Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President

« on: July 18, 2019, 06:41:10 PM »

How did he ever get elected? Oh yeah; he ran against Mrs Telltale Smirk.

If that were true, Pete, how is it that the next Democratic presidential candidate is going to be even worse than Hillary, in spite of the fact that no one knows who that person is going to be yet?

No, people actually love Trump and what he believes/stands for, if only for hating Democrats in general.

If you don't share the ideals, which I don't think any of the "squad" really do, you are not really American.

You mean ideals like the fact we are all Americans, not just those who are white?  That we are a nation of immigrants, all with as much right to be here as the next guy?

lhan Omar, is a flat out anti-semite who stands for equating America to terrorism.  Ayanna Pressley is a straight up racist and her quote about not needing any more brown faces that don't want to be brown voices proves it, to her you are only valuable for your color and only if you agree with her.  Tlaib's got a view point that comes from her Palenstinian roots that includes lies about the history of Israel.  And AOC, what is part of American exceptionalism that she doesn't hate?

If you gave them as much of the benefit of the doubt as you give Trump and the Republicans, you’d know that’s all BS.

Hang OR deport?   Are you listening to yourself?  Deporting is in the law. PERIOD.  Wanting people deported is a completely legitimate position.

I said “hang or deport minorities,” Seriati.  Not illegal immigrants. Why do you think you missed that?  Why do you mistake minorities for illegal immigrants?  Is it something about the rhetoric coming from the top?  Something about demonizing all foreigners, and now their children?  Because, after all, no one from some foreign country can have our values and culture.  And that’s what’s important, isn’t it?

Face it, Trump played you and the rest of the woke again.

No, Trump has finally made clear what his real face is.  Now it’s just a matter of making you wake up to it.

True he has, bringing more jobs and more real wage increases to them, ensuring that the tax code was revised to provide a tax benefit to every lower class tax payer notwithstanding the lies.  Reforming an unfair prison system put in place by the Democratic President Bill Clinton?  Yep, did that too.  Actually focusing attention on a border situation that is insane that harms the ethnic hispanic immigrants who come (they are a minority here, but not by much, but a majority where they come from)?

Trump’s policies have done little to nothing to help the economy, except perhaps to supercharge it with that stupid corporate tax cut, which will bite us in the behind come the next recession. The benefits to the “lower class taxpayers” are temporary and barely significant.
I’ll give you the bipartisan prison system reform.  He never campaigned on it, but at least he didn’t veto it.
Tell me again how characterizing illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers is helping Hispanics in our country.  Ask you Hispanic friends (since you obviously are not one) how many times someone has told them to go back to Mexico after Trump came into office?  How they feel about ICE raids, threatened and actual?  Ask them if they feel more secure, more welcome in this country now?  You might learn something.

Have you condemned Pressley, she's an honest to goodness racist, she only sees color and not the real people behind it.

You realize that it doesn’t matter if I’m really David Duke trying to fake you all out.  That’s doesn’t change the fact that Trump is a racist.  He’s a racist because he told a bunch of minority American citizens, Congresswomen no less, to go back to where they came from.  It’s what racists say.

Or do you have some evidence of a Trump policy that is racist or harming minorities that you've kept in the vest?

No, so far he hasn’t implement or tried to implement any overtly racist policy, except for separating illegal immigrant children from their parents for no good reason.  I doubt Congress would have approved an overtly racist policy.  But his words…ah, his words…
He may not do anything overtly racist, except with his words.  But covertly?  Like maybe make it harder for minorities to vote?  Like maybe say that the votes from minorities were all illegal, implying that they are all illegals?   
You think he’s going to stop here?  You think he’s not going to escalate?  Listen to his rally last night.  His followers were chanting, “Send her home!  Send her home!”  A week ago, the thought never occurred to most of them.  Now they’ve internalized it.  Now it’s their desire, their belief.  To exile American citizens because they disagree with their politics, to those brown, black and Muslim “sh*thole” countries that are so much worse than anything here.
You think, with all these people cheering him on, inflating his ego for showing them who to hate and which American values to trample, that he’s going to pull back now?  You think this narcissist won’t double down after hearing all those cheers?
Maybe he hasn’t crossed the line for you yet.  But he hasn’t finished crossing lines yet.

Name me the "swing" liberal justice.  I'll wait.

Cute meme.  How can you have a swing liberal, when the courts are demonstrably far more conservative than they were 40 years ago?  Mathematically, in order to be in the center of this SCOTUS, you have to be on the conservative side.

Lol, are they not sh*thole countries?  Great to hear, I guess we can deny all asylum claims from people that originated from them.  Oh wait, now they are sh*thole countries and there's a credible threat?  Consistency not a strong point today is it.

Fact is people are fleeing these countries because they are a mess, almost all of them economically, and many of them politically.  How is that at all inconsistent with what was said?  Answer its not, you're just harping on a sound bite without carrying any water on analysis.    There is no part of the Democratic position on this that holds together as logically consistent.

Of course these countries are messes.  So is ours, if you’d bother to look, rather than try to make it worse.
It’s the “vicious women and children” part that was important in that sentence.  That Republicans are so stupid and timorous that they treat women and children as invading armies.  Cowards.

I already acknowledged that what Trump said is pretty defined as racist by the Woke, and pointed out to you that to the rest of the country it looks pretty reasonable on its face.

That’s because the “rest of the country” is stupid.  Telling a minority to “go back to your country” has been acknowledged as a racist remark for years.  It’s specifically mentioned as an example of racist behavior in government instructions to managers.  It only “looks” reasonable if it doesn’t apply to you.  Telling a white person from West Virginia to “go back to your country” is laughable; they’re already in “their” country.  Telling a black person to “go back to your country” is telling them they should go back to Africa, that they aren’t really part of this country.  The correct response to this remark that looks pretty reasonable on its face is “Go f**k yourself, I’m just as American as you, if not more so!”

