW isn't happening.  So they have to take whatever they can find, no matter how questionable, as their "proof."  Like the desperate hope that sunspots inactivity will cool the Earth enough to compensate for increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  ::)

Fake data, denial of verified facts, multiple excuses, and faith in unverified theories that may or may not happen, verses theories built on verified science, tests of such theories, meticulously gathered data, and peer review and arguments.  Which sounds more like a cult to you?

27
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 13, 2019, 02:22:14 PM »
While it may be true that climatologists display a higher degree of certainty about their data than what is warranted, it is a certainty that Crunch displays a completely unreasonable degree of certainty about his denials of the climatologists' claims.

While climatologists research and analyze the data to come to their conclusions, Crunch misrepresents their work and their data to come to his conclusions.  The two are hardly equivalent.

Climatologists do display more arrogance about their conclusions than is warranted.  But it is no where near as much arrogance as Crunch and deniers like him display.  Climatologists' arrogance comes after years of hard work and analysis.  Crunch's arrogance simply comes from ignorance and pure ego.

28
General Comments / Re: British elections!
« on: December 13, 2019, 12:06:44 PM »
True, yossarian, that Trump's hard-core base will never blame their Fearless Leader for anything that goes wrong.  But I very much doubt that his 40 percent support is composed entirely of his hard-core base.

Those who are soft-core will likely respond to a recession by blaming him, if only partially.  And how much influence and bullying can he do if his support is in the 30s or 20s percentage?  The Republican congressmen will still be worried about the next election, even if Trump isn't. ;)

29
General Comments / Re: British elections!
« on: December 13, 2019, 10:51:06 AM »
Guess who may also suffer from this decision?  Donald Trump.

Quote
Anyhow, ever since the U.K. voted for Brexit back in June 2016, there's been at least some doubt as to whether or not it would actually happen. Given the mandate and the majority that Johnson has just been handed, there is no doubt anymore. The U.K. is going, likely at the end of next month. Then, Johnson will try to negotiate what comes next, working from what certainly appears to be a position of weakness. In the short term, that will hit the British economy hard, and will likely send it into recession. The shockwaves from that, in turn, could drag the EU and the world economy down. It is not at all impossible that this plays out over a very short time, say six months. And if the U.S. goes into recession just months before the 2020 elections, well, that would be very big news, indeed.

Donald's support has been locked at a bit over 40 percent since mid-2018.  The economy is one of his major selling points, if not his only major selling point.  If that tanks just before the election...?  His supporters don't care that much about details (or else they wouldn't give him so much credit--*cough**cough*Trade wars*cough**cough*), so his blaming the Democrats, the Fed, the world economy, the weather, the Patriots, etc. just won't fly very far.

And if he wins...he'll be totally responsible, even if a recession doesn't hit until after the election.

So we'll see how that influences the next impeachment proceedings (you do know he's not going to stop ignoring the law just because the Senate acquits him, right?) if he's even more unpopular than he is now.

The UK's decision may be the camel that break's his straw back. :)

30
Nothing to quote--you just got to see this for yourself.

A legend in his own mind. :)  (And proof positive that he's in great shape.  Why, he has the body of the 16-year-old!)  ;D

31
General Comments / Re: British elections!
« on: December 11, 2019, 12:40:47 PM »
ElectoralVote.com has a good summary of what's up (for those on the west side of the pond).

Quote
The general consensus seems to be that this is one of those elections that the United States seems to have so often these days, where voters will be choosing the less problematic of two bad options. On one side are the Conservatives and Boris Johnson. His flaws are pretty well known, but just in case anyone has forgotten: He's a nativist and populist who abuses his power and has been guilty of what the Guardian describes as "breathtaking hypocrisy." He's also hardly a model of ideal behavior in private; he alienates the people he works with, is allegedly somewhat lazy, and has been credibly accused of having a child from an extramarital affair, and then pretending that child does not exist. Should he be sustained, he's going to try to ram through a Brexit deal that makes very few people happy, as it keeps the UK tied to the other EU countries in many ways, except without a lot of the benefits of actual EU membership, such as having a say in crafting EU policies.

Alternatively, folks could check their ballots for Labour. That would put Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street. Corbyn, however, has quite a few flaws of his own. To start, the fact that he and his party are not surging despite 10 years of shaky Conservative leadership and plenty of "throw the bums out" sentiment speaks to Corbyn's rather low popularity. In fact, he has the lowest approval ratings of any major British politician of the last decade, and has shown no ability whatsoever to expand his (or Labour's) appeal beyond hard-core supporters. He has also done a lousy job of responding to anti-Semitism in his own party, with the result that Jewish voters have taken an "anyone but Corbyn" attitude heading into Thursday's balloting. If Corbyn is elected, he has promised to cancel Brexit without holding a new referendum. Given that about 50% of the populace has remained steadfast in their support of Brexit, that will be an unpopular move, to say the least.

