Drowning Accomplished
Conservatives wanted to drown government in a bathtub. Now they are doing that.
I think everybody understands: Trump is not serious, he is a troll. He doesn't know anything about running a government but knows how to amplify the resentment of ignorant people and create a populist smokescreen for international organized crime. "The wall" is trolling, it's not a grown-up idea, it's not for real. It started as a campaign skit to get crowds worked up about immigration. As Joshua Green explained in his book, Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg take credit for it:
Walls were fine in Medieval times when barbarians were shooting arrows at your castle, but the function of "the wall" as an idea in the twenty-first century is to isolate and ridicule those who still believe in objective reality, and who believe that a democratic government can be effective.
If they can't literally drown it in a bathtub then conservatives can at least mock government, ridicule it, propose absurd ways to waste tax money, and while they're at it they can mock and ridicule people who take government seriously. Drown the libs in a bathtub, too. Conservatives hope to get everybody worked up in an absurd debate while the government ignores real crises; this will prove that government deserved to be drowned. They are hoping this shutdown does it. There is no hurry to re-open, no real need to as long as they still have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. This is it: there is no federal government. Drowning accomplished.
The Democrats will fail completely if they attempt to debate "the wall." It would be like Elizabeth Warren showing us her DNA report -- playing the game is losing. The Democrats need to stay focused and positive; they have a bipartisan plan to manage border security, they have the votes in Congress for it, and they cannot let themselves be distracted from that. Don't argue about the strengths and weaknesses of a Medieval wall. It doesn't matter why it wouldn't work, or how tall it is, or if it has slats, or spikes, it is just a dumb idea.
I think everybody understands: Trump is not serious, he is a troll. He doesn't know anything about running a government but knows how to amplify the resentment of ignorant people and create a populist smokescreen for international organized crime. "The wall" is trolling, it's not a grown-up idea, it's not for real. It started as a campaign skit to get crowds worked up about immigration. As Joshua Green explained in his book, Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg take credit for it:
“Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” said Nunberg. “It was to make sure he talked about immigration.”It is fine to negotiate and compromise on bipartisan differences, but this is not a real proposal, it is just trolling and no compromise is possible. You can't win by opposing it, by reasoning about it, because the idea of a border wall does not meet the criteria for being included in a logical argument. All you can do it ignore it.
Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea. But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. “One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,” said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. “Nobody,” he said, “builds like Trump.” The Guy Who Thought Up ‘the Wall’ Says Trump Should Shut Government to Fund It
Walls were fine in Medieval times when barbarians were shooting arrows at your castle, but the function of "the wall" as an idea in the twenty-first century is to isolate and ridicule those who still believe in objective reality, and who believe that a democratic government can be effective.
If they can't literally drown it in a bathtub then conservatives can at least mock government, ridicule it, propose absurd ways to waste tax money, and while they're at it they can mock and ridicule people who take government seriously. Drown the libs in a bathtub, too. Conservatives hope to get everybody worked up in an absurd debate while the government ignores real crises; this will prove that government deserved to be drowned. They are hoping this shutdown does it. There is no hurry to re-open, no real need to as long as they still have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. This is it: there is no federal government. Drowning accomplished.
The Democrats will fail completely if they attempt to debate "the wall." It would be like Elizabeth Warren showing us her DNA report -- playing the game is losing. The Democrats need to stay focused and positive; they have a bipartisan plan to manage border security, they have the votes in Congress for it, and they cannot let themselves be distracted from that. Don't argue about the strengths and weaknesses of a Medieval wall. It doesn't matter why it wouldn't work, or how tall it is, or if it has slats, or spikes, it is just a dumb idea.
posted by JimK at 11:22 AM
315 Comments:
The thing that bothers me most about this wall idea, should it ever get built, is its impact on wildlife.
The wall would divide wild populations and prevent interbreeding. This lowers the overall genetic quality in the two groups and makes them both more prone to extinction.
60% of the worlds animals have disappeared since 1970 and we are in one of the greatest extinction events of all time on planet earth and by great extinction events I mean things like the extinction of dinosaurs 63 million years ago.
Tяump’s War on the Environment
Donald Tяump is not just engaged in a war on objective reality and the truth, he’s also been hellbent on destroying the environment. The New York Times has a long investigative report on his tireless efforts to do away with regulations that protect our air and water and the damaging effects those efforts are already having all over the country.
Since Mr. Tяump took office, his approach on the environment has been to neutralize the most rigorous Obama-era restrictions, nearly 80 of which have been blocked, delayed or targeted for repeal, according to an analysis of data by The New York Times.
With this running start, Mr. Tяump is already on track to leave an indelible mark on the American landscape, even with a decline in some major pollutants from the ever-shrinking coal industry. While Washington has been consumed by scandals surrounding the president’s top officials on environmental policy — both the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior secretary have been driven from his cabinet — Mr. Tяump’s vision is taking root in places as diverse as rural California, urban Texas, West Virginian coal country and North Dakota’s energy corridor.
While the Obama administration sought to tackle pollution problems in all four states and nationally, Mr. Tяump’s regulatory ambitions extend beyond Republican distaste for what they considered unilateral overreach by his Democratic predecessor; pursuing them in full force, Mr. Tяump would shift the debate about the environment sharply in the direction of industry interests, further unraveling what had been, before the Obama administration, a loose bipartisan consensus dating in part to the Nixon administration.
During the campaign, Tяump made it a point to tell his audience that because he was rich, he could not be bought off by “special interests” (a useless political phrase if ever there was one). What he didn’t tell them was that he didn’t need to be bought off because he agreed with much (not all) of the corporate world that a nation in which they were able to spew as much pollution into the air, rivers, streams and lakes was one in which we had “freedom.” Tell the kid who has asthma because of local air pollution that he should be grateful big business is so “free” to emit the very substances that cause him so much suffering.
Canadian GoFundMe Raises $6B In Two Hours To Pay For Privacy Hedge Along Entire US Border
In a stunning rebuke of the 46th worst president in American history, the United States’ northern neighbour shattered numerous crowdsourcing records today, when it raised billions and billions and billions of dollars to plant and maintain a living barrier between themselves and the adjacent idiocracy.
“We’d heard that a bunch of people down in the You-Ess-of-Eh had decided to empty their wallets out for a wall that won’t block anything other than half of all escape routes, when their dirty bomb of a president melts through his retaining barrier,” explains the man who started the campaign, Tom Candy, of Fewmarket, Ontario.
“So naturally our first thought was: how can we best deal with this shitshow as it unfolds directly beside us, and add a little ever-greenery to a world which, it has to be said, is looking a little bleak right now? The answer was, of course, legalizing marijuana. But with that already having been done, our next thought was: let’s plant a privacy hedge.”
The campaign started with the modest goal of raising $250,000, which was estimated to be enough to pay for an ad on Fox & Friends asking Americans to help Canada secure its border against the dreaded MAGA-16 gang.
"It doesn't matter why it wouldn't work, or how tall it is, or if it has slats, or spikes, it is just a dumb idea."
you can tell a wild-eyed, lunatic fringe is speaking when no reason can be given for an argument, it's just "dumb"
says the dummy
the truth is, building the wall does not violate any basic principle the Dems hold dear and they could use this as leverage to get all kinds of things they want
but they have to come to the table
Priya, at least, gives some reason for her opposition
TTF just believes they have papal authority to declare things "dumb"
assuming one believes controlling the border is an appropriate function of government, the wall slows down the flow of traffic
yes, with enough effort, its effect can be defeated, but it remains a significant hindrance
just like locking your front door
robbers can still break in, but the locked door complicates things
btw, a government shutdown is healthy every coupla years
helps us remember what parts of government are non-essential
a starting point for our next budget cuts to reduce the deficit
"a starting point for our next budget cuts to reduce the deficit"
ooooooooooooooh, yeah!!
Looks like Hillary Clinton had a dumb idea in 2015, when she bragged, “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, I do think you have to control your borders.”
early 60 percent of U.S. voters surveyed say President Trump should be either impeached and removed from office or formally censured, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.
The poll shows that a majority of voters polled think some kind of action should be taken against Trump, though they are divided on how far lawmakers should go as Democrats prepare to take over the House majority.
Asked whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office for his actions, censured by Congress or whether Congress should take no action, 39 percent of respondents said Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
mpeachment would require a majority vote by the House — a possibility with a Democratic majority, though leadership in the party have been cautious on the topic. Conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds vote, something unlikely in a body that will have 53 Republicans.
Twenty percent of poll respondents said lawmakers should vote to formally censure the president.
Forty-one percent of respondents said Congress should take no action against the president, according to the survey of 1,473 registered voters.
The latest polling numbers are largely on par with past months, which saw the percentage of voters who believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office hover between 32 percent and 43 percent.
Meanwhile, the percentage of those who believe he should be censured has hovered between 14 and 22 percentage.
Likewise, the percentage of voters who believe that Congress should take no action has, for the most part, remained consistent, lingering largely in the low 40-percent range, according to past polling data.
The poll results come as Trump faces criminal investigations in both Washington, D.C., and New York related to whether his campaign coordinated with Russian officials and actors to help sway the 2016 presidential election...
this poll also shows that 59% think the Mueller probe is harming America
"60 percent of U.S. voters surveyed say President Trump should be either impeached and removed from office or formally censured, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill"
this is basically a liberal lie
it would be like saying 60% of Americans think Hillary lost because she was either crooked or incompetent
true, but a lie
and the liar who posted this knows why
so, only 40% think Trump should be impeached
the media has them convinced that Mueller has evidence of collusion
the media doesn't know that, and Mueller doesn't have such evidence
the latest is that the media is pushing the idea that he can be impeached for political reasons
they say this because they know he's committed no crime
but even in the unlikely event that 67 Senators were to agree, Trump would be sure to contest to the Supreme Court
Rudy Giuliani has a New Year’s message for Robert Mueller: It is time for the investigator in the Russia case to be investigated
In wide-ranging interviews on Wednesday and Thursday, President Trump’s defense lawyer accused Mueller’s office of destroying evidence by allowing text messages from now-fired FBI official Peter Strzok and his FBI lover, Lisa Page, to be erased in the Russia probe.
“Mueller should be investigated for destruction of evidence for allowing those text messages from Strzok to be erased, messages that would show the state of mind and tactics of his lead anti-Trump FBI agent at the start of his probe,” Giuliani said.
The Justice Department inspector general (IG) reported this month that it found large gaps in the preservation of official government text messages between Strzok and Page, the two top FBI agents who helped to start the Russia probe in 2016, who were having an affair at the time, and who expressed disdain for Trump.
The IG said it was unable to recover messages from the time Strzok and Page worked for Mueller’s office in spring and summer 2017 because the memories of both FBI officials’ government phones were wiped clean by technicians.
That erasure occurred after Strzok and Page left Mueller’s team over revelations they exchanged anti-Trump text messages, including one string in which they talked about stopping Trump from becoming president.
“That should be investigated, damn it, that should be investigated fully. You want a special counsel, get one for that,” Giuliani said.
When pressed about whether he thought the erasure was intentional and not just a mistake, Giuliani alluded to the infamous erasure of a Watergate tape by President Nixon’s loyal secretary a half-century earlier.
“It’s actually worse than Rose Mary Woods,” he explained. “She erased less than 19 minutes of conversation, but the FBI got rid of more than 19,000 messages," and the messages from the time Strzok and Page worked for Mueller are lost forever.
Giuliani said the Russia probe investigators also should be investigated for using the Christopher Steele dossier, which he called a “piece of garbage,” to justify a search warrant on a Trump adviser without telling the court it was paid for by 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party.
“Do I think that is improper? Yeah, that borders on — that sounds to me a lot more like a false statement than some of the ones they charged,” he said, referring to Mueller’s team.
Nice video
POLL: 59% Want Trump Impeached Or Censured
Reuters reports:
Nearly 60 percent of U.S. voters say President Trump should be either impeached and removed from office or formally censured according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.
The poll shows that a majority of votes think some kind of action should be taken against Trump, though they are divided on how far lawmakers should go as Democrats prepare to take over the House majority.
Wyatt/Regina, the poll shows 59% of Americans think there is a serious problem with Trump's behavior as president - this goes far beyond the 40% that think his behavior is serious enough for him to be removed from office.
Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided by the Supreme Court last summer in favor of the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, but it was a narrow ruling that set little or no precedent. It remains an open question how far “My religion demands that I not serve your kind” can go.
Before that case was decided, a Christian blogger wanted to demonstrate the hypocrisy of gay couples asking Christian bakers for wedding cakes. So it’s not okay for Christian bakers to refuse? Let’s see how gay bakers like it when the tables are turned!
The Freedom Outpost blogger asked thirteen gay or pro-gay bakers for a cake that said, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” Each baker turned him down.
"f anyone who objects [says] our request for the cake was hateful, this is exactly the type of thing the homosexual activists do to Christian bakeries when they use the state to coerce them to make a cake with an explicitly pro homosexual slogan on it. Well, to turn it against them, we asked for an explicitly anti-homosexual marriage cake."
Blatant hypocrisy, right?
This inept experiment fails since the two positions aren’t symmetrical. The gay couple in the 2012 Colorado case simply wanted a wedding cake, not an anti-Christian or anti-conservative statement or even a political statement of any kind. It’s just a wedding cake—a symbol of love, remember? If someone is determined to take offense at that or see the wedding not as a loving couple wanting to get married but a deliberate poke in the eye of their lord and savior . . . well, I guess there’s not much you can do about that. But an objective observer would not see the imagined crime.
(Going forward, I’ll sometimes use conservative/liberal as synonyms for the clumsier phrases “same-sex marriage opponent/proponent.” This may bring to mind politics, but that’s fine since politics seems to be at least as much of a driving force as Christianity.)
The “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake was just hate speech. You’re welcome to say that, but you’re not entitled to demand someone else to do so. You want a symmetric experiment? Ask a gay baker to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple with the familiar bride/groom cake topper. If the baker demands that you take your business elsewhere because they don’t serve “your kind,” then you’ve got a case.
I’m sure that Freedom Outpost knew that that request wouldn’t cause any sparks, which is why they didn’t try an honest symmetric experiment but opted instead for a groundless grandstanding opportunity.
Tom Gilson of the Thinking Christian blog supported this experiment:
"Every gay marriage wedding cake, no matter how it’s decorated, says the man-woman-only view of marriage is wrong; but it takes special effort to make a man and woman’s wedding cake communicate that gay marriage is wrong."
First, the cake does have a point to make, but “the man/woman-only view is wrong” is not it. How hateful do you have to be to take a couple’s celebration of their special day and insist that the purpose is actually just to be mean to you?
If you enjoy being cantankerous, you could see the same kind of message in a man/woman wedding cake. Is this cake a deliberate jab at the couples who couldn’t afford a wedding this nice? Or the couples who only bought a small cake because they don’t have as many friends? Or the people whose potential mate turned them down?
Who would imagine any of those messages as subtext in a wedding cake? Who would think that that is a primary message of the wedding? If you’re thin-skinned, see this as a winner-take-all political game, and are determined to be offended, then you might see every gay wedding cake as a personal affront, but that’s your problem.
(More detailed arguments at the link)
New Jersey prosecutors have collected evidence that supervisors at President Trump’s Garden State golf club may have committed federal immigration crimes — and the FBI as well as special counsel Robert Mueller have played part in the inquiry, the Daily News has learned.
Anibal Romero, a Newark attorney who represents several undocumented immigrants who used to work at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, said Friday he recently met with investigators from the state attorney general’s office and handed over fraudulent green cards and Social Security numbers that management at the club allegedly procured and gave his clients, Victorina Morales and Sandra Diaz.
Before he met with the state prosecutors, Romero said he reached out to Mueller’s office because, while he wanted to contact federal authorities, he was concerned about looping in the Justice Department, which was headed by Jeff Sessions at the time.
“I wasn’t sure, one, if they’d take me seriously and, two, if this could backfire on my clients,” Romero told The News, referencing the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda.
Mueller’s office, which is separately investigating Trump’s campaign for possible collusion with Russians during the 2016 election, made contact and informed Romero the matter was not within their jurisdiction.
A few weeks later, an FBI agent in New Jersey called Romero.
“He said to me that he had received a referral from Robert Mueller’s office and that he already knew the specifics and that he wanted to meet with me in person,” Romero said.
Romero then met with two agents at a federal office in Branchburg, N.J., and outlined the same evidence he had already given the AG prosecutors. The agents said they would “coordinate” with the AG’s office, according to Romero.
Romero said he’s stayed in touch with the FBI and the attorney general’s office but declined to confirm whether either of the agencies have formally opened investigations.
“I’m confident that federal and state authorities will conduct a complete and thorough investigation,” Romero said.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment and so did Mueller’s office.
Sharon Lauchaire, a spokeswoman for New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, said her office has a policy “to neither confirm nor deny investigations.”
A White House spokeswoman did not respond to emailed questions.
Morales, a Guatemalan national who is still employed at the club but has stopped going to work, and Diaz, a Costa Rican national who used to work there and has since obtained legal status, are among at least five undocumented housekeepers at the club who allege they were set up with fraudulent documents and subjected to abuse and racial harassment.
Morales and Diaz first came forward with their allegations in interviews with The New York Times earlier this month.
Both women allege management at the Trump club knew they were undocumented and set them up with fake work documents...
Here are 5 reasons Trump’s border wall isn’t just a bad idea — it’s an embarrassing joke of a policy
The shutdown is intractable because Trump’s wall is ridiculous and Republicans know it
Wyatt/Regina said "
you can tell a wild-eyed, lunatic fringe is speaking when no reason can be given for an argument, it's just "dumb"
says the dummy
the truth is, building the wall does not violate any basic principle the Dems hold dear...".