Don't believe me, do you recall how stunned everyone living in a left bubble was on election night in 2016?

Don’t believe you.  I read FiveThirtyEight just before election night.  They estimated Trump had about a 25% chance of winning.  I’ve played enough D&D to know how good those odds were.

Once again you seem to be calling for the otherside to vote against their own interests out of disgust.  And there's a reason you do that, to my knowledge only the Republicans ever vote against their own interests as a matter of principal (Exhibit A, Roy Moore - not elected, Exhibit B, Bob Menendez - re-elected).

No, I don’t want the other side to vote against their own interests.  I want them to stop acting so morally superior and admit that they have no morals other than their own selfish interests.
Let me remind you that Moore only barely lost that election, 50% to 48%.  600,000 Alabama Republicans thought their own interests trumped the charges against him.  We’ll see if he has better luck this next time.
And I’ll see your Menendez with Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr., who won handily against his opponent (after smearing him) despite being up on charges and blaming it all on his wife.

All your angst on this complete crap, there's no chance that the Democrats would not have done the same.

What a load of crap.  No matter what Republicans do, you can excuse it because the Democrat would have done it, too?  I suppose you use that excuse to defend Rep. Dennis Hastert and justify what he did with his student when he was a coach: “There’s no chance that the Democrats would not have done the same.” :p
And, BTW, as I recall, the last time a similar situation occurred, the Democrats did let the nomination go through.

Trump telling a group of anti-semitic, anti-American, communists that happen to be Congresswomen to go back where they came from?  I don't think he gives two shakes about their ethnicity.

Pff.  Have you ever heard someone use that against a white, except in retaliation?  It doesn’t make sense.  It only makes sense if you assume they are “from” somewhere else.  And what criteria do you think he used to assume that other than race?
The Congresswomen should have responded as any white guy would have: “I am where I came from, you dumb ***.”

Oh, well, it’s been fun, but I’ve wasted enough time on this. Later.

2

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President

« on: July 17, 2019, 03:57:32 PM »

Only for those who find you more credible than me, Seriati.  And I think that is starting to wear thin.

Exactly what has Trump actually done to make life better for minorities?  Been President during a up-turning economy?  What did he do to make the economy turn up?  Cut taxes?  He didn't do that; Congress did.  He didn't help them at all.  What else did he do?  What else?

And what exactly do you have to "do" to prove you believe minorities to be second-class citizens and not real Americans, or even real people?  What actions would you consider to be racist that the President could do?  Call blacks "n*gg*rs?"  What would it take?

He's supported making it harder for minorities to vote.  He's called immigrants from brown-skinned countries rapists and murderers.  He's separated families of immigrants on thin pretexts, hoped that it would discourage people from coming here, and then blamed Democrats for it all. 

For more evidence, see one of Trump's latest tweets.

Omar is polling at 8%, Cortez at 21%. Nancy Pelosi tried to push them away, but now they are forever wedded to the Democrat Party. See you in 2020!

Three guesses which demographic has Omar polling at 8% and Cortez at 21%.  (And the first two don't count.)  The constituents of their respective districts? Every American, nationally? No, neither of those.  Ever wonder why he would think that that particular demographic speaks for all of America?

Democrats are racists, too.  We all are, to some extent.  But most of us recognize it, and have enough common sense not to let it affect our words and judgement too much.  But Trump doesn't.  He's letting minorities know that he doesn't consider them equal to him and his tribe.  If he didn't know to stop before now, what makes you think he'll have sense to stop on worse matters?

Trump is a liar, a fool and a racist.  You may think it worse for me to stand with the party that wants to make this country more equal and fair, but you will still have to take responsibility for those you stand with, whether you recognize who they are or not.

3

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President

« on: July 17, 2019, 03:24:27 PM »

No matter how anyone tries to spin in, when you tell a minority to "go back to where you came from," you are telling them that they are not Americans, that they are foreigners, and that you don't want them here.  That, since the person is not white, they must be from somewhere else, and belong there.  That is racism, pure and simple.  Maybe not as bad as those who want to hang or deport minorities, maybe not as bad as those who would forbid marriages between races and keep them separate, but it's still solidly racist.

Trump is a racist.  It is now indisputable.  Get over it.

All these excuses, all these explanations and qualifications and denials, all this pretending that someone is lying to you, all those do is enable him and racists like him.  All you are doing is letting racists, better than him or as bad as him or worse than him, know that you will accept them, embrace them, call them friend, so long as you get what you want.  You are standing tall with racists.  You are calling for dividing America into real Americans and those who are not, based on race and ethnicity and skin color and politics.  You are helping these people turn our country back into the racist pit it was in the past, where a gang of whites could drive out an entire town of blacks when they felt like it.  Is this really what you want to do?

And for what?  Another Supreme Court justice?  More tax breaks that are increasing the deficit?  Protection from those vicious women and children from "sh*thole" countries?  Is the price for your decency and integrity really that low?

Republicans used to denigrate Democrats for not being smart, for having no integrity, for supporting Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife.  Now no Republican cares.  Trump married three times, sleeping with other women?  Who cares.  Mitch McConnell lying through his teeth about a "Senate tradition" to let the next President choose a Supreme court nominee?  Why, everyone lies.  Trump telling a Latina, a Muslim, and a Black American to go back to where they came from?  Why, THAT'S WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR! 

There is no place left to hide anymore.  The Supreme Court recently said that the Trump Administration lied to them about the reason for the citizenship question to be added to the census.  There have been more appointees by the President to resign or get booted out because of corruption than any other recent Administration that I can recall.  And we know the President lies to us, openly, blatantly, unabashedly.  It's time to admit that this President and his Administration are a disaster.  It's time to stand up for American values.

Or stand firm with the racist.  It's your choice.