There are no other parties in the U.K. that, right now, have a plausible path to a majority in Parliament. Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has far less baggage than Johnson or Corbyn, but the premiership is not in her immediate future (and is probably not in her distant future, either). The best projection available suggests that Johnson is not only going to remain in power, but that he'll pick up 25-30 seats in Parliament, which will allow him to pass his Brexit deal. Of course, polling British parliamentary elections is always a tricky business, and you should never take anything to the bank until the ballots are counted. Still, if Johnson does win convincingly, then that will likely be the end of the line for Corbyn as Labour leader. Undoubtedly, the Party is wishing it had its old leader, Ed Miliband, back. Not only was he more moderate and more popular, he is also Jewish.

Good luck, Quang, deciding between the rock and the hard place. :)

32
General Comments / Re: Do we still have a Fourth Amendment?
« on: December 06, 2019, 04:55:50 PM »
Could you please be specific about which journalist and attorney had their phone records subpoenaed, so we know exactly what you are talking about?

Because it sounds like this comes down to whether there was probable cause or not, which is very specific to the circumstances.

33
"That was funny when I said that guy was two-faced."

President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, referring to his name-calling of Canadian President Justin Trudeau.

34
Quote
...half the oxygen gets tied up in Water, which doesn't naturally get converted back to molecular oxygen.

That statement got me thinking that there might be some plants that convert water into oxygen.

Turns out that I was wrong.  Some plants do not turn H2O into O2; practically all plants do, as part of photosynthesis.  The CO2 used gets converted into sugars.

So I wouldn't worry about oxygen depletion.

35
Well, the rain forests are one of the major converters--and therefore producers--of oxygen in our atmosphere, so if they were all burned down, there would be less oxygen created to replace that which is used in other processes.  So such a scenario would also deplete oxygen from our atmosphere.

However, at 1.1E18 kg of O2 in our atmosphere, we would need to emit about 5E16 kg of methane to deplete around 10 percent of it.  That's about 500 million billion kg by my calculations.  I'm not sure of what the estimated methane reserves are, but I suspect it falls far short of that. :)

36
Quote
Oxygen depletion is another problem.

Just to put your mind at ease, I'm pretty sure oxygen depletion is not a problem now.

I read an article on whether the burning of the rainforest would affect our oxygen supply.  The consensus was that there is more than enough oxygen in reserve in our atmosphere to provide for life for the foreseeable future.  It would go down, of course, but by such a small percentage per year that it would not be noticeable.

If burning the rainforests has negligible effect, I'm sure methane conversion to CO2 would be similarly negligible.  (There is approximately 1.1E18 kg of O2 in the atmosphere, according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.)

37
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: November 26, 2019, 12:38:24 PM »
Quote
Of course, everyone knows there's a problem.  WaPo reporter Rachel Bade has the inside info on how some Democrats getting are “cold feet” as worries grow about public opposition to impeachment. You gotta understand, after 2 weeks of public hearings, support for impeachment has declined signficantly:
Quote
According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.

Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks.
Almost 7% drop from the 538 guys. That means out in the real world it's probably quite a bit more than what they report.

Enjoy it while you can, boys.  The latest FiveThrityEight average has bounced back.  As of 11-26-19, it's up to 48.6 percent for impeachment and opposition has dropped to 41.1 percent--2.5 percent increase from your quote, and a 4.5 percent decrease in opposition.

Which means that out in the real world, it's probably worse. :)

I guess hearing from the officials themselves that the U.S. government actually did try to pressure the Ukrainian government to try to influence our elections by announcing an investigation against Trump's most likely opponent is slowly sinking in. :)

38
General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 13, 2019, 06:19:19 PM »
Quote
Trump's settlement here is on the corporate governance of a charity that was almost completely funded with his own money.

Seriati, what makes you think Trump's charity was almost completely funded by Trump?  ::)

When was the last time Trump donated to his own charity?  Look it up.  You might find it enlightening.

39
“You’re doing a fantastic job for the people of Turkey.”

--President Trump to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

40
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 11, 2019, 03:38:18 PM »
Quote
He was so concerned about it that he didn't pin anything down in writing...

Why?  Would something that Taylor put down in writing matter to you?  Would something that Taylor wrote at that time change you mind in any way?

Because from what I've heard, Taylor took "meticulous" notes at the time.  It's just that the White House has those notes, and refuses to provide them.

If those notes are one day released, and they corroborate Taylor's statements from memory, would that have any effect?  Is there anyone who is more "reliable" than that bold-faced liar, President Trump?