Nonsense. Democrats hold very dearly the principle that if something is useless you shouldn't waste money on it as you could put that money into addressing some significant problem/opportunity instead - that's called an "opportunity cost" kids.
No reason is needed to oppose the wall beyond the fact that its a waste of money.
"Democrats hold very dearly the principle that if something is useless you shouldn't waste money on it as you could put that money into addressing some significant problem/opportunity instead - that's called an "opportunity cost" kids.
No reason is needed to oppose the wall beyond the fact that its a waste of money."
that's a reason to oppose the wall - if it were true
it's not a reason to make stopping the wall non-negotiable
indeed, if that were regarded as a valid reason to shut down the government, the government would never open again
either side could make the same argument about any number of items in the budget, items of greater than 5 billion
Dems claim they agree that border security is important
the wall would definitely enhance border security
it would be a significant hindrance to illegal immigration
you could argue there are better ways to do it
but it's not an either/or situation
if Dems have good ideas, we can try them too
let's hear their ideas
we'll wait
btw, Jimmy Carter created the Dept of Education in the late 70s
since then, student test scores in America have declined
so, the Department is a waste
if the Dept of Education is useless, you shouldn't waste money on it as you could put that money into addressing some significant problem/opportunity instead - that's called an "opportunity cost" kids
Tяump said to Chuck and Nancy "I will be proud to shutdown the government. I will take the mantle, I will not blame you for the shutdown."
I said "No reason is needed to oppose the wall beyond the fact that its a waste of money."
Wyatt/Regina said "that's a reason to oppose the wall...it's not a reason to make stopping the wall non-negotiable
indeed, if that were regarded as a valid reason to shut down the government, the government would never open again."
Wow! You should really think for a couple of seconds about what you're going to post before you hit "publish your comment" - that is a hilariously false on the face of it, lol!
Obviously the fact that the wall (or anything else) IS a waste of money IS a reason to make stopping the wall non-negotiable.
Do you really want to try to defend the position that "Wastes of money should not be summarily rejected."?
Of course you do. Because for you rationality and cost/benefit are enemies to trying to unjustifiably make Tяump look successful.
And Wyatt/Regina? If you want to pretend to be someone else, maybe stop with the "every sentence is a paragraph" writing - its a dead giveaway that its you posting.
Most Americans Would Prefer Border Wall Money Spent On Infrastructure, Education, & Healthcare, Poll Reveals
Once again, the Tяump Republicans are ignoring the will of the American people. The vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about Tяump's "wall" facade and lies about some sort of "border security" problem, they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary and the preservation of healthcare.
Illegal immigration is at its lowest point since 1970, there are more Mexicans moving back to Mexico than are coming into the States. This whole wall/"border security" thing is a distraction from the vast array of problems Tяump has created - no one honestly cares about it.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants are people who've entered the U.S. legally and overstayed their Visas. The "wall" would be a pointless waste of money that takes away from funding important things.
He’s Doing the Best He Can
Barely a day goes by without Donald Trump reminding us all of his total disregard for the truth, his startling ignorance, or his affection for murderous autocrats. The President of the United States generally exhibits the behavior of a sick, unfeeling sociopath. I am not a fan.
That said, you have to feel for the guy. It’s not his fault that he lacks so many of the attributes that are required to do this job successfully: a breadth of knowledge, maturity, empathy, curiosity, a sense of humour, emotional intelligence, discretion, self-discipline, self-awareness, selflessness, and the ability to put the country before self. Just to name a few.
Besides, any energy spent demanding that he suddenly develop these qualities at the age of 72 is wasted. The sad truth is, he’s doing the best he can.
And, of course, we knew who he was from Day One. The subtext of his entire campaign — starting with the announcement speech in which he called Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers — was: “Please do not elect me President — I cannot do this job.” Trump himself famously prepared only one speech for Election Night — a concession. (One can only imagine how gracious that speech congratulating President-elect Clinton would have been.)
That’s why Republican leaders didn’t want him to get the nomination. But when he got it, they decided they cared more about tax cuts and judges than they did about having a President who was good at the job. And the damage they caused by making that decision isn’t just that we have a bonehead in the Oval Office who can’t make his first trip to a warzone without revealing the identities of every member of Seal Team Five.
Because we have a President who is terrible at the job, the government he is in charge of is failing to perform basic functions — and people are getting hurt as a direct result.
We just had the second death of a young child from Guatemala in our custody. Yes, the family separation policy Trump and his allies chose to implement is awful on its own. But even though we’ve stopped it, there are still thousands of children being held in what are essentially private prisons. The Department of Homeland Security has no plan for what to do with these children or how to keep them safe. This tragedy wasn’t just a result of cruel policy. It was the result of incompetence. [You missed the mark here, Al - the plan was to be as cruel as possible, there was never any concern about competently handling the innocent people being imprisoned.]
Meanwhile, Trump has slashed funding from the Centers for Disease Control’s budget to stop potential pandemics from spreading here from other countries. He didn’t run on a platform of making it harder to detect and contain outbreaks in other parts of the globe, but that’s exactly what his actions have accomplished. Remember Ebola? Trump’s America First policy forgets that there are jet planes that fly passengers from way far away.
There’s damage like this happening all throughout our government.
The Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect us from environmental disasters, but Trump has fired all the scientists from the scientific board that advises the EPA, and wiped out its rules for testing toxic chemicals and waste in our waters. What’s in your glass? You have no idea — and, thanks to Donald Trump, neither does anybody else.
FEMA is supposed to help people recover in the wake of natural disasters. But Puerto Rico is still suffering — and, instead of taking a serious look at its failures in the response to Hurricane Maria, the Trump administration deleted the information on the FEMA website detailing access to drinking water and electricity on the island.
A Trump family employee with no previous experience in housing policy is in charge of housing policy in New York and New Jersey. Senior positions at the State Department and at every other executive agency are going unfilled. Officials from large for-profit universities being investigated for defrauding students have been put in charge of investigating large for-profit universities being investigated for defrauding students.
Our government is in chaos. And Donald Trump can’t fix it. Even if he tries his best. (Which he won’t, work ethic being another quality he lacks.)
But Congress can. Democrats don’t need to waste our time getting angry every time Trump says something stupid or mean. What we need to do is oversight, and a lot of it. We need to figure out exactly what this guy has broken — whether through malice or neglect or greed or sheer incompetence — and start fixing it before more people get hurt.
And we need Republicans who knew they were putting a dangerously unqualified buffoon in the White House to either help us contain the damage or get the hell out of our way.
"Obviously the fact that the wall (or anything else) IS a waste of money IS a reason to make stopping the wall non-negotiable."
that isn't a fact
the wall would be much more effective in accomplishing its goal than most of the things the Federal governement does
"Do you really want to try to defend the position that "Wastes of money should not be summarily rejected."?"
just pointing at the fact that that applies to most programs Dems advocate
totaling greatly in excess of 5 billion
so their stance is, simply, disingenuous
they'll waste money for the support of one of their special interest groups any day of the week
helllllllo, teacher unions!
"The vast majority of illegal immigrants are people who've entered the U.S. legally and overstayed their Visas. The "wall" would be a pointless waste of money that takes away from funding important things."
like what?
this is similar to liberals' argument against school choice, something that would transform the future of inner city minority children
no other programs are argued against because the money "could go elsewhere"
5 billion....when Obama doubled our debt, by about 9 trillion, over 8 years?
what kind of joke argument is that?
"The President of the United States generally exhibits the behavior of a sick, unfeeling sociopath. I am not a fan."
that oughta scare the hell outta him
"Because we have a President who is terrible at the job, the government he is in charge of is failing to perform basic functions"
we have an economy that is humming
near record unemployment and rising wages
women and minorities have unprecedented opportunities
and, despite the efforts of the Fed to slow down the economy, end of year sales were through the roof
further, problems long ignored by past bipartisan agreement, China's decades-long attack on our economy and illegal immigration, are now the focus of the government
2019 is looking bright
especially with a shutdown that will go until the Spring tourist season in Washington
hellllllo, deficit reduction!!
Trump is incompetent, impulsive and amoral. Heaven help us all.
Top US General Calls Trump Immoral and Dishonest
John Kelly Says Trump Isn’t Up To The Job Of Being President
Is 2018 over yet? Donald Trump wrung a whole lot of failure out of one long year
‘Depraved’ Trump pounded for blaming immigrant child deaths on Democrats to score political points: ‘Have you no shame?’
Bitter House Republicans preparing for multiple Trump investigations as they become the minority party: ‘You control nothing’
Barack and Michelle Obama have been voted the Most Admired Man and Woman of 2018 in America
A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018
Jim Mattis Was the Only Thing Keeping Trump’s Insane Clown Posse in Check
Trump Lies to Troops’ Faces About Pay Raise He Gave Them
Stephen Miller steps into spotlight amid chaos in 'zombie' White House press shop
Trump Denies Changing His Position on Border Wall
The President* Is So Hopelessly Compromised
This comment has been removed by the author.
REPUBLICAN AGENDA
TO DO LIST
Keep'em Poor
No to Minimum Wage
Break the Unions
Cut Welfare programs
Cut Social Security
Deregulation
Gut the Dodd-Frank Act
Keep'em Stupid
Deny Science
Revise History
Categorize, Demonize, Terrify
Cut Pre-school Programs
Cuts to Higher Education
Cut Sex Education
NO to Net Neutrality
Control the Women
Implement all of the above Plus> Vote NO to Equal Pay
Cut wages for Tipped Workers
No to Affordable Childcare
Pro-Life=NO Choice NO Exceptions
Close down Planned Parenthood
Anti-Contraception
Redefine Rape
Personhood Amendments
Feticide Laws
Criminalize Miscarriages
Doctor Mandated Reporting of Miscarriages and Abortions to the State
Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasounds
Rollback Maternity Coverage
Omit protections in the Violence Against Women Act
Blame Single Moms for Poverty, Welfare Fraud, Breeding Criminals and Destroying the Fabric of America
Ducks in a Barrel said "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018"
His hardcore supporters know he's a prolific liar but like that because that's "owning the libs". Trouble is they don't care what's true either and insist on trying to run things as though everything they want to be true is true. Sounds like someone(s) I know...now who could that be...
1.6%
Only 1.6% of U.S. citizens owned slaves in 1860 when slavery was at its PEAK.
Yet that small 1.6% of rich plantation owners were able to convince the majority of southerners to fight a civil war for a cause that only reduced the value of their own labour and pay.
Sound familiar?
Trump turned the White House into a madhouse
Evangelicals aren't members of a faith with solid morals. They are a tribe obsessed with authoritarian power.
What she said
Because of me, it's now 2019.
That's the highest number year ever. Much higher than Obama.
In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent.
Good anonymous, as oblivious Tяump says "The world isn't laughing at us anymore."
Oh yes it is, Donny. The world started laughing when you were elected with a minority of the vote and the ride has just gotten more hilarious as time has gone by.
I, for one, will be shocked if Tяump escapes the 17 investigations into him without being severely damaged.
Pelosi retakes House gavel as the shutdown tЯump owns continues.
CONgress makes PROgress
Kyrsten Sinema checked off a couple of firsts as she was sworn in as a senator on Thursday morning.
The Democrat from Arizona became the first openly bisexual person in the Senate, and she’s Arizona’s first female senator. She is also the second openly LGBT person to assume office in the chamber, after Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Sinema defeated Republican Martha McSally in the November midterms to replace retired GOP Sen. Jeff Flake.
Sinema is no stranger to making history: In 2013 she became the country’s first openly bisexual member of Congress, serving in the House for six years. The newly minted senator was sworn in alongside Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Aside from her historic swearing-in, Sinema looked very chic, arriving in a pink faux-fur-trimmed coat with a polka-dotted pink purse, then sporting a gray faux fur stole for the ceremony. Twitter, of course, took notice.
“Kyrsten Sinema serving Elle Woods as she joins the Senate today is an energy we very much need to carry on through 2019,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another said her outfit was “an image for the ages,” tweeting, “So loved watching Kyrsten Sinema sworn in as Senator in totally fashion forward outfit with tight skirt, dour men around her looking completely flummoxed, like they’re in some strange new world they don’t understand. So true, and so deeply satisfying.”
There is no reason for Democrats to allocate cash for Rump's wall. The Orange Dumpster Fire made it quite clear that "Mexico is gonna pay for it!"
He can start building his was as soon as the pesos start rolling in. Maybe he can use immigrant labor and not pay for it as well. That's his favorite way to get these things done. Nothing screams "quality" like under-paid illegal immigrant labor.
And if he can't get congress to pay for it when Retardicans controlled both houses AND the White House, then somebody should really take a step back and reevaluate their priorities. If you can't get enough of your own team on board to make it happen, you might as well take your tiny hands and go home.
And then SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT when your party controlled BOTH houses, AND the White House because you can't get your way? Yeah, keep acting like the spoiled brat you are. The incompetence of right wingers only seems to grow larger. Every. Single. Year.
There is a very simple way to get the Rumpster off his stupid wall idea. Barack Obama should come out full-tilt for it, claim it's the best thing since the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans won't be able to run away from the wall idea fast enough - they'll run each other over heading out the doors screaming that it's a "socialist" idea and that it kill our only chance of fixing the deficit.
Hear, Hear! - Good Anonymous.
lymis • 7 hours ago
"Disparate impact" is things like "Hey, the law applies equally to everybody. Nobody can marry someone of the same sex." Or "Nobody can wear hats in the Senate. (We're not discriminating against observant Jews or Muslims!)" Or, "anyone of any race is allowed in as long as their skin is lighter than this paper bag."
Or even, "Every single polling district has the same number of voting machines" while apportioning them by geography rather than population. Or " the polls will only be open between 10 and 2 on election day" so only people who can take the time off work, or are retired can vote. Or as we saw this election cycle "You can only vote with a government issued ID that shows a street address" when you know a portion of the electorate doesn't have street addresses. How hard is it to pass a law that says "No polling location can be within 2 miles of a bus stop?" Applies to everybody, right?
And it's not hard to create nesting laws that each taken individually look relatively innocent but combine to intentionally create crippling discrimination.
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, I do think you have to control your borders.”
Hillary Clinton, 2015
Hillary has a good point.
The wall will be built. Trump knows it. The Dems know it.
Meanwhile, Trump is getting the budget cuts he wanted in non-essential government services.
And then some.
In past shutdowns, government workers have been repaid for time missed. If this goes on for months, it may not be that simple.
In any case, contractors are never paid for work not done.
We're saving, daily.
Pelosi thought she could outfox the fox.
But, it turns out, she's no foxy lady.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6THs4JFXiME
Your support for Hillary is adorable.
Too bad your party is the Grabbers Of Pussies.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida’s Republican-controlled state Senate agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a complaint filed by a high-ranking legislative aide who accused a former GOP state senator of sexual misconduct.
The settlement between Rachel Perrin Rogers and the Senate was reached last month, but the details were not disclosed publicly until Thursday. Under the settlement terms, Rogers agreed to resign on Jan. 4. She was a top aide to Sen. Wilton Simpson, who had been the Senate majority leader when Rogers first complained about the behavior of then-state Sen. Jack Latvala.
Katie Betta, a spokeswoman for Senate President Bill Galvano, said the Bradenton Republican “believed the matter would continue to negatively impact the parties and distract from the important work of the Senate, while legal fees mounted for all involved.”
Betta said “the settlement brings this matter to a conclusion that allows both parties to move forward.”
In 2017, Rogers accused Latvala of inappropriate touching in a Capitol elevator, at a private club and on other occasions. She said on many occasions, Latvala would comment on her appearance by saying she looked “hot” and would stare at her chest as she tried to talk about legislative issues with him.
Latvala denied any wrongdoing but abruptly resigned in December 2017 after a Senate investigation concluded that he likely inappropriately touched Rogers and that he may have broken the law by supporting legislation in exchange for sex acts.
The historic Old Post Office Tower maintained by the National Park Service in the center of Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. will reportedly reopen during the government shutdown.
The arrangement raises the appearance of special federal treatment for a private business owned by President Donald Trump.
The National Park Service is one of the agencies that’s not funded during the partial shutdown. Once funding was cut off, access to the clock tower at the top of the landmark — as well as exhibits the inside — were closed to the public, including to guests of Trump’s hotel. A sign posted by the National Parks Service said the “clock tower will be closed until further notice,” adding: “Sorry for any inconvenience.” A link to more information about the tower on the National Park Service website no longer works.
But according to Energy and Environment News, the General Services Administration (GSA) will reopen the tower on Friday...
Americans are split on their feelings toward building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, according to a new Hill-HarrisX survey.
Thirty-four percent said a border wall was "the best path for making America safer at its borders," while 31 percent said it was "totally unnecessary and not worth the expense."
Thirty-five percent of respondents said they believed that Americans need border security, but there are "better options" for securing the border.
The survey comes as the partial government shutdown enters its 13th day. The shutdown began Dec. 22 over an impasse between lawmakers and the White House over President Trump's demand for billions of dollars in border wall funding.
Trump has shown no indication of letting up on his demands for $5 billion for a border wall, telling members of his Cabinet on Wednesday that the U.S. "needs a physical barrier."
Meanwhile, Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reaffirmed in an interview that Democrats plan to give Trump "nothing for the wall."
"What we've seen is that people have turned against a wall now that they associate [it] with Donald Trump, and they see it as symbolic for what they view as his animus toward immigrants," Emily Ekins, polling director at the Cato Institute, told Hill.TV's Joe Concha on "What America's Thinking."