4

General Comments / Our Racist President

« on: July 15, 2019, 03:59:34 PM »

For anyone who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt about being racist, let them go.  As you've probably heard, his tweets on Sunday removed all doubt:

So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

The most likely Congresswomen he was talking about are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.  All  of them are American citizens.  Three of them were born in America.  Two of them were born to American parents.  One of them has American ancestors that have been in this country longer than Trump has.

You can almost hear him suggesting that if blacks don't like this country, they should go back to Africa. 

Is there any wonder anymore why white supremacists support him?

Is there anyone who doesn't realize that, if you support Trump, you are supporting someone who believes not every citizen is an American?

I'm curious if anyone on this board still supports this President.  Is it because you agree that some Congresswomen should "go back" to where "they came?"  Is it because you will forgive a bit of racism if you can get other policies enacted?  Is it because you love the current economy so much that disenfranchising citizens is a small price to pay?

Trump is a lying, bullying, racist POS.  I hope that everyone on this board finally recognizes this and will act appropriately from now on.

5

General Comments / Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

« on: July 12, 2019, 02:06:57 PM »

They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

And pigs could fly, too.  Let's talk about what actually did happen instead of what maybe, might, could've, etc.  The photos we have indicate there was no concrete involved.  And exactly who bragged about putting concrete in the milkshakes?  Obviously it was not the person who threw it at Ngo.  If there is no evidence that photos were faked and no evidence that there was concrete in the shake, let's not assume it "could" be true.  Otherwise, you can start a discussion about why pigs fly.

Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?

Well, he apparently didn't end up in the hospital because of a milkshake that was thrown on him.  So what am I excusing? 

And his hospital stay, from whatever reason, does not affect the fact that, from the evidence that we have, there was no concrete in the milkshake.  You were wrong in saying that there was.

And while we're on the subject, what about this:

Man it sure is weird how every time a fascist gets hit in the face with some food we have a week long discourse about left wing political violence but every time a fascist murders people we're treated to a smorgasbord of excuses of how it's not political.

Maybe we need a bit more perspective on the degrees of violence.

6

General Comments / Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

« on: July 12, 2019, 11:17:13 AM »

During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried.

Well, you source Crunch was full of it.  There was no cement in the milkshake.  Because if there were, it would have been immediately noticeable.

We know this because, unlike those who made the accusation, someone tried putting cement in a milkshake to see what would happen.

The splatter looked nothing like a milkshake. It looked like wet concrete.

Two hours later, the cement-milkshake mixture coating our dummy was still squishy and wet. It had not dried, as quick-drying concrete is supposed to do.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible to mix quick-drying cement with a vegan milkshake—but the result would be immediately obvious and would leave behind a telltale mess that's tough to clean up....

But a concrete milkshake is distinctive, as we learned. It's gritty, clumpy and a dark color.

Take a look at a photo of Ngo doused with a milkshake.

Compare it to the photos in the article.  Which type of "milkshake" looks most similar?

This was more "fake news" from the purveyors of, and creators of, the term "fake news."

7

General Comments / Questions about Climate Change

« on: July 09, 2019, 11:25:17 AM »

Since we've had numerous discussions about climate change/AGW on this board, I thought some of us might be interested in taking the discussion to a broader audience.

FiveThirtyEight is soliciting questions about climate change that it readers would like answered.  The questions must be about climate change and reasonably specific: "In other words, you can ask us to explain a specific metric used to measure changing climate, don’t ask us to prove to you that climate change is real. (Because it is.)"

There's no guarantee that the questions will be answered, of course, but it is a chance to get some of the best "gotcha" questions to a national audience, or a good explanation of why something is or isn't so.

8

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 20, 2019, 06:39:24 PM »

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You'd better check that strawman for mice, Crunch.  One of them is liable to bite you.

9

General Comments / Re: AOC's latest

« on: June 20, 2019, 06:37:19 PM »

And similarly, being a Trump supporter, like Trump you'd rather see them all dead.  Am I right?

Citation needed, I doubt Trump wants them dead. What he wants is for them to not be in our country due to illegal entry.

I'm sure he'd rather kill them all by peaceful means.

Actually, what I'm doing is looking ahead to the end game.  Trump once said he hoped that his cruel treatment of immigrants would dissuade them from trying to come here.  But if people are coming here to escape grinding poverty and threats to their lives, what would it take to dissuade them?  Basically, a greater threat to their lives that the one they are facing at home or elsewhere.  A silly wall you can scale with a ladder certainly won't do the trick.

So if Trump really wants to stop people from trying to immigrate to this country, he will have to provide a deadlier threat than what they face at home.  He will have to try to kill them.  And to be effective, he will have to kill some of them to prove it to the rest.

Of course, I mainly said that to yank Crunch's chain. As my mom used to say, "What you shout to the forest, the forest will echo."

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.  Regardless of what you think you know, you know bumpkis.  Saying stuff like that just shows your ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

Same can be said for you.

Oh, I'm sure I do sometimes.  Feel free to correct me and educate me.  Explain to me how I'm wrong.  I would love to hear it.

But don't expect me to treat Crunch any better than he treat me.

And don't talk to me about using immigrants to score political points, when your Trump is using them as the basis of his campaign.  Like you care who uses them for political points. 

It certainly is effective. As recently as 6 months ago we had a press that was so indifferent on this issue that they were actively denying there were any problems with regards to immigrants crossing our Southern Border, no problems what so ever, and Trump was blowing things out of proportion to generate a crises which didn't exist.

Trump backed down, and now here we are, 6 months later, and the media is generating a crises involved the same issue, over things which have been going on since Obama was in Office.

Well, six months ago there were far fewer immigrants trying to cross the border.  But despite Trump's policies, there has been a great increase recently.  So, yes, the media is covering it, and the Trump Administration's response to it, as they would for any President.

But don't forget that Trump calls illegal immigrants murders, rapists and such.  That he equates illegal immigrants with gang members.  You can't deny that he uses immigrants--or actually, the fear of immigrants--to score political points.  So the last thing a Republican should do is criticize a Democrat for using immigrants "to score political points." 