41
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 04:30:55 PM »
Quote
If you have something better let me know, what's cited above as Lloyd Perna points out isn't proof that US policy was a quid pro quo or that Donald Trump ordered one, only that Sondland apparently now remembers that he thought there was one.

You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if he remembers, if he was the only one who thought it, or whatever.  He told the Ukrainians that it was quid pro quo.  He told them that the aid was dependent on them making the statement about a corruption investigation.

Once he told them that, it was quid pro quo.  Period.

Once you tell someone, "Your money or your life," it's a robbery, whether you misinterpreted what someone else said to you or not. :)

Once you tell someone, "You (probably) won't get his aid unless you do this," it's quid pro quo, whether you misunderstood someone else or not.

Admittedly, his statement does not make clear that the statement he was referring to was an investigation into Biden's son.  However, in context, wouldn't you expect that he would have clarified that in his statement if it wasn't?  Since the heart of this investigation is the accusation that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden and Crowdstrike, don't you think he would have mentioned if the statement he was requesting had nothing to do with the investigation?  ::)  It's kinda germane.

Hopefully someone will ask him to clarify that statement when he appears in the televised hearings.

42
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 02:57:16 PM »
You left part of it out.  Emphasis is mine.

Quote
I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.  However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.

If "there is no question" this has to mean proved, does it not? The fact that there is other evidence is immaterial, by saying "there is no question now" you imply that this testimony on its own puts quid pro quo beyond doubt.


"Presumption" is irrelevant.

And, yes, the statement--

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."

--does prove quid pro quo.

Because it states that U.S. aid would (likely) not be given unless the statement was made.  Aid directly tied to statement.  Quid pro quo.  No wiggle room on this.

Unless, of course, Sondland was lying about telling Yermak that.

But why would he lie about that?  He basically said that he possibly committed a crime.  (At least, that is what the House is trying to prove here.)  Why would anyone lie to Congress about committing a crime?  You're in trouble either way; if you told the truth, you committed a crime; if you lied, you committed perjury.  Doesn't make sense.

So I doubt that he lied.  Which means, as a representative of the United States government, he told the representative of the Ukrainian government that getting aid was directly tied to them issuing the statement.  Quid pro quo.

The question now becomes why did Sondland tell Yermak that there was a quid pro quo for the desperately needed military aid?  Was he mistaken in his belief?  Did someone like Guilliani tell him to say that?  Or did the direction come from higher up?

But unless Sondland was lying through his teeth, there is no longer any question about a quid pro quo for military aid to Ukraine.

43
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 10:55:02 AM »
Meanwhile, Gordon Sondland admits that the military aid offered to Ukraine was dependent on Ukraine investigating Biden's son.

Quote
After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani.
(Emphasis mine.)

So there is no question now whether quid pro quo occurred.  The only question now is who directed it.

44
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 10:47:13 AM »
Ah, I see, that is what you meant by "some of the last ones to experience it."  That since 1882 or so, it was primarily blacks who were lynched, but before that, it was (possibly?) mainly whites.

While this may be historically accurate, it does not take away the apparent fact that, since 1882 or so, it was primarily used to terrorize blacks, and that is the most recent use of the practice.  And the most recent use is the one that people think of when they think of historical usage.  For example, consider the swastika, a traditional sign of peace in Indian cultures (IIRC).  Do you think for one second that people would consider the display of the swastika a sign of peace today? ;)

So while it is true that lynchings have been color-blind through most of its history, it was decidedly color-depended for its most recent use.  And so there is more than adequate reason to see the practice as color-dependent, unless you are referring to a specific period of history when it wasn't.

45
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 06, 2019, 06:02:24 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.

Perhaps the last ones, but certainly the main ones.  :(

Per the NAACP, about 73 percent of those lynched were black.

Quote
From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes.

So, yeah, it was something done primarily to blacks.

46
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 06:04:16 PM »
So he just "presumed" that the President was asking him to do something unethical and probably illegal, and didn't feel the need to clarify it or perhaps warn the President that maybe it might be bad.

Yep, Trump only hires "the best!"  ::)

47
President Donald Trump:

"False stories are being reported that a few Republican Senators are saying that President Trump may have done a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not an impeachable event. Perhaps so, but read the transcript, there is no quid pro quo!"

Parse that!  :P

48
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 03:16:06 PM »
I had the same take, it sounded like you thought it wasn't worth clicking on the link or looking at any of the information because ya just can't trust that NPR.

My point is that when the primary source of “news” around this is coaching the witnesses, refusing to allow questions that conflict with a preferred narrative, and conducting this all in secret, we can be sure that whatever is reported conforms to that narrative and, when it comes to DNC media outlets, we can be sure that it’s reported as demanded by their masters so as to shape the perception.