"Now people who support the president would say that's not what this is about, this is just about border security," she continued.
The latest Hill-HarrisX survey was conducted Dec. 30 through 31 and is part of an ongoing project of The Hill's new online TV division, Hill.TV, and the HarrisX polling company that asks 1,000 registered voters a day about issues of public policy and current events. The latest poll has a sampling margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
U.S. employers added 312,000 jobs in December, blowing past Wall Street’s expectations for an increase of 177,000 jobs. Wall Street expectations are what drives the sock market and, now, it looks like Wall Street was wrong.
The labor force participation rate also rose to 63.1 percent from 62.9 percent during the month. Average hourly earnings meanwhile rose by 11 cents to $27.48. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by a total of 84 cents, or about 3.2 percent.
Experts said this means an economic recession may not occur anytime soon.
"The U.S. economy may eventually fall into recession, but the December employment report indicates that this isn’t going to happen anytime soon," said David Berson, the chief economist at Nationwide.
Jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed the private sector added 271,000 jobs in December, soaring past analysts’ expectations of 178,000 jobs.
Analysts anticipated that unemployment would hold steady at 3.7 percent, the lowest number in nearly 50 years, while forecasting the creation of 177,000 jobs, according to economists polled by Refinitiv (formerly Thomson Reuters).
The labor force participation rate -- at 63.1 percent, was applauded by President Trump on Twitter.
the charming party that gave us presidential blow jobs in the Oval Office from interns and who just can't stop ranting about "pussy-grabbers", has now elected a Palestinian to further degrade our public discourse:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), the first Palestinian-American Congresswoman, tells an enthusiastic crowd that she is going to impeach President Trump.
"when your son looks at you and says, 'Momma, look, you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't. Because we're going to go in there and we're going to impeach the motherfucker," Tlaib, a freshman Congresswoman, said to cheers.
The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars since Donald Trump entered the White House, according to new data. (See https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/govt.htm)
Figures released by the Treasury Department showed the debt stood at $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018, more than $2 trillion higher than when Mr Trump took office.
The debt stood represented 78 per cent of the US’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the fiscal year 2018, the highest percentage since 1950, analysis by CNN concluded.
The deficit, which measures the difference between what the government spends and what it collects, rose to 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2018, up from 3.5 per cent in 2017.
The national debt has been rising in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when Congress and Barack Obama approved stimulus funding in order to keep the economy afloat.
When Mr Trump first took office, having vowed to reduce it to zero in eight years it, it began to go down.
But analysts say it started to increase again as a result of a Republican tax cut, passed at the end of 2017, that a represented the largest of its kind in a generation.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, debt could grow to 96 per cent of GDP (or $29 trillion) by 2028.
“Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to be about twice as high in relation to GDP as it is this year—which would be a higher ratio than the United States has ever recorded,” it said in a new report.
“Such high and rising debt would have serious consequences, both for the economy and for the federal budget. Federal spending on interest payments would rise substantially as a result of increases in interest rates, such as those projected to occur over the next few years.”
When he was campaigning for the White House, Mr Trump said he believed he could make the US debt free within eight years.
“I think I could do it fairly quickly,” he told The Washington Post.
To address the debt, Mr Trump in October announced an initiative to cut spending by five per cent across the various departments of his cabinet.
However, last year the Daily Beast website reported the president had privately expressed little concern about the numbers because “I won’t be here”.
Tlaib will make history as the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress. She and incoming Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota will also be the first two Muslim women ever elected to Congress.
More than a year before she ran for Congress, Tlaib made headlines when she was thrown out of an event in Michigan where Trump was speaking after interrupting the then-Republican presidential nominee to ask if he had ever read the Constitution. She later described it as "the most American thing I could ever do."
During her campaign, Tlaib -- a member of the Democratic Socialists of America -- embraced progressive ideas like Medicare-for-all, a $15 dollar minimum wage and debt-free college as well as calls to abolish ICE and impeach the President. Just last month, she tweeted, "Can we please start the impeachment process now?"
When the new Congress gets underway, Tlaib will have a high-profile platform on Capitol Hill to confront the President and try to shape the agenda of the new House Democratic majority. The question now is what will she do when she gets to Washington?
The 42-year old has had "first" status before. She is the first of 14 children born to Palestinian immigrant parents and the first in her family to graduate from high school as well as college. She was also the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan state legislature.
"When I won it was just a moment of light in this time that was pretty dark for a lot of us," Tlaib said, reflecting on her election to Congress.
The 2018 midterm elections led to an "incredible array of 'firsts,'" she added, pointing to the election of other women who made history like incoming Democratic Reps. Sharice Davids and Deb Haaland, who will be the first Native American women elected to Congress.
Those victories created a sense of "hope," Tlaib said, "reminiscent of the America we want to live in."
"The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars since Donald Trump entered the White House,"
you might want to check how much it had risen in the same point in Obama's presidency
"No surprise there, Tlaib ran on her promise to impeach"
well, the surprise is that she thinks using crass phrase in public is the way to impress Americans
a Congressman who discredits the Congress by using such language should be censured, at a minimum
guess what Americans think is our most pressing issue?
hint: they agree with Trump
As much of the U.S. government remains shut down over President Donald Trump's insistence on funding for his border wall, nearly half of Americans identify immigration as a top issue for the government to work on this year.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted shortly before the shutdown began finds that both Republicans and Democrats are far more likely to include immigration in their list of top issues facing the country this year compared with a year ago.
Overall, 49 percent mentioned immigration in an open-ended question as one of the top five problems they hoped the government addresses in 2019. By contrast, 27 percent mentioned immigration in December 2017.
Partisan divides on the best solutions remain deep. Republicans continue to be more likely to cite immigration as a top issue than Democrats, but it's an increasingly important issue to members of both parties.
Roughly two-thirds of those who named immigration as a top priority express little confidence in the government to make progress this year.
"We waste too many resources with illegal aliens," David Hoyt, an Iowa voter, said. "If people want to come here, let's have them do it legally. I don't understand why people don't understand the word 'illegal.'"
Hoyt says he's also focused on the economy, and its healthy state is why he's satisfied with the country's direction and Trump's performance.
"People are busy," Hoyt said. "I can tell the economy from the number of semis on the highway, and it's loaded."
The poll was conducted in December before the stock market gyrations and government shutdown. Gil Parks, a retired CPA who's become a rancher in Texas, is fine with the shutdown.
"It's only 25 percent of the government," he said.
Parks, a 59-year-old Republican, is optimistic the country could be in for a long stretch of economic growth, in part because of the partisan acrimony fueling the shutdown.
"If you look back in history, the economy did best when government couldn't get in the way," he said.
With Democrats assuming control of the House of Representatives, the inevitable gridlock could preserve the economic expansion, Parks argued.
"There's a really different, negative environment," said John Rossetti, a 47-year-old code enforcement officer in Youngstown, Ohio . "Everywhere you go, it's there — just a very negative atmosphere."
Rossetti describes himself as a moderate to conservative Democrat who didn't support Trump in 2016 but is rooting for him to succeed.
More Americans do think 2019 will be a better year for them personally than think it will get worse.
The U.S. stock market has dropped sharply since early October. Investors have plenty to worry about. The Federal Reserve has gradually been raising interest rates. The economic boost from year-old tax cuts is expected to fade in 2019. Global growth is sputtering. And the U.S. and China — the world’s two biggest economies — are locked in a trade war that threatens to disrupt global commerce.
"A wall is an immorality. It's not who we are as a nation. And this is not a wall between Mexico and the United States taht the president is creating here. It's a wall between reality and his constituents."
More coal plants shutdwon in Trump's first two years than in Obama's entire first term.
MAGA Winning!
Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced two Constitutional Amendments today on the opening day of the new Congress. The first would eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States.
The second would limit the presidential pardon power by prohibiting presidents from pardoning themselves, members of their families, members of their administrations and their campaign staff.
Congressman Cohen made the following statement: “In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College.
“Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.
“Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff. This constitutional amendment would expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the pardon power.”
"1981 - Reagan lowered the top marginal income bracket from 70% to 50%.
Reagan's regime just happened to coincide with the beginning of the American middle class' decline. But so many of the victims really didn't mind -- he was so good with one-liners."
A recent AP-NORC poll shows 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country as a whole.
AP-NORC poll shows more Americans think 2019 will be a better year for them personally than think it will get worse.
That's much more important to Americans than "the way things are going in the country as a whole".
I realize that a person who lives on the internet wouldn't get that.
"Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced two Constitutional Amendments today on the opening day of the new Congress. The first would eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States."
Steve has a lot of time on his hands. The government is shut down and Dems can do nothing without the approval of Mitch McC and Donald J Trump.
See you in November 2020, when you explain to voters why you kept the government shut down for two years over 3.7 billion dollars. They think illegal immigration is a key issue.
The manufacturing industry posted net job gains of 284,000 over 2018, capping its best calendar year since 1997.
A priority for President Donald Trump, manufacturing saw marked hiring in December with an additional 32,000 jobs. Most of the gains occurred in blue-collar durable goods manufacturing, with growth in fabricated metals and computer and electronic products, the Labor Department said in its release. The definition of durable goods is items with a life expectancy of three years or more, such as automobiles, furniture and machinery.
Manufacturing added 207,000 jobs in 2017.
“Manufacturers are bringing people back into the workforce, and we need this trend to continue,” said Dr. Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.
One of the scariest scenarios for near-term, disastrous sea-level rise may be off the table, according to a new study previewed at a recent scientific conference.
Two years ago, the glaciologists Robert DeConto and David Pollard rocked their field with a paper arguing that several massive glaciers in Antarctica were much more unstable than previously thought. Those key glaciers—which include Thwaites Glacier and Pine Island Glacier, both in the frigid continent’s west—could increase global sea levels by more than three feet by 2100, the paper warned. Such a rise could destroy the homes of more than 150 million people worldwide.
They are now revisiting those results. In new work, conducted with three other prominent glaciologists, DeConto and Pollard have lowered some of their worst-case projections for the 21st century. This finding was reached after the team improved their own ice model, after considering the work of other glaciologists.
It is a reassuring constraint placed on one of the most alarming scientific hypotheses advanced this decade. The press had described DeConto and Pollard’s original work as an “ice apocalypse” spawned by a “doomsday glacier.” Now their worst-case skyrocketing sea-level scenario seems extremely unlikely, at least within our own lifetimes.
On December 30, ‘Meet the Press’ had a gala service preaching the climate-change religion. Famous climate preachers like Michael Bloomberg and Jerry Brown were featured speakers. They missed some opportunities and some old themes were nowhere to be found. They neglected to link the supposed, increasing pollution of the oceans with plastic to climate change. They forgot to mention the polar bear tragedy, and for some reason we don’t hear any more about malaria spreading to the temperate zones.
According to “Meet the Press,” “the science of climate doom is absolutely and completely settled science.” For that reason they determined that no time would be given to “climate deniers.”
Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and one of the world’s richest men, was given extensive air time. There was even a plug for his book: Climate of Hope. The book, written with the former president of the Sierra Club, is hilariously ignorant. Bloomberg is considering running for president as a Democrat. Formerly, he was a Republican. His embrace of global warming alarmism may be a bid for votes in the Democratic primaries where the voters are typically believers in loony climate change theories.
The one scientist on the show, Kate Marvel, has evidently given up science for a career promoting climate alarmism. She is contradicting herself by going along with climate alarmist fantasies -- in earlier public talks she was highly critical of the climate computer models that are the only basis for climate extremism.
The big theme of the “Meet the Press” presentation was that climate change is here and it is very bad. This completely mistaken claim was supported by various anecdotes from people that experienced floods, fires, or hurricanes. Floods are not new. For example, it is instructive to read the Wikipedia entry “Floods in California”. The great flood of 1861-1862 was far worse than anything since. Compared to the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, the 2012 superstorm Sandy was minor. The Great Prestigo fire in 1871, in Wisconsin, killed 1500 people. In comparison, the recent Camp Fire in California killed 89 people and burned less land. A major factor in forest fires is the suppression of fires, allowing fuel to build to the point where the fire becomes so violent that it can’t be easily suppressed.
Floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornados have been around forever and they aren’t getting any worse. But people’s memories fade with time, so the most recent weather outrage always seem to be worse than past outrages. So, it is clever to claim that carbon dioxide is causing extreme weather. It seems plausible because yesteryear’s bad weather has faded in our memories, or perhaps we only know about previous extreme weather because our parents or grandparents told us about it. Climate scientist John Christy provided written testimony to the House Energy and Power Subcommittee that demolishes the extreme weather thesis.
Craig Fugate, Obama’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administrator, was a member of the “Meet the Press” panel of experts. His educational background is paramedic school in Florida. He suggested that if only we had a carbon tax, $100 billion of disasters last year could have been avoided. A fallacy, since most carbon emissions come from Asia and having a carbon tax would not affect Asian emissions at all. Serious carbon dioxide emission reduction would be a long process that would require substituting nuclear electricity generation for fossil fuel electricity. But the environmental groups that are promoting fear of carbon dioxide are also afraid of nuclear energy. Wind and solar are not a solution that is effective for reducing carbon dioxide emissions because they are not remotely cost-effective for that purpose and they are always accompanied by backup fossil fuel plants emitting carbon dioxide. That point is explained in detail in the book Dumb Energy.
Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. have been declining mainly because natural gas has been substituted for coal. Cheap natural gas is the result of fracking, bitterly opposed, and also feared, by the environmental left. The bigger fallacy is the claim that weather disasters are the result of carbon emissions. The scientific evidence for that popular idea is extremely weak science.
The mayor of Georgetown, Texas, a small city near Austin, touted his city’s conversion to 100% renewable energy. The city agreed to long-term contracts with a wind farm and a solar farm to take a portion of the electricity generated. The amount of electricity contracted for is considerably greater than the amount of electricity needed. The city sells the excess electricity into the market. That has turned out to be a losing proposition. To be clear, the city is not actually using the electricity from the wind and solar plants located hundreds of miles away. The electricity generated by the plants is fed into the Texas grid and distributed throughout the state. The claim of being 100% renewable is a bookkeeping claim based on buying more renewable electricity than is actually used. Obviously, the solar farm is not generating electricity at night or on cloudy days. The wind farm generates electricity to the extent wind happens to be blowing.
The staff of “Meet the Press” is either incredibly ignorant or pursuing an agenda of left-wing propaganda, or probably both. No quarter was given to “climate deniers”, a deliberate slur that equates anyone who questions climate alarmism with Holocaust deniers. The truth is that there are many serious and distinguished scientists that express skepticism concerning predictions of climate doom from carbon dioxide. The alarmist predictions by the computer climate models have failed repeatedly.
Global warming is a scheme for getting money and attention. It is fiercely defended because if the fraud was exposed, a lot of people would lose their jobs and be discredited. There is a kernel of truth in the idea that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide may exercise a warming influence. That truth has been used as a springboard to making doomsday predictions that are almost certainly wrong. The fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has major positive effects on agriculture is not mentioned by the proselytizers for global warming doom.
"It is fiercely defended because if the fraud was exposed"
And herein lies the rub. Climate deniers have claimed this is a hoax promoted by left wingers, government funded scientist, Al Gore, the mainstream media, and anyone else that might possibly be left of Abraham Lincoln.
Just because a few scientist quibble with some of the details doesn't mean the theory isn't sound. Scientifically speaking, gravity is still a theory. Scientists still don't understand how it fits with quantum mechanics, and it has been a hotbed of debate for several decades now. That doesn't mean that the whole rest of the theory of gravity - which includes Newton's Laws and Einstein's adjustments for relativity - specifically the Lorentz transformation is a lie or part of a vast conspiracy theory. It works quite well within the limits of their intended uses. The GPS in your car or phone simply wouldn't work if all that science - and the math associated with it - wasn't correct.
The climate deniers have had decades to track down these apparently elusive conspiracy promoters and uncover their nefarious scheme to save the planet. They have yet to find 1 single scientist to be part of this fantastical undertaking to willfully "destroy our economy." Right... liberals want to do that because... why? They don't think anyone needs jobs anymore?
Climate deniers are the largest bunch of living examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The have placed themselves in the same category as the Flat Earth Society. No amount of evidence - that they could test and duplicate themselves if they had smattering of common sense - will ever convince them of their own obstinate ability to avoid all facts in favor of their own beliefs.
A few tabloid factoids that seems to contradict the overwhelming evidence of carefully researched, tested, reviewed, and published scientific data simply does not undermine the entire body of scientific work the way deniers would like to believe.
But hey, who needs facts when you can propose a theory that Hillary Clinton is running a child porn ring out of a pizza shop and have a reasonable expectation that a LARGE group of idiots will actually believe you?
Right wingers have a theory that man-made global warming is a hoax. But they have absolutely no evidence to support it. Yet they believe THAT more than a scientific theory that DOES have evidence to support it.
I'm betting these folks also believed the lead companies when they testified that lead doesn't harm humans and should be left in our gasoline. And the tobacco company executives that said smoking wasn't harmful.
Please, let me buy you a case of Camels.
"There is a kernel of truth in the idea that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide may exercise a warming influence."
This is hardly a "kernel." It is the main point underlying all of this. Trying to minimize it with dismissive rhetoric is word play designed to undermine the basic facts. This isn't "new" science. Scientists as far back as the 1820s had already done the calculations to figure out that the earth would be a giant snowball if it wasn't for the useful effects of greenhouse gasses. For the mathematically challenged, that's nearly *200* years ago.
One can understand the level of debate and argument surrounding the topic 200 years ago, especially given the technology available for scientific measurements, and the lack of modern computing tools for modelling. Yet somehow, (it's call math and physics folks) they arrived at the correct conclusions.