10

General Comments / Re: AOC's latest

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:33:14 PM »

And similarly, being a Trump supporter, like Trump you'd rather see them all dead.  Am I right?

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.  Regardless of what you think you know, you know bumpkis.  Saying stuff like that just shows your ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

And don't talk to me about using immigrants to score political points, when your Trump is using them as the basis of his campaign.  Like you care who uses them for political points. 

11

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:27:08 PM »

So you say.

Let me reiterate:  how did it change the meaning and intent of the conversation?  Just saying so doesn't make it so.

12

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:25:27 PM »

Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

13

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:20:23 PM »

Didn't you read the junk they edited from the conversation?  Lots of "uh" and repeated words.  You may be used to hearing Trump speak, but most of us like clean sentences that get to the point and aren't stupid or redundant.

It if makes the text clearer, yes, edit out the useless words.  Of course, that does leave the person open to charges that he changed the meaning by doing so.  But you can always find out by reading the unredacted text.  So, again, did the edits change the meaning significantly?

14

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:17:26 PM »

Well, when the Republicans plan is "deny until we hang ourselves," it really doesn't matter how badly the global warming crowd is doing, does it?   

We'll do what we can until we get a better alternative.

(Besides, the plastic grocery bag bans are primarily for addressing the plastic crisis, not global warming, IIRC.)

15

General Comments / Re: AOC's latest

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:14:59 PM »

Yeah, yeah.  She would've eaten their bodies and sacrificed them to Satan, too.

Let's deal with what is actual, not "how it could've been worse if Hillary had won." 

16

General Comments / Re: AOC's latest

« on: June 19, 2019, 06:09:20 PM »

Volume.  Lack of discrimination of who is sent there.  And a President that indicated that maybe not treating immigrants well might discourage them from coming in the first place.

17

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: June 19, 2019, 04:14:17 PM »

How do the omitted parts change the thrust of the conversation?  Even with the “without having to give up any…um confidential information. so, uhm, if it’s the former, then you know,” the basic message seems to be the same to me:  tell us what they know.

18

General Comments / Re: AOC's latest

« on: June 19, 2019, 02:28:09 PM »

And isn't it fun how Republicans go and redefine terms (like "concentration camps"), then criticize Democrats for not using it the way they want them to?

I guess they are just the Humpty-Dumpty party.   

19

General Comments / Re: "Trump Heights"--Nyahoo nominates Trump for beast of Revelations

« on: June 19, 2019, 10:55:26 AM »

The joke gets even better.

Not only are they waiting for a new government to approve the village, they are also awaiting plans and funding and even a concept.

The proposal put before the cabinet to found the new community includes no real steps toward its establishment. It’s mainly “administrative work,” which in Israeli speak means barely a single meeting around a plate of carbs. Numerous other expressions from the very creative “Israbluff” lexicon appear there in full force: “Formulating recommendations,” “examining a variety of aspects,” “submitting opinions,” “the government notes,” and so on and so forth.

There’s just one sentence at the end that reveals the deceit: “When the final government decision is made on the establishment of the community, and insofar as the location of the new town will be in the area of the community of Kela…” There it is. Indeed, no such final decision was made, and it’s unclear if after the sign’s installation such a community will ever be established, or will remain a celestial “Trump Heights” – a mythological town that exists only in the imagination.

It's a sign!  Literally, just a sign.

20

General Comments / Re: "Trump Heights"--Nyahoo nominates Trump for beast of Revelations

« on: June 18, 2019, 06:22:01 PM »

Just because Trump once owned the building at 666 Fifth Avenue, one shouldn't jump to conclusions...

21

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 18, 2019, 02:45:03 PM »

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

And what do you think fishing will be like while those without the old adaptations die off? 

Check out how well it worked out 252 million years ago.

22

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 18, 2019, 01:54:49 PM »

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

23

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!

« on: June 03, 2019, 01:22:37 PM »

Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

So fossil methane contributes to global warming even if burned.

24

General Comments / Freedom Gas!

« on: May 30, 2019, 04:34:31 PM »

Yes, you may still think of it as methane or "natural gas" that heats your water.  But when it is liquefied and exported to Europe, it becomes something more.  Something special.  Something that embodies the ideals and values of our great nation.  A symbol of America to the world.

Yes, it becomes...Freedom Gas!   

Because, after all, a fossil fuel that makes money for the oil conglomerates while adding CO2 to our atmosphere and increases global warming/climate change is a perfect symbol for this Administration. 

25

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: May 30, 2019, 11:26:26 AM »

Steele made his first contact with the FBI in July.

But it was clearly not the reason the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign in July.  If it were, then it should have been listed as one of the reasons for the investigation.

26

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: May 30, 2019, 11:24:15 AM »

Fox News' legal analyst Andrew Napolitano spelled it out as clearly as one could.

“The evidence he [Mueller] laid out is remarkably similar to the impeachment charges against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton,” Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained on Fox Business. He then drew direct comparisons between allegations against the former presidents and those laid out by Mueller against Trump, highlighting instances where all the heads of state had allegedly worked to obstruct justice.

“These facts that he laid out are so substantially similar to the matured allegations against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, it’s clear where he was going,” Napolitano pointed out...

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

Fox Business host Stuart Varney then asked: “Is it that bad?”

“I think so,” Napolitano responded. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

Then there was Fox's chief political anchor Bret Baier:

“I was struck by the tone and tenor of those remarks, as he [Mueller] laid out his case wrapping up this report,” Baier said Wednesday on America’s Newsroom after the special counsel’s comments were aired live. “This was not, as the president says time and time again, ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It was much more nuanced than that,” the anchor explained.

“He [Mueller] said specifically they couldn’t find evidence sufficient to move forward with a crime on the issue of conspiracy, on the collusion part of the investigation on the Trump campaign,” Baier pointed out. “He said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, that they would have said that,” he said...