That is exactly what was done. So you could say I totally trusted NPR to do this. They didn’t disappoint.

But, since all this was done "in secret," you actually don't know any of this.  You're just hoping it's true!  ;D

Of course, if you were curious enough to test your ideas, you would look at the transcripts and see if there was any "refusing to allow questions that conflict with the preferred narrative" by the Republicans who were present in this "secret meeting" (which isn't all that secret anymore since the actual transcript--not a summary like Trump's "perfect call"--was released).

Perhaps you are waiting for the Trump version of the transcripts?

Quote
Trump has not responded well to the current turn of events. In fact, one could spend a very long time scripting a response for him, and it probably wouldn't be worse than what he actually came up with. Here it is:

Quote
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
If Shifty Adam Schiff, who is a corrupt politician who fraudulently made up what I said on the “call,” is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes. Republicans...

74.3K
4:48 PM - Nov 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
31.9K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....should give their own transcripts of the interviews to contrast with Schiff’s manipulated propaganda. House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty’s rendition of those interviews. He is a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached!

54.7K
4:48 PM - Nov 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
24.2K people are talking about this

First of all, the President might as well hire a skywriter to fly over Washington and write: "THIS ALL LOOKS VERY BAD FOR ME!" His response could not make that any more clear. Still, his game is clear—he wants to raise doubts about the credibility of what people are going to be reading in newspapers and on websites over the next few days. That despite the fact that if Trump's claim was true—that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is cooking the books—the witnesses would promptly take note of that and point out the distortions.

Meanwhile, in his attempt to create "alternative facts" for his base to believe in, Trump has just publicly called for the members of Congress to falsify evidence. That is a crime, and it's surely a high crime and/or misdemeanor.

Let's see how many of the witnesses point out any distortions. ;)

That's what is so funny about Republicans like you.  You keep telling us how we can't trust the MSM, then feed us a bunch of just-so stories based on bias and wishful thinking which is even less reliable than the MSM.  ;D   TSS at it's best.

49
Let's get back to what this tread is all about.

Donald Trump, Private Citizen, is implicated in breaking tax laws in the State of New York when he was Donald Trump, Private Citizen.

The State of New York wants to investigate this.  In order to investigate it, they need to look at his tax records.  He is refusing to cooperate with the investigate.

As justification for not cooperating with this investigation, his lawyers are arguing that the President has complete immunity from any criminal indictment or investigation during his time in office.

IOW, since he is now Donald Trump, President, he is not subject to investigation or indictment by the police like every single other person in the United States of America.  :o

In fact, his lawyers admit that, under this theory, the President could murder someone on 5th Avenue and not be indicted until he leaves office.

This is based on theory about the Constitution (not explicitly written in the Constitution itself, but an interpretation) that the Presidency is a unique office in the government, entirely unlike any other office, elected or otherwise, in our entire government.  And because it is so unique, laws that apply to every other person do not apply to him, unless Congress decides to remove him.

If Congress is in his pocket, or so divided that it can't come to a decision about him, he is free and clear to do anything he wants while in office.

This, on the face of it, seems like a ludicrous assertion.  That felonies that would get any other person in the country executed cannot even be investigated if the accused is the President.  Just to make sure he isn't distracted from his job.  ::)

So Al Capone, if he had been elected President, would have been immune from killing two people with a baseball bat at a dinner party (not just one, as depicted in the movie :) ), because it might distract him from running the country.  Unless, of course, you could convince a majority of Congress that he did it.  Which would be difficult, since the Chicago police would have been prevented from even investigating his operation while he was President.  :o

The legal principle stinks.  Just because you are President doesn't mean you are no longer a citizen of the United States, subject to the same laws that every other citizen (and non-citizen) is.

It has become an issue now because we elected a President that really doesn't respect the law.  He didn't respect it when he was a Private Citizen; he doesn't respect it now.

So rather than defending himself based on facts in this case about his state taxes, he prefers to hide behind the immunity principle.

Whether he uses his immunity to murder someone or just to hide his crimes while he was a private citizen, the principle stinks.  Yes, the President should not be subject to so many indictments that he cannot do his job.  But at the same time, the Presidency of the United States should not be a way for criminals to escape prosecution--or even INVESTIGATION--of their crimes while they are in office.  That is a stupid proposition.  One I would think we should all agree on.

50
General Comments / Re: Do you think Nixon was innocent of wrong doing?
« on: October 31, 2019, 02:01:15 PM »
Yeah, it means anything you want. That’s what you’re going for, it’s what I said.

Regardless of how squishy the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, it is certainly not limited only to actual, chargeable crimes, as you seemed to imply.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29