A little history lesson is available here:
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
The reason that the majority of scientist can be confident about the conclusions they are drawing today is that they have nearly 2 centuries of scientific evidence to test their theories and calculations against. This stuff was around LONG before Al Gore made his movie.
"well, the surprise is that she thinks using crass phrase in public is the way to impress Americans"
Donald Rumpster Fire has proven that crass is what much of the public wants these days. It's how you "Make America Great Again."
Well that, and grabbing labia.
"Just because a few scientist quibble with some of the details doesn't mean the theory isn't sound"
ah, the details are where the problems lie
everyone agrees the planet is warmer now than 200 years ago
that's about it
"Scientifically speaking, gravity is still a theory"
just to be clear, your opinion is that evidence for anthropogenic global warming theory is as strong as evidence for gravity
if so, your opinion doesn't have much gravitas
"The climate deniers have had decades to track down these apparently elusive conspiracy promoters"
they regularly uncover them
does East Anglia ring a bell?
"liberals want to do that because... why? They don't think anyone needs jobs anymore?"
they believe their long-term agenda is more important than short-term unemployment problems it will cause
"But hey, who needs facts when you can propose a theory that Hillary Clinton is running a child porn ring out of a pizza shop and have a reasonable expectation that a LARGE group of idiots will actually believe you?"
who ever believed that? any stats? I had even heard about it until I read about it on TTF
"Right wingers have a theory that man-made global warming is a hoax. But they have absolutely no evidence to support it."
hoaxes are generally indicated by lack of evidence, NOT evidence
there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures
"This isn't "new" science. Scientists as far back as the 1820s had already done the calculations to figure out that the earth would be a giant snowball if it wasn't for the useful effects of greenhouse gasses."
really?
give us all the details
"The reason that the majority of scientist can be confident about the conclusions they are drawing today is that they have nearly 2 centuries of scientific evidence to test their theories and calculations against. This stuff was around LONG before Al Gore made his movie."
that's interesting because back in the 60s and 70s, the expurts were sayin' we were entering a new ice age
"Donald Rumpster Fire has proven that crass is what much of the public wants these days. It's how you "Make America Great Again.""
so, after spending all this time campaigning against Trump's crassness, the Dems raise crassness to a new level on their first day
wow, how do they look themselves in the mirror?
Good anonymous said "Just because a few scientist quibble with some of the details doesn't mean the theory isn't sound"
Wyatt/Regina said "ah, the details are where the problems lie".
Nonsense, your disingenous debating technique here is to assert that if one doesn't know every minute detail of a situation the reality of the entire situation is in question. Its analogous to saying to a contractor "You have no idea how the molecular properties of wood result in its macro structure therefore all your claims about how a house is built can't be believed. "Ah, the details are where the problems lie" is a logical fallacy in terms of global warming.
Wyatt/Regina said "everyone agrees the planet is warmer now than 200 years ago that's about it"
Your willful blindness doesn't protect you from knowing that starting 200 years ago, and exactly co-inciding with the constantly growing amount of CO2 in the air, the climate has been warming 50 times as fast as it has over the previous 10,000 years.
Now you can assert that its "just a coincidence" that the planet is warming 50 times faster than it has historically at the exact same time as CO2 levels have skyrocketed far above what they've been for hundreds of thousands of years. If that's a case, why has no global warming denier posited a plausible cause of this drastic increase in the rate of warming if its not the increase in the greenhouse gas CO2?
Its because there is no plausible explanation for the planet warming over the past 200 years 50 times faster than it had in the previous 10,000 years other than the greenhouse effect of growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wyatt/Regina, you know all this, you know that global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels but you are set on being willfully blind to this because reality is far less important to you than admitting Republican dogma is wrong and we can't survive with business as usual - you'd much prefer to destroy humanity than admit that you know you're wrong about global warming.
Good anonymous said "The climate deniers have had decades to track down these apparently elusive conspiracy promoters"
"they regularly uncover them does East Anglia ring a bell?"
Lol, I can't believe you're still trying to make hay out of that thoroughly debunked lie!
That's the ONLY alleged wrongdoing the global warming deniers have ever come up with and its an obvious nothing burger. Scientists, as they do, rework some raw data to account for inaccuracies when they were record like a temperature recording station was put in an empty field 30 years ago and since then the city has built up around it, cities are warmer than the immediately surrounding countryside so the new temperature data from that location have to be adjusted downwards to reflect what is due to climate change and not simply extra heat due to lots of black ashphalt now built up around the recording station and making the temperature warmer than it naturally would be.
So, yeah, there was never any wrongdoing by the East Anglia scientists, they were just carrying out common long accepted methods of statistical analysis and the bullshitters made a big false publicicty campaign claiming something was amiss. Wyatt and Regina know this, but once again, maintaining the lie that humans burning fossil fuels is no problem is more important to them then humanity's continued survival.
Wyatt/Regina said "[liberals] believe their long-term agenda is more important than short-term unemployment problems it will cause"
Research consistently shows it will cost far less to take mitigating measures against global warming now than it will cost to deal with the destructive effects of unchecked global warming in the near future - imagine the cost for 100 million Americans in cities like Miami to move 50 miles inland.
Good anonymous said "But hey, who needs facts when you can propose a theory that Hillary Clinton is running a child porn ring out of a pizza shop and have a reasonable expectation that a LARGE group of idiots will actually believe you?"
Wyatt/Regina said "who ever believed that? any stats? I had even heard about it until I read about it on TTF"
Who believed it?!?! How about the guy that took a shot gun to that pizza parlour and shot the place up because he believed that fake news?!?!
Good anonymous said "Right wingers have a theory that man-made global warming is a hoax. But they have absolutely no evidence to support it."
Wyatt/Regina said "hoaxes are generally indicated by lack of evidence, NOT evidence".
The overwhelming evidence has been prevented in tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies that 97-99% have all concluded people burning fossil fuels is the cause of recent dramatic global warming. YOUR SIDE has utterly failed to make a rational fact based refutation of any of the evidence because you can't - East Anglia ring any bells to you????
Wyatt/Regina said "there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures.
You've gotten a shitload of mileage out of that lie, haven't you?
There are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers that provide overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reasons for global warming. If dramatic rises in greenhouse gases like CO2 over the past 200 years aren't responsible for global warming why have the deniers for decades been utterly unable to posit a plausible explanation for why a 50 fold increase in the rate of planetary warming compared to the past 10,000 years has co-incided with the large increase in CO2 in the air from humans burning fossil fuel?
"that's interesting because back in the 60s and 70s, the expurts were sayin' we were entering a new ice age"
Climate change deniers were saying that. The problem is you can't tell the difference be good science and bad science, and think that what climate deniers said 40 years ago is still valid, in spite of the fact that they have been proven wrong - obviously no ice age happened, and the warming predicted by real scientists has.
You have the evidence right before you your eyes, and yet still you deny it. You are willfully blind.
"does East Anglia ring a bell?"
Yes, right wingers thought they had finally uncovered evidence of the vast global warming conspiracy theory. 7 (or was it 8?) thorough investigations and none of the conspiracy accusations bore any fruit. Instead, they reached conclusions like:
"The University of East Anglia has concluded a thorough investigation into concerns raised in January 2015 about possible research misconduct in Professor Olivier Voinnet’s PhD thesis awarded in 2001. This investigation was conducted with the full cooperation of Professor Voinnet and concluded that the matter relates to a minor breach of University Regulations on conduct in research for two figure panels and to some figure mounting errors for the remaining parts of the thesis. The investigation found no evidence of dishonesty and confirmed that the thesis’ conclusions remain unaffected. The outcome of the investigation was that an addendum to the thesis would be supplied by the author, and be reviewed and approved by appropriate internal and external examiners. This addendum was reviewed in this way and approved by the University in 2017, and was added to the public access copies of the thesis held by the University Library and British Library."
Of course for conspiracy theorists, none of this exonerated the climate scientists, but only provided evidence of an even larger conspiracy that now involved all of the investigators as well.
"give us all the details" Those were provided in the link. Copy and paste it into your browser.
"hoaxes are generally indicated by lack of evidence, NOT evidence"
You just made my point. Where is the actual, factual evidence of a giant left wing climate change conspiracy?
Conveniently ignoring everything that came out of the East Anglia investigations doesn't mean East Anglia actually proved your conspiracy theory, or that their underlying science wasn't sound.
"there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures"
Except of course, all the experiments done in the past 200 years identified in the link I provided, comparisons of solar cycle activity to earth temperatures that was on the NASA site until until a while Rump took over, the C-12 to C-14 ratio measurements to separate volcanic emissions from oil based emissions, etc. You know, ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU SPECIFICALLY CHOOSE TO IGNORE.
Where should I send the Camels, Ostrich?
Wyatt/Regina said "really? give us all the details".
So, you're asserting that if good anonymous can't readily describe every minute detail of global warming research over the past 200 years that proves you're right and he/she is wrong, or there must be significant doubt about the conclusions of all this research. Obviously a pathetic logical fallacy is the only debate tactic you have because the evidence overwhelmingly refutes you. Not surprising you'd rely on that dishonest debate tactic, religionists do it all the time when they continually claim that if their debate opponent can't repeat all the minutia about how the entire universe works ("What's the scientific explanation for love?"), this proves god exists.
Good anonymous said"The reason that the majority of scientist can be confident about the conclusions they are drawing today is that they have nearly 2 centuries of scientific evidence to test their theories and calculations against. This stuff was around LONG before Al Gore made his movie."
Wyatt/Regina said "that's interesting because back in the 60s and 70s, the expurts were sayin' we were entering a new ice age"
That's a highly dishonest characterization of the state of scientific belief about global warming at the time. In the early 1900's the first scientists posited that burning fossil fuels was going to cause planetary temperatures to rise. That has consistently been the consensus of scientists since then, including in the 60's and 70's. There were very small number of scientists then who asserted because of the present tilt of the earth's axis that had historically resulted in ice ages we might be entering one at that time. People working for the destruction of humanity (like you) have lied about that ever since, absurdly suggesting that if scientists made a mistake 50 years ago (and the majority did NOT) that somehow, now, with far more evidence,data, better techniques and instruments they are probably wrong about their conclusions now - that's an obvious logical fallacy. But that's all your side really has, isn't it, logical fallacies and lies about "East Anglia" being anything but above board.
So, Wyatt/Regina: If the global warming deniers have "regularly exposed the global warming hoax", what is the posited explanation for why the earth has warmed 50 times faster since humans started pumping vast quantities of CO2 into the air than it had during the previous 10,000 years if it is not due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Come on, chop, chop Wyatt/Regina. You keep claiming your side has regularly proven global warming is a hoax. That being the case you should have no problem explaining why its "merely a coincidence" that the earth is warming 50 times faster than it ever has before.
Let's hear it, if as you say "there's no real evidence extra CO2 is causing global warming. What's the alternative explanation????
Lol, Damn I'm good!
Wyatt/Regina only skim the information demonstrating global warming is caused by humans because they sense that if they read it thoroughly they won't be able to maintain the fiction in there minds that there is significant doubt humans burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests causes global warming.
That's why they keep bring up these couple of same old, debunked, childish dumb "arguments" trying to deny the obvious reality.
"so, after spending all this time campaigning against Trump's crassness, the Dems raise crassness to a new level on their first day"
So, after years of complaining that left-wing political correctness is going to destroy our society, right wingers start complaining when one of them stops being PC and says what's on the mind of at least half of the electorate.
It's hard for me to figure out why you're complaining - this could be the first sign from the left that the "less PC world" that the right is lusting after is on its way.
Unless of course, what you're really saying is you only want the left to be politically correct, while the right can be as deplorable as they like.
"So, after years of complaining that left-wing political correctness is going to destroy our society, right wingers start complaining when one of them stops being PC and says what's on the mind of at least half of the electorate"
nothing this crass woman said is politically incorrect
the issue is the vile cursing and bringing our public discourse down into the sewer
as much as Dems make issue of Trump's crassness, he never uses foul language in public
"It's hard for me to figure out why you're complaining"
maybe that's because I'm not complaining
I'm glad Democrats are showing the American people right away what hypocrites they are
"your disingenous debating technique here is to assert that if one doesn't know every minute detail"
I'm not talking about "minute" details
there is not "settled science" on what has caused the warming, how much further it will go, what the effects will be, et al
you know, all the important things you need to know before making policy based on the situation
"Your willful blindness doesn't protect you from knowing that starting 200 years ago, and exactly co-inciding with the constantly growing amount of CO2 in the air"
as you know, that progression hasn't coincided with the increase of CO2
there are several swaths of time where this didn't happen with no explanation
"you are set on being willfully blind to this because reality is far less important to you than admitting Republican dogma is wrong and we can't survive with business as usual - you'd much prefer to destroy humanity than admit that you know you're wrong about global warming"
I couldn't possibly be "wrong" about global warming because I've said I don't know what's causing it
how can one be wrong when they aren't making an assumption?
Scientists, as they do, rework some raw data to account for inaccuracies when they were record like a temperature recording station was put in an empty field 30 years ago and since then the city has built up around it, cities are warmer than the immediately surrounding countryside so the new temperature data from that location have to be adjusted downwards to reflect what is due to climate change and not simply extra heat due to lots of black ashphalt now built up around the recording station and making the temperature warmer than it naturally would be.
"carrying out common long accepted methods of statistical analysis"
yeah, the data is altered several times a year to make it look worse
its long accepted alright
kind of like that flat Earth thing so long ago
"Research consistently shows it will cost far less to take mitigating measures against global warming"
like what?
most experts believe that fossil burning vehicles will be off the road with a decade
further, if you're really concerned and think carbon is the problem, advocate for nuclear and natural gas and massive forestation projects
the socialist one-world government thing ain't gonna happen
A former election official in Bladen County, North Carolina, has given state officials new evidence of election fraud in a congressional district under scrutiny.
In a sworn statement to the state elections board last week, Jens Lutz, the former vice chair of the Bladen County board of elections, said his office received “several” forged request forms for absentee ballots during the 2018 election ― including one on behalf of a dead person.
Lutz’s statement is significant because state investigators are probing irregularities with absentee ballots in the area. The congressional race in North Carolina’s 9th District is the last unresolved one in the country. Republican Mark Harris unofficially leads Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes, but state officials can order a new election if they find sufficient evidence the contest was tainted by fraud or irregularities.
"Who believed it?!?! How about the guy that took a shot gun to that pizza parlour and shot the place up because he believed that fake news?!?!"
one nut
he must have read TTF because I didn't see it anywhere else
admittedly, a lot of TTF readers are nuts
"The overwhelming evidence has been prevented in tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies that 97-99% have all concluded people burning fossil fuels is the cause of recent dramatic global warming"
not one of those studies began with a skeptical scientific attitude
they were done by people who did them with a goal of proving it
just like the tobacco industry has made many studies proving that smoking is good for you
there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures
"Climate change deniers were saying that. The problem is you can't tell the difference be good science and bad science, and think that what climate deniers said 40 years ago is still valid, in spite of the fact that they have been proven wrong - obviously no ice age happened, and the warming predicted by real scientists has"
few, if any, scientists were predicting warming then
the little ice age was the consensus
"You just made my point. Where is the actual, factual evidence of a giant left wing climate change conspiracy?"
actually, I was asking about that 200 years of studies
give us some highlights
I never said there was a "giant left wing climate change conspiracy"
but it's one of those areas where a bunch of scientists have circled their wagons to protect a perceived threat to their societal authority
there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures
"Except of course, all the experiments done in the past 200 years"
tell us about a few of those nineteenth century studies
say, was this something you saw in the Time Machine movie?
"Lol, Damn I'm good!"
at what?
Good anonymous said "Unless of course, what you're really saying is you only want the left to be politically correct, while the right can be as deplorable as they like."
Yep, that's what they're saying all right. Remember it was a "scandal" when Obama wore a tan suit and Michelle bared her arms? And somehow that's true while it doesn't matter that Trump admitted to sexually assaulting women and Melania posed nude.
Wyatt/Regina said "few, if any, scientists were predicting warming then the little ice age was the consensus".
That's a well worn conservative lie
The truth is only a small minority of scientists in the 60s and 70s thought we were entering an ice age - the scientific consensus since the 1930's has been that burning fossil fuels is going to make the earth warmer.
JFC, Exxon did research in the 70's that said burning of fossil fuels was causing a green house effect. Exxon admitted back in the seventies that humans were causing global warming.
Wyatt/Regina said "not one of those studies began with a skeptical scientific attitude..."
Really? How do you know that?
Have you reviewed the 20,000 or so studies concluding climate change is man-made? This is a monumental world-wide scandal of never before seen corruption, you'd better tell the papers about it. Or has this gigantic scientific error/lie somehow been covered up without a global conspiracy amongst the entire scientific community?
Wyatt/Regina said "they were done by people who did them with a goal of proving it".
And the global warming deniers have a goal of disproving global warming - why have they not been able to come up with any, let alone thousands of peer reviewed papers loaded with evidence supporting their conclusion? Why does only one side have any substantial (an overwhelming amount) evidence for their position?
Wyatt/Regina said "I never said there was a "giant left wing climate change conspiracy".
You may or may not have said that, but that would be necessarily true for 97% of climate scientists to have all reached a wrong, or unjustified conclusion that burning fossil fuels creates additional global greenhouse warming and somehow no significant errors or wrongdoing have been found by the global warming deniers.
"few, if any, scientists were predicting warming then"
Dude, Carl Sagan on did it on his show "Cosmos" in the 1970s. This clip is from a 1989 (1990?) update to a 1979 episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3pZXhKVWY
This isn't some new news.