“It was not anywhere as clear cut as Attorney General Bill Barr [characterized the report],” the political anchor said. “In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite, not clear cut.”

27

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: May 29, 2019, 03:40:01 PM »

BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

OK, Crunch, if you want to ignore PolitiFact, how about this source:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016...

So there was an on-going FBI counterintelligence investigation months before the Steele dossier was mentioned in October 2016.  Or do you have some problem with this source, too?

28

General Comments / Re: Trump's mental state

« on: May 24, 2019, 06:30:01 PM »

Was there ever a time Trump didn't talk like this?

Yes, there was such a time, Crunch.  Trump didn't use to speak at a fourth-grade level.  Which either means he is losing it, or he simply believes his audiences at his rallies better relate to that level of speech.

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You know, it might be easier to just close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and scream "La-La-La-La" when you see some facts that you don't like, instead of blaming it on the bearer of bad news. 

29

General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation

« on: May 24, 2019, 06:17:03 PM »

What I am disputing is the unstated implication that there is no difference between neo-(self)segregation and Segregation.

What makes one "self" segregation?  In the first instance, white persons wanted to be "self" segregated from black persons and created areas that were exclusively for white persons, in the new one black persons want to be "self" segregated from whites and to create areas that are exclusively for black persons.

I think you're somehow pretending that segregation originally was "put on others" and that the current version is put on oneself.  That's a read that only acknowledges the view point of the black person involved, and not the reciprocal view points of the white person.

In any event, the idea of segregation on campus completely undermines the heavily relied on belief that diversity is vital in creating a college class, so much so that colleges should be able to consider race (which is otherwise strictly prohibited under our laws) in admission decisions.  If diversity is vital to the college experience creating segregation dorms specifically undermines what has been labelled as critical.

I'm not sure which part I am supposedly "pretending"-- that segregation originally was "put on others" (an obvious truth) or that the "current" version is put on oneself.  Let me expand on this.

"Classic" segregation was imposed on others.  If you were black, there was no choice about where you could live, work, go to school, etc.  It was prescribed by law.  You were jailed or worse if you broke it.

This "segregation" seems to be more like a club.  It is not imposed by law.  Even these segregated dorms are not "exclusive" as in the old sense.  I would bet that, if there were no enough students to fill the dorms, whites and others would be housed there.  They would not be left empty because whites were "not allowed."

And even with these segregated dorms, the students themselves are not segregated.  They attend the same classes, eat at the same cafeterias, interact in all other ways.  This is a far cry from entire colleges that were segregated.

And a segregated dorm for white students would be rather silly in a college that is predominantly white.  When most of the dorms are predominantly white, what would be the need to have one exclusively for whites?  Would they feel isolated in regular dorms?  Would they find it difficult to find others like them to associate with?  These are the purposes of these minority-segregated dorms, not to keep "those people" away from them as in "classic" segregation.  (Now, in a black college, I could see the need for such a segregated dorm, and I doubt there would be much hue-and-cry about it. )

This supposed "neo-segregation" seems to me to be more about helping students feel comfortable in situations where they are the minority, to help with diversity overall on the campus, rather than "classic" segregation which was to keep races separated.  I see this as the vital difference, and one which cuts the legs off of the reverse-discrimination claims of organizations like the National Association of Scholars.

Please start with your definitions. I expect footnotes.

I ask my questions because I'm not certain you see any difference between classic segregation and neo-segregation, or any similarities between neo-segregation and clubs or peer-pressure behavior.

So before I answer the affirmative about supporting "neo-segregation," I want to be sure that we agree that they are not identical, and both recognize the differences between them.  Because I don't want you coming back saying that I must be a proponent of Jim Crow because I don't see this "neo-segregation" as a horrible thing. 

30

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: May 24, 2019, 01:55:50 PM »

BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

I can see now why you're such an ardent Trump supporter:  you gloss over all subtleties. 

As I tried to tell you in my other posts, the reasons I ignore some of your more fringe sources is based on easy-to-do demagoguery techniques of cherry-picking, strawmanning and such.

Gathering instances showing that Democrats always do X or Y is easy.  Just ignore every instance when they don't.  Similarly, showing instances where liberals are segregating is easy.  Just re-define segregation so that it fits your desired outcome.  When sites are likely, or obviously, doing so, I'm not going to waste my time reading them.

My assertion, however, is much simpler.  Did the Mueller investigation start because of the Steele dossier?  The answer to that does not lie in omitting valid information or redefining terms.  It has to do with a very simple fact:  did the investigation start before the Steele dossier was used?

According to Politifact, Mueller stated that an FBI investigation started on July 31, 2016 because of Papadopoulos' contact with the Russians.  That this investigation did not include the Steele dossier until October of that year.  And that this investigation became Mueller's investigation when Comey was fired.

What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.  I have facts and dates that prove it.  Does it matter where these facts come from?  Can you, or anyone, not easily verify these facts from another source?

The bottom line here is that, in this instance, it doesn't matter who came up with the facts.  Finding a fact that shows that the FBI investigation which became the Mueller investigation started before the Steele dossier was used proves that the Steele dossier was not the reason the investigation was started.  Unless you wish to dispute those facts, disputing the site where I found those facts is an obvious ad hominem.  You're just trying to cloud the issue with it.  And sully my reputation along the way. 

31

General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation

« on: May 23, 2019, 06:31:19 PM »

Crunch, can you summarize the differences between neo-segregation, classic segregation, peer-pressure and club membership?  Just so that we're all clear...

32

General Comments / Re: Trump's mental state

« on: May 23, 2019, 06:26:30 PM »

Was there ever a time Trump didn't talk like this?

Yes, there was such a time, Crunch.  Trump didn't use to speak at a fourth-grade level.  Which either means he is losing it, or he simply believes his audiences at his rallies better relate to that level of speech.

33

General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation

« on: May 23, 2019, 03:52:21 PM »

Shocking!  I am shocked to hear that Wayward.   

I’m not. It’s the easy way to dismiss anything without a moments critical thought. Pretty standard procedure around here. He did not read the report, did not consider anything on its merit, just googled up enough to shoot the messenger. Facts take back seat (get it? Back of the bus?) to ideology with the left and this is a perfect example of that.

What makes you think I'm disputing any "facts?"  People self-segregate.  I don't dispute that.  You see it in where people live and vote.

What I am disputing is the unstated implication that there is no difference between neo-(self)segregation and Segregation.  That they are both evil, that both should be fought against, and that the Left are hypocrites because they support one and condemn the other.  Which are not facts, but opinions.

Now, since you did read the report, you can make me look foolish and tell me that none of those things are implied by the report.  That this organization, which goals are to end affirmative action and multiculturalism, published this report with no intention, implicit or otherwise, to use it as proof that their opinions are right.  But then you have to answer why they call it "neo-segregation" rather than something more neutral.

If they did not try to do those things, please explain what they were trying to do.  But if they were trying to do them, please don't waste all our time by sniping at me for "shooting the messenger," when I got the message loud and clear without even needing to hear him.  

34

General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation

« on: May 22, 2019, 04:00:35 PM »

It is an indication that it's a thing only to people who don't care about segregation per se and are more concerned with something else, like ending affirmative action (which was established to counteract the effects of past segregation).

IOW, it's something they want to make a thing, but it's only a thing to them.  It's no-thing to everyone else.

35

General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation

« on: May 22, 2019, 02:41:49 PM »

It should be noted that the National Association of Scholars is "an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education.[2][3] It promotes free speech on college campuses for dissident political trends, a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty" and "opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia."

So this organization is not concerned with minority rights or the effects of segregation from the past.  It would appear that this is an attempt to broaden the meaning of "segregation" to include any voluntary, non-exclusionary separation of groups, for the likely purpose of negating affirmative action for minorities.

36

General Comments / Re: Why the frenzy?

« on: May 16, 2019, 06:22:05 PM »

Looking around, I was even more astonished to find that 716 candidates have actually registered with the FEC, including strange ones.

Just to give some perspective, there have always been hundreds of candidates who have registered with the FEC to run for President.

You can find the list for 2016 here.  Just find the black box labelled "Federal Election Commission filed candidates" under Full list of declared candidates, and click [show].  I didn't count how many there were, because it took 54 "page-downs" to get to the bottom of the list, and I ain't nearly that patient. 

It is amazing how no one reports on how many people run for President every election.  OTOH, who really cares about a vast majority of them? 

37

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 15, 2019, 03:52:52 PM »

No reason to speculate.  If she was the one who forced the payment at that time, you have a point.  But I haven't seen anything that indicates that.  Is this based on something you know, or just a possible excuse that may or may not be true.

I'm not speculating! You're the one making a positive statement about what did happen. I have no clue!

We know that she did not force Trump to pay her at that time.  Trump could have paid her anytime before the election is his purpose was to keep his loved ones from knowing about the affair.  Apparently, he didn't care until he was a candidate.  That's a pretty strong indication of motivation in my book.

38

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 15, 2019, 03:44:48 PM »

So on Stormy's timing, it was a case of trying to profit off the story, but happy to take an extortion payout instead.  You can easily find the details, she gave an interview in 2011 to InTouch that they never published (until after the election), and decided to shop the story after the Access Hollywood release.  As that apparently prompted her agent to decide it was a good time to shop it, the profit motive, rather than an ethical one seems clearly paramount.  And in fact, since she did agree to an NDA for a cash payment that's exactly what played out.

Of course, blackmail or extortion doesn't bother you.

Blackmail?  Extortion?  How can you blackmail or extort someone with public information??   

The first reports of an alleged 2006 affair between Trump and Daniels ... were published in October 2011 by the blog The Dirty and the magazine Life & Style.  Around the same time, Daniels talked about the alleged affair with the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, which chose not to publish the interview after Cohen threatened to sue the magazine.

Stormy's motivation is not in question here.  She was trying to make money on the story.  It's Trump's motivation that is salient.

If Trump was trying to prevent the story from becoming public knowledge to his loved ones, the cat was already out of the bag, and no NDA was going to stop it.

If Trump was trying to prevent the story from becoming widely known, an NDA would help.

Lol, yes, makes total sense, let's enter into a non-disclosure agreement and wait a sec, how do you spell your name for the press release about our non-disclosure agreement?

To which I say, too bad.    His stupidity is not an excuse to break the law.

There's no law requiring the public disclosure of an NDA.  Again, this case is a loser on campaign finance.  The John Edwards case was far far more egregious and it too was a loser.  There's absolutely no way to establish that a private payment, where the motive is mixed, was a technical violation of campaign financial laws, and it's already clear it's not a substantive one.  Campaign finance is about misapproriation of campaign resources, which is why candidates can spend in unlimited ways.

It's not just about misappropriation.  In this case, it was using funds for a campaign that were not reported as such, not using campaign funds for non-campaign purposes.  Or are you using "misappropriation" in a different way?

And if a case is a "loser," does that mean it is automatically legal and not breaking the law?

As I noted before, your read would make every haircut a candidate gets, every new suit, every single vanity item into a campaign expense, as they are all targeted at least in part at electability, and it's been clearly established by the actual cases that charging those to the campaign, whether or not disclosed, can trigger violations of the law.

If taken to the extreme, perhaps.  Taken to the opposite extreme, paying for hours of TV commercials advocating for a candidate is not a campaign contribution if they also plugged a specific brand of toothpaste at the end.   What makes you think paying off a woman to protect a campaign is the same as getting a haircut?

Your read on this is self serving nonsense, not an accurate statement of how the law works or is intended to work.

I am no lawyer, so if you would like to explain how the laws which so many pundits were referring is not applicable in this case, I'm interested to hear it. 