"actually, I was asking about that 200 years of studies
give us some highlights"
Here is the link again, lazy fingered one. Plenty of highlights should you bother to read some of it.:
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
I'm not about to waste my time typing in a bunch of details for some who's effectively just going to shove his hands on his ears and say "nuh uh." The statement below is a typical example:
"there is really no evidence that greenhouse gases are the primary reason for higher temperatures"
Except of course, that branch of science called "physics." The link describes some of the physics experiments that have taken place over the past 200 years that has lead to these conclusions, along with a discussion of the limits of the instrumentation of the time, and which effects they were or were not able to include in their models as science progressed, and why the drew the conclusions they did.
I fail to see the utility of denying 200 years of physics tests done by a variety of scientists spread around the globe. I guess everyone has to have a hobby.
But I have good news for you. The Webster Dictionary folks just called. They are hoping you will send them a current picture so they can update their entry on the "Dunning-Kruger Effect."
Wyatt/Regina said "not one of those studies began with a skeptical scientific attitude they were done by people who did them with a goal of proving it just like the tobacco industry has made many studies proving that smoking is good for you".
How ironic for you to accuse the scientific community of the duplicity the tobacco companies used to cast doubt on science. It is what the global warming deniers are doing now (not climate scientists) that is analogous to what duplicitous tobacco companies did with research showing smoking caused cancer - cherry picking data and making specious assertions that this casts doubt on conclusions supported by vast arrays of scientific evidence.
There were never any peer reviewed studies by the tobacco companies that "proved" smoking was good for you.
They instead used dishonest tactics to try and discredit the real science just like you global warming deniers do. Like picking out some minute aspect of the issue (with little effect on the conclusions drawn on evidence) and loudly trumpeting the logical fallacy that because the research can't explain all molecular physics (for example) that that is good proof that all research conclusions are in doubt.
Wyatt/Regina said "actually, I was asking about that 200 years of studies give us some highlights".
We've both given you all sorts of highlights and links on this for further study on your part. But we both know you ignore that because you're just trolling and your mind is closed.
If "there's no real evidence" that burning fossil fuels causes a global greenhouse effect, what could explain the earth warming 50 times faster in the past 200 years than it has in the previous 10,000?
Your saying this 50 fold increase in the rate of global warming just coincidentally is happening at the same time humans have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not remotely credible and that's why no global warming deniers have been able to posit a plausible scientific explanation for this astounding "coincidence" despite global warming "being a hoax".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Damn I'm good!
And you too, Good Anonymous!
Wyatt/Regina deny being the TTF troll, but its obvious from these recent posts their minds are closed and they are just trolling.
Instead of addressing the specific rational rebuttals they just repeat the same sophomoric lies and specious arguments.
That's what a troll does.
The truth is the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming
This is how trolls like Wyatt/Regina play - they put up a superficial show of being openminded and claim they don't see the evidence, but no matter how much evidence you show them its never enough and no source saying global warming is man-made is ever trust-worthy enough for them.
They just want to you to waste large amounts of your time sincerely showing them evidence they're wrong when they're not sincere at all about honestly considering it.
That's why Wyatt/Regina keep repeating the same old lie that 50 years ago scientists thought we were entering an ice age.
So, yeah, never expect an honest sincere debate with right wing trolls denying global warming. Just find the basic flaws in their repetitive slogans and repeatedly briefly explain those flaws.
Right wing trolls like Wyatt/Regina try to use liberals' sincerity and honesty as a weapon against us. They demand a never ending supply of evidence while they provide none for their assertions and we have an instinct to help and trust others so we dutifully supply all manner of evidence they have never had any intention of honestly considering when they're just getting a sadistic thrill out of fooling us into thinking their minds aren't closed.
since my last comment, Priya has made 11 posts
ya gotta wonder what she's worried about
maybe her boyfriend does climate research and has a big grant
just hypothesizing
not much Priya and Get a Clue posted is hard to rebut
Damn, they are bad at bullshit!
btw, Priya made several references to the hallowed "peer review" process
one of 2018's more interesting stories was the group that studied what would happen if they submitted fake papers to scientific journals
you guessed it
passed peer review and were easily published
A trio of academics fooled journals into publishing hoax studies covering subjects including 'dog rape culture', 'transhysteria' and feminism using Adolf Hitler's words.
Scholars Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian, from the US, submitted 20 'fake news' papers to top publications in fields such as gender studies, sociology and critical theory.
One study - titled Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks - argued that pet owners were less likely to interfere when male dogs non-consensually humped female dogs than animals of the same sex.
The researcher, the nonexistent Helen Wilson of the nonexistent Portland Ungendering Research Initiative, wrote that she observed one "dog rape per hour" at a park in Portland, in the US.
One of the reviewer's feedback was that Wilson did not adequately respect the dogs' privacy while tracking these acts of dog rape.
The study was published in Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography.
Another study - titled Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism - rewrote 3,000 words from chapter 12 of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf "with buzzwords switched in".
One paper looked at whether straight men who masturbate with butt plugs are less likely to be transphobic.
It included an investigation into whether 'transhysteria' means men rarely insert objects into their bottoms.
Another study advocated making white male college students sit on the floor of classrooms, wearing chains, to both educate them on privilege and punish them for historical slavery.
The published papers were praised by academic reviewers as "a rich and exciting contribution", "excellent and very timely" and - in the case of Mein Kampf - offering "important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars".
Overall, seven of the trio's submissions were into top journals.
"This shouldn't have been possible," Dr Lindsay said. "What appears beyond dispute is that making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get them validated at the highest level of academic grievance studies."
The trio said they did it to expose serious flaws and political biases in certain disciplines, including gender, race and sex
Nice try to change the subject, but I see that none of these papers that were supposedly accepted actually made it into a journal that covers any of the hard sciences - like physics, chemistry, cosmology.
You know, anything that uses math.
And nearly two-thirds of their submissions failed to pass the review.
Now that they know conservatives are trying to hijack their system for their own political gains, one would expect them to be more careful next time.
"Nice try to change the subject,"
one of our subjects was that we have to believe scientists if 97% are peer-reviewed and come to the same conclusion
of course, we know that students trying to get into climatology are blackballed if they don't already endorse anthropogenic global warming theory as fact
"but I see that none of these papers that were supposedly accepted actually made it into a journal that covers any of the hard sciences - like physics, chemistry, cosmology"
ah, but your friend Priya is forever citing studies that say things like "two homosexuals make the very best parents"
global warming is similar to these sex studies in that regard
if you decide before you begin what you want a study to say, you're likely to find you're looking for
everyone knows that!
"And nearly two-thirds of their submissions failed to pass the review."
not unusual
journals can't print everything submitted
but, apparently, if the articles are secretly written by Hitler they have a better chance
"Now that they know conservatives are trying to hijack their system for their own political gains, one would expect them to be more careful next time"
they have long peddled the myth that they are already being very careful
Damn, you are bad at this!
There's a word to describe December's jobs report: Wow!
With 312,000 new jobs in December, employment growth was much stronger than anyone anticipated. That's especially true given recent squishy economic data. The jobs boom continues, a sign that there's still a lot of life left in the economy after all.
There's really no way to spin December's jobs data in a negative way. Not only did the number of jobs come in at nearly twice the consensus estimate, but the two previous months were revised up by 58,000. So the report was really much stronger than even the headline number indicates.
Since President Donald Trump took office nearly two years ago, some 4.8 million new payroll jobs have been created.
That's more than FOUR TIMES as many as created during President Obama's first four years.
Hold on, you say, didn't the unemployment rate jump from 3.7% to 3.9%? It did. Yes, but not because more people were unemployed, but because more people entered the labor force, seeking opportunities that didn't exist before.
It's actually a bullish sign. Some 419,000 people entered the workforce during the month, driving the labor force participation rate to 63.1%, up from 62.7% a year ago. That bellwether employment figure declined pretty consistently during the job-poor Obama years.
Last year, virtually every sector of the economy gained jobs. In addition to the 2.6 million new jobs overall for all of 2018, health care employment added 346,000, food and restaurant employment added 235,000 jobs, construction 280,000 jobs, manufacturing 284,000 jobs, retailing 92,000 jobs, and professional and business services 458,000 jobs. It was a great year for workers!
And it wasn't all about jobs. Average hourly earnings grew in 2018 by 3.2%. That's the fastest growth since 2008. And real household income, at $63,554, is now at its highest ever, up 3.2% from last year and 4.3% since 2000, the previous record high, according to a recent report from Sentier Research. With inflation now running below 2%, these are the best of times to be a worker.
None of this is accidental. It's all due to policies that boosted investment, productivity and economic growth: namely, tax cuts and deregulation.
Trumponomics has been a rousing success!!!
"Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has slammed Republicans for criticizing fellow freshman Representative Rashida Tlaib over her language while downplaying President Trump’s controversial comments about women in an apparent reference to the “Hollywood Access” tape.
“Republican hypocrisy at its finest: saying that Trump admitting to sexual assault on tape is just ‘locker room talk,’ but scandalizing themselves into faux-outrage when my sis says a curse word in a bar,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Saturday."
those remarks by Trump were denounced by lawmakers on all sides
significantly, he made them in a private conversation before he was running for anything
Tliab did it in a public setting, after assuming office
Ocasio-Cortez spoke out after the president and other Republicans reacted negatively to a video in which Tlaib tells supporters: “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf—-er.”
Reacting to the remarks, Trump stated: “I thought her comments were disgraceful. I think she dishonored herself and her family. I thought it was highly disrespectful to the United States of America.”
In response to the criticism, the Michigan-based lawmaker’s office issued a statement.
“Congresswoman Tlaib was elected to shake up Washington, not continue the status quo,” the statement noted. “Donald Trump is completely unfit to serve as President. The Congresswoman absolutely believes he needs to be impeached and … will not stay silent.”
Rashid, no one care that a powerless Congressman wants to impeach the President
it's your crass language that has disgraced your office
don't expect any committee assignments
you're an embarrassment
"nothing this crass woman said is politically incorrect
the issue is the vile cursing and bringing our public discourse down into the sewer"
Where was your outrage when Trump Called The Chinese ‘Motherf**kers’ In Vegas Speech?
When Donald Trump railed against the Chinese in a campaign speech in Las Vegas, he turned to a word he just bashed Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for using: “Motherf**ker.”
Trump presented the speech in spring 2011 shortly before he bowed out of the 2012 presidential election race. He ranted about Washington and China’s exports flooding America. What would he do about China?
“So easy. I’d drop a 25 percent tax on China,” Trump told a packed audience in a video of the speech posted on YouTube (above).
Trump quipped in a high-pitched voice that the message could come softly with someone saying: “We’re gonna tax you 25 percent.”
He added: “And I could say: ‘Listen, you motherfuckers, we’re gonna tax you 25 percent.’”
Cue big applause, laughter and giddy sounds of excitement.
Tlaib relied on the same dramatic language on Friday. She said of the president at a rally: “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker.”
But instead of applause Tlaib was lashed by Republicans — including Trump.
“I thought her comments were disgraceful,” the president told reporters outside the White House Friday. “I think she dishonored her family using language like that in front of her son and whoever else was there. I thought that was a great dishonor to her and to her family.”
How soon, willingly and completely they forget:
GOP Clutches Pearls Over Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s ‘Foul Language,’ Shrugs Over Trump’s
Republicans regularly look the other way in response to the president’s many vulgar remarks.
like
"...I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything...Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."
"ya gotta wonder what she's worried about"
Maybe a denier like you has nothing to worry about but most people aren't so stupid.
Hence Poll: Record number of Americans believe in man-made climate change
"...the poll found that more Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming than at any time since 2008. Seventy-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement.
There is a stark divide along party lines, with 50 percent of Republicans saying they believe there is solid evidence of global warming, compared to 90 percent of Democrats. The divide is the largest since 2008."
The earth gets hotter and hotter and some few GOPers like you say, so what?
"of course, we know that students trying to get into climatology are blackballed if they don't already endorse anthropogenic global warming theory as fact"
Really? We do? You have some evidence of this somewhere?
"global warming is similar to these sex studies in that regard"
No. Just No. Studying the behavior and reactions of people or animals is ENTIRELY different from the sciences that are based on the measurements of the physical properties and reactions of matter.
That you even think they are comparable is a giant red flag pinpointing the depth of your ignorance.
"if you decide before you begin what you want a study to say, you're likely to find you're looking for
everyone knows that!"
Right wingers falsely believe that. They are again blissfully ignorant of the facts. You provided yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
At the end of the 19th and early 20th century, there were a whole bunch of scientists building more and more precise equipment trying to find evidence of "ether." Arguably, the most famous of these was done by two guys named Michelson and Morley. They didn't find it. Nor did other scientists find it, even though the "ether" theory was a prominent theory about our universe at the time. It was Einstein that first took these negative results as the starting point for a new theory that was unexpectedly very different from any that had come before it. His first attempt in 1905 was called the "Special Theory of Relativity" and his later refinements (1916) were called the "General Theory of Relativity."
This kind of information is taught to high school science students to impress upon them the importance of even "negative" test results and what they might mean to the advancement of science.
It took a number of years for scientists to find hard evidence of Einstein's relativistic effects, even though the accuracy of the earliest measurements were too crude to claim a definitive confirmation, later, more careful observations were able to confirm the results with enough accuracy to insure it was not just a case of measurement error. Physicists not only have to measure phenomenon, but also determine precisely how accurate those measurements are to insure what they think they are detecting isn't simply the random variation of a noisy measurement apparatus.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you were home-schooled, or regularly fell asleep during science class.
"but, apparently, if the articles are secretly written by Hitler they have a better chance"
It has not been the purview of peer review bodies to catch willfully fraudulent papers specifically written to pass the review process and promote false information.
The basic idea behind science is:
1: Propose or choose a theory to test
2: Design a test that can confirm or deny some aspect of that test.
3: Take care measurements, record them, analyze them.
4: Determine if your measurements confirmed or denied the theory.
5: If the results didn't confirm the theory propose a new theory about why.
6: If the information is interesting or useful, see if you can get it published.
7: If other scientist find it interesting, they will try to replicate your tests or go back to step 1 and devise a new one to confirm or deny results in a different way.
The "peers" in the peer review process do not replicate the tests. They do not have the time or resources to replicate all the tests that are reported in the submissions. The reviewers check for errors in the math, methods, and explanations that undermine the paper itself.
It is up to other scientists to see if they can replicate those tests and get the same results, or devise a test that can explain why those tests are wrong.
It is when other scientist try to replicate those tests that errors or frauds are caught, not in peer review process. This is how science has been done for a couple of centuries now. The papers that had bad results are superseded by those that had good, repeatable results. The good ones get cited more and more as tests and evidence support their theories, and the bad ones get shoved to the bottom of the stack, soon to be forgotten.
This is the normal "weeding out" process of science. When the reviewers first saw Einstein's theories, they had no way of confirming or denying their truthfulness. And it certainly went against the scientific orthodoxy of the time, and no other scientist had ever conceived of such a far-out explanation of time, space and motion. But it is not the purview of the peer review process to be a gatekeeper of scientific gospel or truthfulness. That would undermine the whole process of science itself.
It is the job of other scientists to confirm or deny the accuracy of those papers through tests of their own. The process is designed to be a meritocracy, where the ideas that are "good" are the ones that can show they have testable and repeatable results. The ones that are "bad" are the ones that nobody can replicate.
The process is designed to minimize the biases of the peers in the review process and let the facts advance themselves.
It was NOT designed to catch conservatives trying to undermine the scientific process for their own political gains.
Unfortunately, we know live in a society where conservatives have turned themselves into a virus and are trying to undermine politics, media, and now even science to promote their own agenda.
The peer review process as it has been practiced assumed that all scientists are trying to do good, repeatable, and testable science - knowing that if they didn't other scientist would prove them wrong and embarrass them with a better test and paper some months or years later. That was enough to keep most scientists above-board and reporting only evidence they could substantiate with their tests.
But we know live in a time when conservatives have turned to Breitbart News like tactics onto science itself in order to undermine the process. They have become a virus in our society, trying to drag the rest of us down.
Typo corrections
2: Design a test that can confirm or deny some aspect of that [theory].
3: Take care[ful] measurements, record them, analyze them.
Wyatt/Regina said "since my last comment, Priya has made 11 posts".
Oh dear! Call the police! Alert the National Guard! lol
Wyatt/Regina, if "there's no real evidence" that burning fossil fuels causes a global greenhouse effect, what could explain the earth warming 50 times faster in the past 200 years than the climate changed in the previous 10,000?
You're saying this 50 fold increase in the rate of global warming just coincidentally is happening at the same time humans have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
If they're right, why have no global warming deniers have been able to posit a plausible alternative scientific explanation for this astounding "coincidence"?
An example of a paper that has made it through the peer review process. We won't be able to evaluate its accuracy for years to come.
Uppsala University researchers have devised a new model for the Universe -- one that may solve the enigma of dark energy. Their new article, published in Physical Review Letters, proposes a new structural concept, including dark energy, for a universe that rides on an expanding bubble in an additional dimension.
We have known for the past 20 years that the Universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. The explanation is the "dark energy" that permeates it throughout, pushing it to expand. Understanding the nature of this dark energy is one of the paramount enigmas of fundamental physics.
It has long been hoped that string theory will provide the answer. According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating "stringlike" entities. The theory also requires there to be more spatial dimensions than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.
In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the Universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes.
The Uppsala scientists' model provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the Universe, while it may also pave the way for methods of testing string theory.