NDAs are legal.  Whether they should be is a different question.  With his background there's no legitimate way to separate his personal desire for an NDA from a political purpose, which makes treating it as a campaign expense highly questionable and paying for it from campaign funds probably a violation.

Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence! 

She brought it up, see above.  Her agent saw that after the Access Hollywood release the information value now had a premium and they moved to market it.

I'm willing to bet there are other women out there that have slept with him that he's never reached out to.

Once again, her motivations are not salient to this.  Did Trump pay her off to protect his personal reputation, or to protect his campaign for President?

It certainly appears to be campaign related.

Lol.  By your "standard" everything is.

Sounds like, by your standard, nothing is.

And, as I said before, what would prevent him from paying from his personal funds and declaring it a "campaign contribution?"  An in-kind contribution of sorts, where he didn't put money in the campaign, just reported the value that was used to be part of his campaign?  That seems to me to legally cover him.  And if it made the NDA useless, well, as I said before, not my problem.

So if a candidate pays for medicine for an illness, where disclosing the illness could hurt their campaign, even if it's not disqualifying, by your logic that too is a campaign finance violation.  If a candidate is in a fender bender and the other person says, lets settle this with a $500 payment and not involve the police or our insurance, that too is a campaign finance violation.

If a candidate, pays to have dentures so they can smile, that's a campaign finance violation.

You have no sense of perspective.

No, you're trying to make everything equivalent when they are not.  Just because paying off a fender-bender doesn't need to be reported does not imply that paying for TV commercials doesn't need to be, either, or paying someone a NDA doesn't need to be reported.

Again, what you are seeking is not about the Rule of Law, its about the corruption of law for a political purpose.

No, what you're trying to do is excuse Trump from breaking the law.

What law is that?

From what I understand, the law says that contributions to a campaign must be reported, even non-monetary, "in-kind" contributions.  Trump made a contribution to his own campaign in the form of a NDA payment to Stormy.  He tried to hide it by various devious means and by out-and-out denial that he ever made it.  That appears to me to be someone trying to break the law and hide it.

There's no winnable case based on your misinterpretation, ergo not against the law, ergo not excusing breaking the law.

Am I understanding you correctly?  That breaking the law is primarily determined by whether there is a "winnable case" or not?  That, in fact, if the case is not "winnable," is it automatically legal?   

39

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 15, 2019, 11:47:53 AM »

Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence! 

It certainly appears to be campaign related.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. You are insisting that Trump decided to do this right at election time, as if there was no possibility that it was her choice of timing to maximize the damage to him and/or increase her chances of a great settlement.

Let's dispense with "possibilities."  What are the actual facts in this case?  Whose choice was it regarding timing?  Was she the one who asked for the hush money?  Why would she ask for it, since she already talked about the affair back in 2006?  (Hard to ask someone to "hush" something that was already public knowledge. )  What actually happened?

No reason to speculate.  If she was the one who forced the payment at that time, you have a point.  But I haven't seen anything that indicates that.  Is this based on something you know, or just a possible excuse that may or may not be true.

40

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 14, 2019, 06:32:44 PM »

Lol, yes, makes total sense, let's enter into a non-disclosure agreement and wait a sec, how do you spell your name for the press release about our non-disclosure agreement?

To which I say, too bad.    His stupidity is not an excuse to break the law.

NDAs are legal.  Whether they should be is a different question.  With his background there's no legitimate way to separate his personal desire for an NDA from a political purpose, which makes treating it as a campaign expense highly questionable and paying for it from campaign funds probably a violation.

Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence! 

It certainly appears to be campaign related.

And, as I said before, what would prevent him from paying from his personal funds and declaring it a "campaign contribution?"  An in-kind contribution of sorts, where he didn't put money in the campaign, just reported the value that was used to be part of his campaign?  That seems to me to legally cover him.  And if it made the NDA useless, well, as I said before, not my problem.

Again, what you are seeking is not about the Rule of Law, its about the corruption of law for a political purpose.

No, what you're trying to do is excuse Trump from breaking the law.

And, actually, you're the one who admitted it to me, since I didn't specify it at all

Yes you did. In a previous post. I had no idea what you were saying and out of respect to you I read your previous posts to find out what you meant.  Given your insulting response I won't treat you with such respect in the future if you take that as an admission. You just turned into Crunch's counterpart. Is that really how you want to be?

Good detective work on your part, since I didn't even remember that I had addressed this issue previously in this thread.  My apologies.  I assumed you just remembered it, since just about all the liberal pundits who discussed the issue at the time made it very clear that his breaking campaign finance law was the primary reason Trump was being criticized.  I was afraid this was another case of selective memory, where conservatives ascribe motivations and reasons to liberals that have little to nothing to do with their real motivations.  Again, my apologies.

I think this is a crazy point to even make. It makes literally no sense to argue that he morally should have publicly declared a NDA to cover over an affair.

Once again, it's not a moral question but a legal one.  Spending money to help his campaign, by making sure Stormy didn't blab, should have been reported.  The moral and ethical lapse was Trump believing he didn't need to obey the law, then lying like a dog to cover it up.

41

General Comments / Re: Where’s RBG?

« on: May 14, 2019, 12:57:46 PM »

Hey, if it was determined by brain activity, half the conservative judges wouldn't qualify now! 

42

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 14, 2019, 12:16:30 PM »

I'm not saying that his failure to record this as a campaign offense is "the reason he's in trouble."  I'm telling you that it is.

And, actually, you're the one who admitted it to me, since I didn't specify it at all.

Seriati, obviously the legal and ethical thing to do was to pay Stormy with his own funds and report it as a campaign contribution.  Nothing in the law (AFAIK) prevents a candidate from contributing to himself.

Instead, he tried to hide the payment and lied about it.  What does that tell you about Trump's legal and ethical intentions?