TTF troll Wyatt/Regina repeatedly whines "no real evidence" and then when lots is provided childishly says providing all that evidence is posting too much, which somehow is evidence Wyatt/Regina is right - the epitome of trollish behavior.
That's why you don't give in to a trolls' constant disingenuous demand that you provide neverending documentation of the universe as though their minds could be changed by logic, evidence, proof despite their total inability to give a shred of evidence supporting a plausible alternative explanation for global warming than the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Wyatt/Regina said "those remarks by Trump were denounced by lawmakers on all sides significantly, he made them in a private conversation before he was running for anything Tliab did it in a public setting, after assuming office"
Typical Troll argumentation, absurdly assert what's relevant is irrelevant and vice versa that's a "false equivalence" logical fallacy.
It is irrelevant that one remark was made in public and the other in private and it is irrelevant that one made the comment while in office and the other didn't. What's relevant is that Trump demonstrated he is abusive towards women which is far, far more serious a flaw than a woman insulting and calling for justice for a man who IS a scumbag.
Wyatt/Regina know this, but they don't care, their goal here is to annoy liberals not honest debate.
"And lead me not into temptation"...who am I kidding, follow me, I know a short-cut!
The Russian troll didn't bother to click on the link providing evidence because he's not paid to go to other websites and possibly learn something.
He's only paid to spin the wheel of conservative talking points and type in whatever comes up.
His intent is just to gum up the works and destroy America. Just the like the Russians did the with 2016 election, and Republicans have been doing since 1980 when they started campaigning on "government IS the problem."
They have created their own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Tяump's government shutdown is his "Marie Antoinette moment".
He's taken away the pay from people living paycheck to paycheck and dodged questions again and again about how they should get by while showing he couldn't care less, essentially telling the people working for no pay "Let them eat cake"
The Russian troll didn't bother to click on the link providing evidence because he's not paid to go to other websites and possibly learn something.
He's only paid to spin the wheel of conservative talking points and type in whatever comes up.
His intent is just to gum up the works and destroy America. Just the like the Russians did the with 2016 election, and Republicans have been doing since 1980 when they started campaigning on "government IS the problem."
They have created their own self-fulfilling prophecy. "
You nailed it.
They try to use our sincerity and trust as weapons against us. They sense on their periphery global warming is real but tribal loyalty is more important to them than the reality that we're destroying life on earth but they have no intention of letting go of their deeply loved lie that burning fossil fuels is causing irreversable global warming.
So being the sincere trusting people we are, we do our best to respond to their disingenous, neverending objections and they get the sadistic thrill they were after and think its hilarious they conned us into putting in a bunch of effort they will only skim over at best while just repeating their sophomoric bumper sticker sticker slogans.
We give them the benefit of the doubt that they are honest people debating in good faith, but they're not.
Clinton - oral sex and one lie. Republican response=impeachment
Tяump
Hush money
Sexual assault
Racism
Nepotism and cronyism
Emoluments clause
Abuse of power
Obstruction
Criminal conspiracy. Republican response = crickets
"since my last comment, Priya has made 11 posts
ya gotta wonder what she's worried about"
Sounds like you're jealous, Russian troll. I guess you get paid by the post and trying to outpost everyone else.
Is she cutting into your profits?
Tяump Admin Mulls Broad Rollback Of Civil Rights Law
The Washington Post reports:
The Tяump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said.
A recent internal Justice Department memo directed senior civil rights officials to examine how decades-old “disparate impact” regulations might be changed or removed in their areas of expertise, and what the impact might be, according to people familiar with the matter. Similar action is being considered at the Education Department and is underway at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect even if that was not the intent, and rolling back this approach has been a longtime goal of conservatives.
JWC • 7 hours ago
WHY? Why would a batch of dark hearts want to even go there It serves no purpose
Karl Dubhe JWC • 7 hours ago
It serves the purpose of spreading fear and loathing.
It's a form of state terrorism. Which is something that appeals to those who support someone like Donald Tяump.
Is Trump suffering from dementia?
A neurologist lays out a case Trumps speaking shows he's suffering from demntia.
we have a new liar: "facts are facts"
let's examine
"Maybe a denier like you has nothing to worry about but most people aren't so stupid.
Hence Poll: Record number of Americans believe in man-made climate change"
and then
"...the poll found that more Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming than at any time since 2008. Seventy-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement.
There is a stark divide along party lines, with 50 percent of Republicans saying they believe there is solid evidence of global warming, compared to 90 percent of Democrats. The divide is the largest since 2008."
well, we already established that the globe is warmer than 200 years ago
but "facts are facts" said record number of Americans believe in MAN-MADE global warming
but "facts are facts" provided no such evidence
he's a liar
"The earth gets hotter and hotter and some few GOPers like you say, so what?"
well, it's warmer than 200 years ago
but it isn't appreciably warmer than 20 years ago
it's not getting "hotter and hotter"
you're lying
"Hush money"
that's not a crime
however, many Democrat congressman have used taxpayer funds to pay hush money to various women and Congress has not revealed who they are
that's a problem
Trump spending his own money to protect his family is not
"Sexual assault"
hasn't happened
"Racism"
a false charge against Trump
But the Clintons made several racist attacks on Obama when she was running against him in 2008
"Nepotism and cronyism"
not criminal
voters can make up their minds, although I think few that voted for him in 2016 didn't think this would happen
"Emoluments clause"
there are no criminal penalties for this
Trump disagrees with the interpretation but it will be settled in court
if he loses, he'll either divest or resign
no big deal
"Abuse of power"
you're thinking of Obama, who used the IRS against his opponents in 2012 and the intelligence agencies against Trump in 2016
Trump has done nothing like that
"Obstruction"
Trump has fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation, although there was no crime to investigate
"Criminal conspiracy"
that would require a crime
right now, there is none
even Pelosi and Comey admit that
Priya and the gang is really going over-the-top with repetitive posts to cover their lack of an arguments
so, they've given us a glimmer of what they call proof of anthropogenic global warming
it's that, under precise laboratory conditions, they can produce heat this way
but the climate is much too complex to draw the conclusion that this is a major, or even non-trivial, contributor to overall climate
and those ranting repeatedly only show how little they understand
The faux histrionics and pearl clutching at the word motherfucker is kind of erased when you say fuck in a high powered meeting a few hours later.
Wyatt/Regina, you (disingenuously) claim the entire scientific process is fatally flawed and tens of thousands of climatologists have either intentionally or unintentionally allowed alleged overwhelming bias to cause them to get 80 years of climate science blatantly wrong.
Putting aside the absurdity of the vast global conspiracy this would necessarily require, if what you say is true, how come global warming deniers, with the "truth" on their side, have been utterly unable to come up with a shred of evidence supporting an alternative explanation for the astounding "co-incidence" the earth has been warming 50 times faster than ever before at the same time as humans have raised atmospheric CO2 levels dramatically higher than they've been for a hundred thousand years?
If your goal was to destroy the U.S. economy, you would drive up the national debt to record levels, increase the wealth divide by handing tax breaks to the wealthy, start trade wars with the word's larges economies and isolate yourself from your allies. Tяump did all of that.
The most important thing to remember about trolls like Wyatt/Regina is that they never argue a topic out of a genuine desire to determine the truth, they only do it to frustrate and bedevil liberals by sending them on wild goose chases providing evidence that is never good enough for them.
The trick is to provide good evidence but don't spend too much time on something they'll reject no matter what. Don't respond to every never ending demand for more proof, just keep providing the same basic proof and pointing out they are unable to show any of it is wrong and are just repeating already debunked lies.
Fox News host has to explain to Sara Sanders why building a wall won't stop terrorists... they're coming in by airplane:
“Let’s talk about the wall,” Wallace said. “The president talks about terrorists potentially coming across the border.”
He then showed a clip of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen stating Friday that “over 3,000 special interest aliens” trying to enter the U.S. from the southern border had been stopped by Border Patrol agents.
“But special interest aliens are just people who have come from countries that have ever produced a terrorist, they’re not terrorists themselves,” Wallace said. He also cited State Department reports that found “no credible evidence of any terrorist coming across the border from Mexico.”
Sanders responded, “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.”
Wallace, ready to pounce, interrupted Sanders with a blistering fact-check.
“Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.”
“Not always but certainly a large number,” Sanders said as Wallace continued to hammer his point.
“The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico,” he added.
Sanders, seemingly ignoring the facts laid out before her, said terrorists enter the U.S. “by air, it’s by land, it’s by sea” and that the southern border is the country’s “most vulnerable point of entry.”
“But they’re not coming across the southern border, Sarah,” Wallace persisted. “They’re coming and they’re being stopped at airports.”
Sanders continued to dance around the facts, saying that terrorists are “coming a number of ways.”
Studies show undocumented immigrants commit less crime than native-born citizens. In fact, states with more undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than states with fewer of them.
"but the climate is much too complex to draw the conclusion that this is a major, or even non-trivial, contributor to overall climate"
And can you name which scientist said that, or produced a paper on the topic, so we examine the evidence for ourselves?
"It's not getting "hotter and hotter""
Annual Anomalies of Global Average Surface Temperature (°C)
1891 -0.63 -0.68 -0.59
1892 -0.71 -0.80 -0.62
1893 -0.75 -0.87 -0.63
1894 -0.70 -0.73 -0.68
1895 -0.68 -0.75 -0.60
1896 -0.47 -0.53 -0.42
1897 -0.49 -0.53 -0.45
1898 -0.66 -0.65 -0.68
1899 -0.56 -0.58 -0.55
1900 -0.49 -0.48 -0.51
1901 -0.58 -0.55 -0.63
1902 -0.70 -0.75 -0.66
1903 -0.77 -0.78 -0.77
1904 -0.84 -0.88 -0.79
1905 -0.70 -0.72 -0.68
1906 -0.60 -0.59 -0.62
1907 -0.78 -0.85 -0.70
1908 -0.82 -0.84 -0.82
1909 -0.82 -0.84 -0.81
1910 -0.79 -0.78 -0.80
1911 -0.82 -0.79 -0.85
1912 -0.73 -0.83 -0.61
1913 -0.70 -0.79 -0.60
1914 -0.53 -0.57 -0.49
1915 -0.43 -0.47 -0.40
1916 -0.64 -0.70 -0.59
1917 -0.71 -0.77 -0.64
1918 -0.55 -0.61 -0.48
1919 -0.58 -0.68 -0.45
1920 -0.51 -0.56 -0.46
1921 -0.43 -0.39 -0.52
1922 -0.56 -0.56 -0.58
1923 -0.54 -0.54 -0.55
1924 -0.55 -0.53 -0.60
1925 -0.46 -0.42 -0.52
1926 -0.36 -0.33 -0.42
1927 -0.47 -0.43 -0.54
1928 -0.47 -0.47 -0.50
1929 -0.60 -0.62 -0.59
1930 -0.38 -0.33 -0.46
1931 -0.34 -0.31 -0.41
1932 -0.38 -0.38 -0.39
1933 -0.53 -0.57 -0.50
1934 -0.37 -0.37 -0.39
1935 -0.46 -0.45 -0.49
1936 -0.48 -0.43 -0.56
1937 -0.37 -0.32 -0.46
1938 -0.33 -0.26 -0.45
1939 -0.37 -0.34 -0.46
1940 -0.32 -0.39 -0.25
1941 -0.26 -0.31 -0.21
1942 -0.26 -0.31 -0.24
1943 -0.23 -0.21 -0.31
1944 -0.11 -0.15 -0.11
1945 -0.25 -0.33 -0.16
1946 -0.40 -0.36 -0.52
1947 -0.43 -0.43 -0.46
1948 -0.40 -0.36 -0.50
1949 -0.42 -0.40 -0.47
1950 -0.49 -0.52 -0.47
1951 -0.35 -0.31 -0.44
1952 -0.29 -0.31 -0.30
1953 -0.22 -0.18 -0.31
1954 -0.45 -0.43 -0.52
1955 -0.47 -0.42 -0.57
1956 -0.56 -0.61 -0.53
1957 -0.28 -0.32 -0.25
1958 -0.22 -0.19 -0.28
1959 -0.29 -0.30 -0.30
1960 -0.33 -0.32 -0.36
1961 -0.23 -0.25 -0.24
1962 -0.21 -0.19 -0.26
1963 -0.18 -0.16 -0.23
1964 -0.49 -0.50 -0.49
1965 -0.42 -0.48 -0.37
1966 -0.35 -0.33 -0.39
1967 -0.35 -0.32 -0.42
1968 -0.37 -0.37 -0.39
1969 -0.27 -0.38 -0.14
1970 -0.29 -0.36 -0.22
1971 -0.41 -0.48 -0.33
1972 -0.29 -0.49 -0.06
1973 -0.16 -0.26 -0.05
1974 -0.44 -0.54 -0.34
1975 -0.39 -0.42 -0.35
1976 -0.48 -0.58 -0.36
1977 -0.19 -0.25 -0.12
1978 -0.28 -0.34 -0.21
1979 -0.16 -0.25 -0.07
1980 -0.13 -0.22 -0.05
1981 -0.09 -0.05 -0.13
1982 -0.21 -0.29 -0.13
1983 -0.06 -0.13 +0.02
1984 -0.24 -0.36 -0.13
1985 -0.26 -0.40 -0.11
1986 -0.17 -0.25 -0.09
1987 -0.01 -0.10 +0.08
1988 -0.03 -0.06 -0.01
1989 -0.10 -0.12 -0.09
1990 +0.04 +0.08 0.00
1991 -0.02 -0.06 0.00
1992 -0.17 -0.25 -0.09
1993 -0.15 -0.22 -0.06
1994 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08
1995 +0.01 +0.06 -0.04
1996 -0.09 -0.15 -0.04
1997 +0.09 +0.10 +0.07
1998 +0.22 +0.24 +0.19
1999 0.00 +0.03 -0.05
2000 0.00 +0.02 -0.04
2001 +0.12 +0.14 +0.10
2002 +0.16 +0.18 +0.13
2003 +0.16 +0.20 +0.10
2004 +0.12 +0.20 +0.04
2005 +0.17 +0.26 +0.08
2006 +0.16 +0.24 +0.07
2007 +0.12 +0.24 0.00
2008 +0.05 +0.12 -0.02
2009 +0.16 +0.19 +0.15
2010 +0.20 +0.28 +0.12
2011 +0.08 +0.13 +0.02
2012 +0.15 +0.21 +0.09
2013 +0.20 +0.26 +0.15
2014 +0.27 +0.38 +0.17
2015 +0.42 +0.59 +0.27
2016 +0.45 +0.59 +0.31
2017 +0.38 +0.51 +0.25
2018 +0.30* +0.41* +0.20*
Global anomalies are with respect to the 1981-2010 average.
The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2018 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.30°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.66°C above the 20th century average), and was the 4th warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.73°C per century.
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.30°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Hee Hee Hee!
TEXAS: Court Boots Drag Queen Story Hour Lawsuit
January 5, 2019 Christianists, Crackpots
Courthouse News reports:
Christian activists who tried to stop Houston libraries from hosting “Drag Queen Storytime” because it allegedly promotes the LGBT community’s “secular humanist” religion lack standing, a federal judge ruled Thursday, dismissing the lawsuit.
Last year Lead plaintiff Tex Christopher, who ran for Congress in 2010, led a “March4Trump” event in Houston. Another plaintiff in the now-booted suit is whackjob Chris Sevier, best known for his multiple failed attempts to stop same-sex marriage by claiming that he has the right to marry his computer. Sevier has a separate pending Drag Queen Story Hour suit against a library in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Once again, far-right fake Christians are trampling on any other religious belief. If you don't subscribe to their unchristian Jesus = Homophobia "religious belief" system, you will be locked out of the public square....and worse.
"well, we already established that the globe is warmer than 200 years ago
but "facts are facts" said record number of Americans believe in MAN-MADE global warming
but "facts are facts" provided no such evidence"
Record numbers of Americans do believe in man-made global warming/climate change.
The linked Hill article (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396487-poll-record-number-of-americans-believe-in-man-made-climate-change) reported:
"A record number of Americans believe that global warming is real and that humans are at least partially responsible, according to a new poll from the University of Michigan's Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy.
The survey says that 60 percent of respondents say that global warming is taking place and that human activity is either primarily or partially why temperatures are rising. That passes a previous high of 58 percent, which was recorded in 2008, 2009 and 2017.
Thirty-four percent of respondents said that humans were primarily responsible for global warming, while 26 percent said human activity was partially responsible.
On the other hand, 12 percent of respondents said that climate change was caused by natural patterns, with another 12 percent saying they weren't sure if it is occurring at all. Fifteen percent of respondents said the climate is not changing..."
The UMICH authors of the survey linked to in The Hill article asked respondents if they thought there was solid evidence for global warming, if they were not sure if climate is changing, or if they thought climate is not changing. The study's author's also asked respondents if they thought climate change was caused by human activity, or if they thought climate change was caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns or not sure of cause, or if they thought climate change was caused by natural patterns. Apparently they also asked for political party affiliation.
The study's authors then published their findings:
"...The record level of acceptance of global warming by Americans was accompanied by the highest percentage of Americans that believe human activity is at least partially responsible for the warming that is being experienced. The most recent NSEE found 60% of Americans believe that humans are either primarily (34%) or partially responsible (26%) for the warming of the planet. The 60% level of belief that humans are contributing to global warming surpasses the previous record of 58% that was established in NSEE waves in 2008, 2009 and 2017 (see Figure 2).