43

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality

« on: May 13, 2019, 07:09:56 PM »

And, remarkably, with this long list of reasons, you missed the single reason Trump is in trouble because of this "indiscretion."

44

General Comments / Re: The Pandora's box of tax returns

« on: May 08, 2019, 02:39:14 PM »

One thing I don't understand is why a man who said he would release his tax returns (like all recent Presidential candidates have) "as soon as the audit is finished," is now fighting tooth-and-nail to keep them from Congress. 

And do all the arguments for preventing the House from looking at Trump's returns also apply to Trump's right to look at anyone's tax returns? 

45

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers

« on: April 30, 2019, 04:15:20 PM »

After all, science is a democrat thing.  What use would Republicans have with it?

46

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers

« on: April 30, 2019, 04:12:02 PM »

We’re down to only 10 years until it’s irreversible or the planet melts or whatever it is the global warming doomsday cult predicts. Beto just announced it.

First, Beto is not a climatologist.  So why are you worried about what he says, unless it is backed up by the science?

Second, he didn't say "the planet melts" or even "whatever."  If you paid attention to what is actually said by those more knowledgeable than you, you might learn something. 

AGW is bull*censored*, the whole cult is full of window lickers from the back of the short bus that scream about science while refusing to get vaccinated and insisting there are 2 dozen genders. It’s science bro!

You're only showing your own ignorance with rants like that, Crunch.

AGW advocates and vaccination deniers are not the same group.  In fact, I'd wager that there are more AGW-deniers among the anti-vaxxers than AGW-proponents.

And remember that gender is a social construct.  You're probably getting it mixed up with a person's sex (which is not the same thing).

It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.

Booga-booga-booga.  "We'll all be poor if we believe the Earth is warming!"  You're so concerned looking at your wallet, you don't see the bus heading toward you.

Sticking you head in the sand only means you'll be bit in the *ss.  The Earth is warming.  The evidence is all there.  Which were the ten hottest years on record?  Why didn't the global average temperatures decrease after the previous el nino event, like all the deniers kept telling us?  Why is nature conspiring with all those totalitarian ideologists to take away your money and freedom??

It breaks along ideological lines because Fox and the Conservative media has been drumming this lie into your heads for the past few decades.  Because they are afraid that transitioning to power sources that won't warm our planet will cost too much and their stocks will go down.  So what if ocean levels rise, deserts become larger, flooding becomes more common, crops die because of heat and drought, cities become uninhabitable because of heat and humidity, and the oceans become so acidic that much of sea life dies?  They'll have enough money to protect themselves.  Maybe not their children or grandchildren, but that's not their problem...

You think AGW advocates are part of a cult?  Look in the mirror. 

47

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers

« on: April 30, 2019, 02:51:25 PM »

The more pragmatic one, in terms of Climate Change being valid, but Anthropogenic is minimal, would be that matter of while this may be "the warmest it has been in the last 100,000 years" they're constantly ignoring the matter of their favored epochs largely sitting astride a global ice age.

Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Why should I care about the climate when trilobites ruled the Earth?  What does that have to do with our climate now?  We evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.  This is the climate we, and all plants and animals we evolved with (and use as food), are used to.  What makes you think all of them will be unaffected by climate change?

And what were the factors that made the climate so much hotter in the past?  Has the sun insolance become less over the millenniums?  Has the orbit changed slightly?  Are these factors currently affecting the climate? 

Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

So what if the climate changed before?  We're changing the climate now.  Apparently at a faster rate than past climate changes.  So what if the sun insolance or the Earth's orbit changed the climate a million years ago?  We're concerned with the change that's happening now.

AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.

We know AGW is definitely contributing, because it is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That alone will increase the heat retained in our climate.  Anyone who denies that is an idiot.

So what do your models say is the major contributor to the recent observed increase in global average temperatures?  What is the consensus opinion among deniers?  How much of the warming is due to other factors like solar insolance?  Can you list those other factors?  How did your computer models calculate those contributions?  Did they take the oceans absorption of heat into account?  How about reflections from ice and rocks?

And please tell me you have these things.  You, who mock the man-decades of work that has gone into climate research and climate modelling.  The least you must have is a computer model that shows that all the rest of the climate research community is wrong.  I mean, I know you aren't basing this on some make-believe "theories" by a few contrarians, or "just-so" stories from internet sites.  Where is your solid science that you are mocking climate science with?  Show me the reasons you believe this, and why your theories and data are better than the scientific consensus.

We wait with bated breath.

48

General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians

« on: April 29, 2019, 06:40:01 PM »

And I believe most of what you think isn't horrible is the result of information from a biased media that lies and refuses to report all the facts to you, along with philosophical ideas that are designed to help increase the power of another set of autocrats and reduce the freedoms and fairness of our nation.

But that's the nature of politics these days, ain't it?

49

General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians

« on: April 29, 2019, 06:27:08 PM »

You missed msnbc's white lady on white lady outrage about the 53% number?  Or are you protesting my "LeftPress"abbreviations derogatory?

Sorry, I missed the one white lady you're thinking of.  Does everything single thing any single person says on MSNBC, et al, automatically become the doctrine of the "LeftPress?"

Do you honestly think that Trump has proved worse than what his mainstream opponents said about him during the election?

I did hear a number of horrible things he would do that, so far, have not come to pass (thank God!) from a number of opponents during the election.  So in that you are correct.

OTOH, I did hear a number of good things that were supposed to have happened from his supporters that have yet to come to pass.

And I've seen a number of horrible things that have come to pass that I know would not have happened had his opponent won.  Those are undeniable.  And those are the things I consider when I say that the election had actual consequences.

You can imagine anything under "what if" scenarios and use it to justify any conclusion.  But you have to admit that this country is in a completely different place than it would have been if Hillary had one.  A worse place, IMHO.

50

General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians

« on: April 29, 2019, 04:47:32 PM »

Dunno.  I don't read the "LeftPress."