The role of party affiliation in determining American views on the existence and causes of global warming has been one of the most salient findings of NSEE studies over the past decade. The divide between Democrats, Republicans and independents in regards to multiple aspects of global warming has been significant over the past decade and the most recent findings indicate this divide is large and modestly widening. In terms of acceptance of global warming the divide between Democrats and Republicans in the latest NSEE iteration was as large as anytime in the last decade with a 40% gap: 90% of Democrats think there is solid evidence of global warming while 50% of Republicans maintain this same view (see Figure 3). This 40% difference matches the previous record divide that was measured in the spring of 2012."..."
"Funny how their religious beliefs don't cause them to morally oppose having their tax dollars being spent on wars, violence, and death."
Yep, to them, other people having fun is the real "danger" to society.
Wyatt/Regina said "It's not getting "hotter and hotter"".
Classic Troll behavior yet again. Wyatt/Regina have over the decades repeatedly denied the earth has been warming, as they've done here.
You know they're trolls because a year ago in this thread at January 24, 2018 they got angry at me for saying they deny the planet is getting warmer. They said then (paraphrasing) "I've said several times in the past that I accept that the world is getting hotter, you're a liar!"
I presciently said at the time "Okay, I see you've said that a couple of times recently but down the road you'll contradict yourself and post claims that the planet has not warmed.
So yet again, absolute proof Wyatt and Regina are insincere and dishonest, they're nothing but trolls.
Trolls like Wyatt/Regina couldn't care less about contradicting the firm positions they've taken in the past because they're only "debating" to annoy sincere and honest liberals. If contradicting themselves helps them troll liberals in the immediate situation they won't hesitate to lie about their previous positions. They are utterly devoid of integrity.
I've condemned Wyatt/Regina in the past for hiding behind anonymous posts. They insisted it didn't matter that you couldn't tell which post was theirs, it wasn't dishonest. You can see here that one of the reasons they insist on posting anonymously is because it helps them hide the contradictions in the their anti-science, anti-LGBT agenda.
Good anonymous, no honest people doubt that the planet has gotten warmer over the past 20 years, the proof is well known, as you've posted.
Wyatt/Regina know that most of the hottest years ever on record have occurred since 2000, hell, as I posted above, they've even admitted it on rare occaisions in the past, but of course they can't resist telling that lie because, as research shows, trolls are sadists.
The past four years have been the hottest on record
The ten hottest years on record have come since 1998
So, yeah, the evidence is widely available and well known, even by Wyatt/Regina. Even though they admitted it a year ago and now contradict themselves, its undeniable that there's been a lot of global warming the past 20 years.
Wyatt/Regina, if "there's no real evidence" that burning fossil fuels causes a global greenhouse effect, what could explain the earth warming 50 times faster in the past 200 years than the climate changed in the previous 10,000?
You're saying this 50 fold increase in the rate of global warming just coincidentally is happening at the same time humans have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
If they're right, why have no global warming deniers have been able to posit a plausible alternative scientific explanation for this astounding "coincidence"?
LGBT people post anonymously here out of a valid fear of being discriminated against. Wyatt and Regina refuse to post under a single unique pseudonym here because they want to avoid being held accountable for their contradictory positions over time.
Wayne, that was twelve in a row
Damn, you're a moron!
Everyone sees who the moron is, deb.
You can't even count.
I must be a real moron because I just counted again and looks like twelve Wayne posts since my last comment
btw, are you posting anonymously here out of a valid fear of being discriminated against?
it's fine if you are, I just wanted to survey and see if Wayne was right about that
Monday - "An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media."
Friday - "I never said, "I'm going to build a concrete [wall].' "
Sunday - "We are now planning a Steel Barrier rather than concrete."
"The totalitarian mass leaders could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trusst that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and admire leaders for their tactical cleverness." - Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
Wyatt/Regina, Do you really think arguing "There's no evidence", (I post several logical arguments with links), you whine "you posted too much, that shows I'm right." is convincing anyone? It doesn't get any weaker than that kids.
A Michigan electronics company chairman, who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, now says he feels betrayed and his factory may have to move to Mexico because of the president’s tariffs.
Pat LeBlanc, the chairman of EBW Electronics, told The New York Times that Trump’s tariffs were “killing” the company, which makes lights for the auto industry.
“I just feel so betrayed,” LeBlanc told the newspaper. “If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.”
LeBlanc, a Republican, said he expects 2019 profits will be cut in half.
Cory Steeby, EBW’s president, told the Times the tariffs that make steel and aluminum more expensive to import were “a tax that comes right off the bottom line,” and the company might not have a choice but to move production to avoid them.
“It totally incentivizes you to move out of the United States and build either in Canada or Mexico,” Steeby said. “These are active conversations right now.”
LeBlanc’s latest comments were a far cry from the optimism he expressed just a few years ago when EBW was ranked as one of the fastest-growing companies in the region.
“Yeah, we’re adding jobs and we’re growing faster than anyone else,” LeBlanc boasted in a 2013 interview with the Holland Sentinel. “Getting into LEDs is what really propelled us. And we’re not moving to Mexico.”
Gee, who was president back in 2013 when his business was doing so great?
Wyatt/Regina makes 27 of 32 comments:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/09/moco-opposes-anti-muslim-bigotry.html#comments
Wyatt/Regina makes almost 2/3rds of 64 comments:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2013/05/plan-b-deadline-is-today.html#comments
Wyatt/Regina makes 21 of first 29 comments:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2013/10/aca-takes-off-gop-crashes-govt.html#comments
Gee, you guys aren't hypocritical at all.
There you have it people, by Wyatt/Regina's own logic they posted far more than me which proves me right.
Wyatt/Regina, tell us again about how its me, not you who is the TTF troll.
Wyatt/Regina have been trolling this blog since the beginning. Here's a classic 2008 example of how they try to trick and deceive people, specifically, dishonestly conflating same gender sex with the risk of contracting STDs through promiscuity:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/12/keeping-our-eyes-open.html#comments
Wyatt/Regina said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules [against promiscuity]."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that that is true. What this then shows is that its a bad idea to set unreasonable boundaries on people such as asking priests to be celibate or gays not to have sex. People aren't designed to be non-sexual and its inevitable that some are going to be sexual and break this poorly thought out taboo. Then as you say they are already considered a wrong-doer so not being labeled a wrong-doer is less of an incentive not to engage in other valid taboos. For example, once the priest breaks his vow of celibacy out of the inevitable human needs, in his mind he can say he's no more of a bad person if he pursues sex with a minor. He's a wrongdoer whether he has sex with a consenting adult or a child.
Wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?
Wyatt/Regina said "AIDS is widespread among gays because of their dangerous behavior.".
By the same token then AIDS must be widespread amongst blacks because of the dangerous behavior inherent in being black. You can't have it both ways and claim gays have higher rates because its bad to be gay but that higher rates amongst blacks aren't due to being black. The reality is that when you're an oppressed society, black, or gay, you are more likely to suffer social problems Just as in your example above, when tell a person they're bad because they're black, they have little incentive to not be bad by avoiding promiscuity.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/12/keeping-our-eyes-open.html#comments
Wyatt/Regina said "everything I've ever read seems to indicate that the incidence of AIDS is higher in the male gay population because of anal sex, along with more sex partners".
Wrong. Aids is not higher because of anal sex. Anal sex in a monogamous relationship with a non-infected partner is risk free. The problem is promiscuity, not anal sex. Start telling the truth for a change [Priya Jan 2019 - lol, obviously that was never to happen].
Wyatt said "I have no idea about the Black population in the U.S. One guess could be a high incidence of drug/needle use? More violence that leads to more blood transfusions?"
That's not what you said earlier, you're contradicting yourself - previously you said "And don't start attacking blacks. There are explanations for that phenomenom."
If you think anal sex is the cause of the higher rates of aids amongst gays then it naturally follows that vaginal sex is the cause of higher rates amongst blacks - vaginal sex is dangerous. If you don't think vaginal sex is dangerous then it must be that the same things like higher numbers of sex partners that cause the high rates of AIDS amongst blacks also causes the high rates of AIDS amongst gays - you can't have it both ways.
Wyatt/Regina, if "there's no real evidence" that burning fossil fuels causes a global greenhouse effect, what could explain the earth warming 50 times faster in the past 200 years than the climate changed in the previous 10,000?
You're saying this 50 fold increase in the rate of global warming just coincidentally is happening at the same time humans have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
If they're right, why have no global warming deniers have been able to posit a plausible alternative scientific explanation (let alone a shred of supporting evidence) for this astounding "coincidence"?
Surely the (1% of 10,000 =) hundreds of real scientists(snicker :) on your side should have come up with at least an alternative hypothesis, no? I mean, they're "skeptical" and right and all and have the facts on their side, right?
See Wyatt/Regina? I've been intellectually bitch slapping the two of you going back to well before 2008 - don't you two ever get tired of banging your heads against the wall? lol
When this is over, when the lights are turned back on, it will become clear that there were only two kinds of people:
Those who stood against Tяump's corruption, cruelty, and degradation of human values, and those who enabled him.
Tяumpty Dumpty promised a wall,
Tяumpty Dumpty lied to you all.
All the billionaires, fascists, and corporate con-men got the racists to cut all their taxes...again.
you know, I'm not a psych but I'm pretty sure we're witnessing an emotional breakdown above
certain elements of our society have a higher incidence of that
Associated Press -Fact Check
"Tяump: “Do you think it’s just luck that gas prices are so low, and falling? Low gas prices are like another Tax Cut!” — tweet Tuesday.
Tяump: “It’s not luck. It’s not luck. I called up certain people, and I said, ‘Let that damn oil and gasoline — you let it flow — the oil.’ It was going up to $125. If that would’ve happened, then you would’ve had a recession, depression.” — Cabinet meeting Wednesday.
THE FACTS: It’s not all about him, or even mostly about him.
While Americans may end up paying somewhat less for gasoline this year, Tяump’s suggestion that he deserves all the credit and averted a U.S. economic depression is an exaggeration. Oil prices, which peaked Oct. 3, have been generally falling on the realization that U.S. sanctions against Iran would not create a shortage and on fear that a global oversupply of oil will spill into 2019 if slower international economic growth depresses energy demand.
The president’s supposed “let it flow” edict did not stop OPEC and its Russia-led allies from agreeing last month to cut oil production. That initially failed to stop oil prices from sliding further; they have since rebounded a few dollars in the past week. Continued OPEC production cuts would push prices higher.
Tяump has pointed to his positive relations with Saudi Arabia, which remains the biggest oil exporter. As a so-called swing producer with the ability to adjust production up or down relatively quickly, it can indeed influence the price of crude. But the market is complex: Canada, for example, is actually the top source of U.S. oil imports, with Saudi Arabia second."
Tяump has lied over and over claiming Canada is taking advantage of the U.S. We sell that oil to the United States at far below world price, as little as $11 a barrel while Canada then imports oil at world price of $54 per barrel to make up for our own supply needs. The truth is, it is the United States that has been taking advantage of Canada like this for several decades. The truth is, it is the United States that owes Canada big-time, not the other way around.
well, Trump's going to the border on Thursday to declare a national emergency and put the first shovel in the dirt for the new wall
still, I hope the shutdown doesn't end soon
there's a lot to like about
the traffic is DC is great
and the DC government can't issue gay marriage licenses
and we're saving money by the day!
next year, we'll end the year with a shutdown over building a wall to keep undesirable Canadians out
that oughta scare the hell outta Justin!
US Halts Work With UN On Human Rights Violations
The Guardian reports:
The Tяump administration has stopped cooperating with UN investigators over potential human rights violations occurring inside America, in a move that delivers a major blow to vulnerable US communities and sends a dangerous signal to authoritarian regimes around the world.
Quietly and unnoticed, the state department has ceased to respond to official complaints from UN special rapporteurs, the network of independent experts who act as global watchdogs on fundamental issues such as poverty, migration, freedom of expression and justice. There has been no response to any such formal query since 7 May 2018, with at least 13 requests going unanswered.
Nor has the Tяump administration extended any invitation to a UN monitor to visit the US to investigate human rights inside the country since the start of Donald Tяump’s term two years ago in January 2017.
Anonymous - "A conservative says "If it hasn't happened to me, I don't care."
A liberal says "This should never happen to anyone and that's why I care""
Ian Millhiser - "I think a big reason why @AOC is so much better at politcs than so many older, more experienced Democrats is that she's never known a world where Republicans aren't cartoonish villains who reliably act in bad faith. So she treats them as what they are."
There's also this, from Paul Krugman:
Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious.
And because the party’s coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers “economists” who are obvious frauds and can’t even fake their numbers effectively.
Which brings me back to AOC, and the constant effort to portray her as flaky and ignorant. Well, on the tax issue she’s just saying what good economists say; and she definitely knows more economics than almost everyone in the G.O.P. caucus, not least because she doesn’t “know” things that aren’t true.
Putin says Russia will supply soy beans and poultry to China, replacing U.S. farmers who lost their export business due to the Tяump tarrifs - "Trade wars are good and easy to win!". Gee, its almost like Tяump is intentionally hurting the U.S. to help Putin (time after time after time).
Donald Tяump's term so far has been marked by his destructive instincts. The next two years could be even worse
emotional breakdowns, like the one we witnessed earlier today, are often followed by strong delusions:
"Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data?"
employment is at record highs, astonishing economists of every type
energy prices are low
this despite interest rate returning to normal levels and the government shutting down and Chinese tariffs on our imports
the economy is displaying the same resiliency it showed in 1982-2006, when the Iraq war got voters mad and they stupidly gave the House to Dems
Republican economics have been vindicated
to not see that, one must be delusional
"Putin says Russia will supply soy beans and poultry to China, replacing U.S. farmers who lost their export business due to the Tяump tarrifs - "Trade wars are good and easy to win!". Gee, its almost like Tяump is intentionally hurting the U.S. to help Putin (time after time after time)."
China is suffering their first slump in decades
Trump scored a direct hit!
Russian soybeans won't fix it
China is scared as hell
they're in a mood to patch things up with America
to not see that, one must be delusional
"Which brings me back to AOC,"
apparently AOC is Priya's newest heroine
too bad she agrees with something that Priya has vehemently argues here:
that it's OK to lie if you have good intentions!
During his 60 Minutes interview with the new House member, Anderson Cooper confronted Ocasio-Cortez with a whopper about Pentagon spending that earned her four Pinocchios at the Washington Post. Ocasio-Cortez replied that being “morally right” means never having to account for facts.
“There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” @AOC says in response to criticism that she’s made factual errors.
COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that– that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios —
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness —
COOPER: — for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
COOPER: But being factually correct is important–
OCASIO-CORTEZ: It’s not the same thing as — as the president lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing at all.
Actually, it’s precisely the same thing
Earlier in the day, Chris Wallace dressed down Sarah Huckabee Sanders for doing the same thing with border security claims — misusing statistics and taking data wildly out of context in service to a moral claim:
Back to AOC, Aaron Blake points out that this wasn’t a one-off:
But that $21 trillion estimate isn’t necessarily waste; it’s just sloppily accounted for, according to that study. It’s also not just money the Pentagon spends; it includes money coming into the Pentagon. And that $32 billion price tag is an estimate for the first 10 years of “Medicare for All,” while the Pentagon number accounts for a 17-year period. Ocasio-Cortez’s numbers weren’t just wrong on the margins; her conclusion made no logical sense in light of the actual facts. What’s more, this isn’t the only claim she’s made that has been debunked; The Post’s team documented five false claims she made during an August media blitz following her primary upset of Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.).
What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right” — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.”
But this is the slipperiest of slopes — the kind of attitude you can use to justify pretty much anything to yourself. And it also just so happens to be the underlying ethos of the entire Trump presidency.
Yes indeed it is, but it’s one that didn’t start with Donald Trump, either. In the previous administration, Barack Obama told his share of whoppers, including the “if you like your plan you can keep your plan” lie regarding ObamaCare for the sake of the moral rightness of government intervention in insurance marketplaces. Remember the whopper about a YouTube video being the catalyst for the attack on our consular office in Benghazi? That was also told in service to a sense of moral rightness, the need to keep from blaming radical Islamists for terrorism … and the Obama administration for negligence in preparing for it.
"The law is of equal application. It does not recognise colour, social status, office holders, or political affiliation.
The notion that an individual can claim an exemption from obeying the law because he gives himself a 'belief' in whatever, and thereby be exempted from obeying the law is so absurd as to offend public decency.
It is indecent to try to avoid society's laws by means of some personal private idea.
This whole ignorant fraud needs to be kicked in the head."
The first amendment does NOT grant superiority to religious people, regardless of what bigoted evangelicals think.
Earth to Priya the Hypocrite:
you must disavow AOC or everyone will know you think lying is OK sometimes
they will know you lied when you said you think lying is always wrong
we can't have that!
Priya the Hypocrite, are you reading?
The first amendment does NOT require the oppression of religious people, regardless of what malicious atheists think
especially if they don't disavow the lying of AOC
Wyatt/Regina said "apparently AOC is Priya's newest heroine too bad she agrees with something that Priya has vehemently argues here: that it's OK to lie if you have good intentions!".
I never said any such thing and I don't believe that generalization.
The truth is, its Wyatt/Regina who said "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie" in this thread at September 12, 2016 11:06 PM
I've documented several deceptions by Wyatt/Regina in this thread alone.
Wyatt/Regina have gotten so desperate to troll me they've resorted to this. Sad!
Wyatt/Regina said "they will know you lied when you said you think lying is always wrong".
I never said that either. You don't post under the pseudonym Northdallas300 as well, do you? The prolific lying is very similar.
I remember specifically it was you who changed my mind about having readily accepted since I was a teen "The end never justifies the means". I said that to you and you brought up the example of a person hiding a jew in Nazi germany lying to a Nazi asking if there were any Jews in the house.
For the only time I recall, you convinced me of something I didn't believe - that there are rare cases where the end does justify the means.
Ultimately every moral situation must be judged on its own circumstances. Generalities like "Do whatever you want, but harm no one" can be a great organizing principle but they won't make obvious the solution to every moral dilemma.
For the record, I have no idea what Wyatt/Regina are talking about with regards to AOC, and I don't care.
They steadfastly defend the most immoral man in politics - Trump. Them picking at some alleged mote in AOC's eye couldn't be more hypocritical.
You can criticize her when you start criticizing Trump for the myriad of immoral things he's done.
Until then, go F yourself.
Wyatt/Regina, if "there's no real evidence" that burning fossil fuels causes a global greenhouse effect, what could explain the earth warming 50 times faster in the past 200 years than the climate changed in the previous 10,000?
You're saying this 50 fold increase in the rate of global warming just coincidentally is happening at the same time humans have been releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
If they're right, why have no global warming deniers have been able to posit a plausible alternative scientific explanation (let alone find a shred of supporting evidence) for this astounding "coincidence"? Surely the "real" scientists on your side should have come up with at least an alternative hypothesis, no?
Liberal bias my ass...
"Here is the brutal reality, because Barack Obama did not disparage, degrade, or threaten TV networks, or call them the enemy of the people, they were perfectly content to deny him airtime for his immigration address. Because Trump did all those things they were intimidated.
This is textbook behaviour for an autocrat. You don't have to seize media outlets, you can just bully them into being your loyal bitches. It is more than sad, it is deeply alarming."
Trump has been increasingly bringing the crazy since the mid-terms. He feels those 17 investigations closing in and he's sensing the end is near and so he's getting recklessly desperate.
Because Wyatt/Regina may (will likely) lie about it, I don't read all their comments and even those few I do read I often only read part of it.
If there's truly been a national emergency at the border and Trump didn't declare a national emergency for 2 years, then Trump should be immediately impeached for not protecting Americans.
Can't have it both ways.
AOC scares the hell out of GOPers like Wyatt/Regina.
AOC is everything tЯumpettes hate -- a young, vibrant, Latina game changer rather than yet another old white guy.
AOC represents the future while GOPer/tЯumpettes cling to the past.
Emergency at the border? It's more like emergency in the White House as the Mueller probe grinds its way to exposing the deplorable truth about despicable tЯump. This is typical tЯump -- the bigger the diversion, the better.
Earth to Wyatt/Regina the Hypcrite
you must disavow tЯump's lies or everyone will know you think tЯump's lies are OK
"AOC scares the hell out of GOPers like Wyatt/Regina"
tRumplandia (sorry i don't know how to make that backward "R"), I've never given my name here
I post anonymously and alone
other than Wayne, who I just ignore, I don't think I've seen anyone else call me by a name so I just thought I'd let you know
anyway, AOC doesn't scare me at all, I find her an amusing personality, something our boring staid Congress needs more of
that being said, I think I will often disagree with her, I'm not a socialist
I'm a libertarian, and there are few of those in Congress
"AOC is everything tЯumpettes hate -- a young, vibrant, Latina game changer rather than yet another old white guy.
AOC represents the future while GOPer/tЯumpettes cling to the past."
I'm not a tRumpette but I have a feeling they love having someone sowing division in the Dem party
as for the future, you might want to heed the words of outgoing governor Jerry Brown, one of the Dems' few bright minds
he's leaving his ultra-liberal successor a 30 billion dollar surplus but warns that Dems are setting themselves for failure by moving too far left
even at 80, he's still your best bet to beat Trump in 2020
he's led a super-healthy life, will likely live to be over a hundred
pair him with a young and quality and moderate Dem and they can take Trump down
I might even consider them myself if they propose the right policies
"Emergency at the border?"
almost 400K illegally crossed the southern border last year
among them, criminals and drug dealers
this didn't happen on our northern border
the wall will hinder this activity
"It's more like emergency in the White House as the Mueller probe grinds its way to exposing the deplorable truth about despicable tЯump."
from all indications, Mueller has found nothing
if he tries to make up new laws to charge Trump with, as he often does with others, he will need the support of 2/3 of the Senate
nah gahn happen
"This is typical tЯump -- the bigger the diversion, the better."
it's his biggest campaign promise
the idea that he's pursuing it to distract from the sad Mueller is laughable
"Barack Obama did not disparage, degrade, or threaten TV networks, or call them the enemy of the people"
actually, Obama blazed new trails in harassing the media, doing things like barring FOX and and charging reporters with espionage
"I never said any such thing and I don't believe that generalization."
actually, Priya did used to make this generalization all the time, although, come to think of it, I do think she finally conceded I was right at some point, so my apologies for forgetting that
Priya, AOC, and I all agree that it is sometimes right to lie
don't know if AOC made the right choice but it's, at least, debatable
President Trump made the remark during a lengthy appearance in the White House’s Rose Garden on Friday, in the midst of an extended soliloquy about the border wall that he has yet to find funding or widespread political support for.
The government is shut down over the president’s demand that Congress allocate $5.7 billion for the wall.
“This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me,” Trump said. “And they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it.”
The president has made 7,600 false or misleading statements since he became president, and some have proved more difficult than others to fact-check. This one was not. There are only four living ex-presidents. The Washington Post reached out to them to see whether they ever told Trump that a border wall should have been built before he was in office: All said they hadn’t.
"Earth to Wyatt/Regina the Hypcrite
you must disavow tЯump's lies or everyone will know you think tЯump's lies are OK"
Earth to Poor Speller
if you'll look back, you'll see I've always agreed Trump is a liar
he also ran against a bigger liar in 2016, who was counseled by her lying husband
her husband was a pioneer of deceit in public office
Obama probably lied less frequently but his lies were more insidiously consequential
once Obama got his socialist overall of health insurance narrowly passed by lying and another time he set off riots in the Muslim street by lying, causing numerous deaths
tЯump is so insecure, he has to lie about other presidents supposedly supporting the wall he said he'd get Mexico to pay for even knowing how easy it would be to fact check him on that.
What have you said about this Presidential lie about other Presidents?
Nada.
Has the pussygrabber got your tongue?
"tЯump is so insecure, he has to lie about other presidents supposedly supporting the wall he said he'd get Mexico to pay for even knowing how easy it would be to fact check him on that.
What have you said about this Presidential lie about other Presidents?
Nada.
Has the pussygrabber got your tongue?"
if you're talking about me, I think I've already agreed that Trump lies a lot
it's a good thing to keep in mind, but not the major horror that leftists make it out to be
for one thing, he comes from our most prominent economic city where businessmen, and especially real estate developers, all do this
for another, he now works in our most prominent political city, where politicians, and especially Presidents, all do this
Trump commonly gives accounts of private meetings and conversations that differ from the other participant's account
in these cases, I tend to think he exaggerates and the other side also is not entirely truthful
for all we know, one or more these Presidents did say this and now deny it for political reasons
it also could have been H.W. that said it
it's only recently that Dems have begun to call the wall "immoral"
and, as an editorial in this morning's Post points out, that exaggeration is not helpful, and contradicts past positions of the Dems
last week, I posted a quote from Hillary from 2015, supporting a "barrier"
she must have been running for something
All Four Living Ex-Presidents Say Tяump is Lying
The other day, Tяump told what was perhaps his most ridiculous lie ever (and imagine the competition for that title) when he said that former presidents had told him that they wished they had built a border wall. No thinking person could possibly have believed him, and now all four living ex-presidents have officially denied telling him that.
“This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me,” Tяump said. “And they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it.”
The president has made 7,600 false or misleading statements since he became president, and some have proved more difficult than others to fact-check. This one was not. There are only four living ex-presidents. The Washington Post reached out to them to see whether they ever told Tяump that a border wall should have been built before he was in office: All said they hadn’t. A spokesman for George H.W. Bush declined to comment.
And we know that Bush 41 was decidedly pro-immigration. Indeed, it was a competition of sorts during the 1980 presidential election between him and Ronald Reagan to see who was the most pro-immigration. He signed Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1990, which liberalized our immigration laws and established new categories of protection for immigrants seeking to come here. That’s the exact opposite of Tяump’s policies. Tяump has told a staggering number of lies, but this one may be the most shameless because it’s so easily checked and proven to be a lie.
[Much like Wyatt/Regina above - I mean, really, getting indignant over some lie AOC may or may not have told and demanding I make an immediate statement distancing myself from her, like there's some great pressing emergency (Tяump wall, snicker :) to get me to respond on the record. All the while they never condemn Tяump's record 10 lies per day despite the gross damage and unfairness they cause. This is the kind of outrageous double standard conservatives always try to apply - the rules/laws are only for liberals ]
This thread and looking back at others it has struck me just how machiavellian Wyatt/Regina has been over the years - no lie too shameful, no lie too blatant. - There's a deep seated mean-heartedness to it all, I hope that's not all there is, I hope that there's a glimmer of goodness in them.
Really, my goal is to encourage society to make its highest priority maximizing the happiness and minimizing the sadness of all in a fair and equal way.
They talk sanctimoniously about how their "morality" makes them morally superior to LGBT people and yet look at how they lie to hurt innocent people.
What's their highest priority goal for society?
From his presidential campaign announcement speech to the election, tЯump declared 212 times that Mexico would pay for the wall, according to the comprehensive record of tЯump's speeches, interviews and tweets maintained by factba.se. That works out to almost every two days during the campaign.
Mexico refuses to pay for the wall, and tЯump has engineered a government shutdown to try to force Congress to appropriate the necessary funds. Yet tЯump insists that Mexico is paying for the wall because of a reworking of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that his administration negotiated — though it is not yet ratified by Congress.
"I think I've already agreed that Trump lies a lot"
Yes, I'm talking to you and that was not my question, which was "What have you said about this Presidential lie about other Presidents?"
My original answer was Nada.
But now, even worse, you have doubled down, like your idol tЯump, and are trying to imply the other living Presidents are the liars when everybody knows who the liar is!
You've got tЯumpitis bad!
You gotta wonder if there's special place in hell for those who practice the tЯumponian art of lying.
Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday struggled to back President Donald Trump’s lie that former presidents have affirmed their support for his proposed border wall, claiming that Trump meant that they support “border security.”
On Friday, Trump falsely boasted that his predecessors “have told me that we should have” built the wall.
“This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it,” he said during a news conference. “Some of them have told me that we should have done it.”
But all four living former presidents have denied that they ever spoke to Trump about the wall or have made it clear they do not support Trump’s long-promised proposal.
Pressed by NBC News’ Hallie Jackson in an interview Tuesday, Pence hesitated, before attempting to claim that the president meant that it had been “his impression” and that he meant “the importance of border security.”
Pencie-Poo should go ask "Mother" about the consequencs of lying.
Fox's Chris Wallace Repeatedly Nails Sarah Sanders on Bogus Border Terror Threat
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders ran into a buzzsaw Sunday morning when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace challenged the Trump administration’s repeated false claims about terrorism and the southwestern border of the United States.
On this week’s edition of Fox News Sunday, Sanders told Wallace that President Trump meant what he said when he declared that he would keep the government shut down for “years” if necessary, in order to secure funding for his border wall.
But then, Wallace attacked a central theme of Trump’s push for a wall, the lie that tons of terrorists are streaming over the border with Mexico. He played a clip of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen claiming, at this week’s Rose Garden press conference, that “CBP has stopped over 3,000 what we call special interest aliens trying to come into the country on the southern border. Those are aliens who the Intel community has identified are of concern.”
“But special interest aliens are just people who have come from countries that have ever produced a terrorist, they’re not terrorists themselves,” Wallace said, and added that “the state department says, quote, ‘there were no credible evidence of any terrorist coming across the border from Mexico,'” citing a report that was released in September. (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/283100.pdf)
“We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is southern border,” Sanders began, but Wallace cut her off.
“I know the statistic, I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this,” Wallace said. “Do you know what those 4,000 people come where they are captured? Airports.”
“Not always…” Sanders said weakly.
“Airports. The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border,” Wallace said.
The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want, but harm no one".
I've often said that because its true and that philosophy is indispensable to making our societies the best they can be.
Wyatt/Regina have in the past tried to smear me by intentionally misquoting me on this, saying things like "Priya believes the essence of morality is "Do whatever you want, period, stop, end of sentence". On the occasions when I see their lie and object they then with childish disingenuousness say "Oh, I didn't see any real difference between what you actually said and what I claimed you said, so I didn't do anything wrong". The trolls actually try to excuse a dishonest assault on my character by preposterously claiming they "don't see a difference" between a prohibition against harming others and NO prohibition against harming others! This is what Wyatt/Regina fatuously assert is their moral superiority to people in same sex relationships that make gays happy and hurt no one. Sad, isn't it?
Now Wyatt/Regina will probably try to draw a false equivalence between me paraphrasing above and them deliberately misquoting me to make it appear that I said the opposite of what I actually did. My paraphrasing doesn't change the gist of what they said, so don't buy any attempt by them to falsely claim I'm just as bad as they are.
I just read Good Anonymous's last few posts. Its hilarious that Wyatt/Regina are claiming its the former presidents who are all lying, not Trump, lol!
What did I say about the Machiavellian troll? Straight out of the Goebble's Nazi propaganda handbook!
Its hilarious! Wyatt/Regina try to pretend there's some kind of equivalence between their total condemnation of AOC as a person for telling a lie (I haven't verified this) and the rare tepid, minimizing admission they make of Trump's mountain of lies amidst their constant praise of him and defence of most of his lies.
no, no, Wyatt/Regina, you aren't remotely judging the two by the same standards, its yet another example of conservatives acting as though the rules are only for liberals.
Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration.
In 2014, Trump’s plan to run for president moved into high gear. His political confidant was consultant Roger Stone. “Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”
Joshua Green had good access to Trump insiders, including Sam Nunberg, who worked with Stone. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.”
The concept of the Wall did not click right away with the candidate. “Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea,” writes Green. “But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. ‘One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,’ said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. ‘Nobody,’ he said, ‘builds like Trump.’”
Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg are political consultants. Neither man has claimed expertise in immigration policy, particularly the complex issue of deterring individuals from attempting to enter the United States illegally.
It should seem strange to base U.S. immigration policy on an idea Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg thought up without any analysis as to whether it represented good policy for the United States. Yet that is what happened – and wall supporters are either unaware or by now have forgotten the reason the wall was proposed in the first place.
Before the end of 2018, Donald Trump rallied enough House Republicans to support $5 billion in funding to help build a wall. That action (and others) resulted in a partial government shutdown. After the shutdown began, Trump tweeted that building a wall is the only effective way to stop illegal immigration into the United States.
In a December 2018 editorial, the Wall Street Journal pointed out building a wall is not the best way to reduce illegal immigration and it represents a questionable use of taxpayer money. “The best solution, as ever, is to reduce the incentive for people to come illegally by creating more ways to work legally in America,” the editorial noted. “Most migrants come to work, and at the current moment there are plenty of unfilled jobs for them. A guest-worker program would let migrants move back and forth legally, ebbing and flowing based on employer needs, while reducing the ability of gangs and smuggler ‘coyotes’ to exploit vulnerable migrants.”
Research from the National Foundation for American Policy (http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/Nov_study1.pdf)supports this view. A large increase in the legal admission of farm workers during the 1950s under the Bracero Program dramatically reduced illegal entry to America. Based on apprehensions at the border, illegal entry to the United States fell by 95% between 1953 and 1959, as farm workers entered legally in larger numbers. As many analysts have pointed out, a wall does not prevent Central Americans from applying for asylum at lawful ports of entry.
Illegal entry by individuals from Mexico has plummeted by more than 90% since FY 2000, according to Border Patrol apprehensions data (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP%20Total%20Apps%2C%20Mexico%2C%20OTM%20FY2000-FY2017.pdf)...
Hey Wyatt/Regina, do your kids ever read what you post here? Have they told you how ashamed and embarrassed they are of you, or were you able to pump enough lies into them at an early enough age that you innoculated them from reality and humanity wide empathy?
"What did I say about the Machiavellian troll? Straight out of the Goebble's Nazi propaganda handbook!"
oh yeah
anyone who shows Wayne to be a fool must be a Nazi
makes sense
he's so benevolent in his selfless efforts for all the world's citizens
only a true fascist could possibly disagree with him
and he's so amazingly humble and magnanimous, I'm sure he won't mind me pointing out a few of the lies he and his friend just posted above:
1. "total condemnation of AOC as a person for telling a lie"
I didn't condemn AOC for lying at all
I think, and I said, that it's a minor offense, typical o politicians of all varieties
I pointed out that, while Priya has praised AOC as a liberal heroine extraordinaire, AOC lies in the same way and with the same rationale that Wayne condemns Trump for
2. "claiming its the former presidents who are all lying, not Trump"
I never claimed that
I said "for all we know", which is obviously true
we do know, however, that the wife of our sexual predator President, Bill Clinton, supported building a "barrier" to keep out illegals
or, at least, she said so to get votes
3. "deliberately misquoting me to make it appear that I said the opposite of what I actually did"
never happened
even in the skewed account Wayne made above, that's not an accurate characterization
4. "They talk sanctimoniously about how their "morality" makes them morally superior to LGBT people"
I've never ever said I was morally superior to anyone
if Wayne says I have, he can provide the quote
we'll wait........................................................
Please don't dance and cuss. It sets a bad example for the babies in our concentration camps.
How come Americans never sing the third verse of their racist national anthem?
still waiting................
why are Dems so opposed to the wall?
they've supported similar things in the past
it's Trump because has become the most honest President in history in keeping his campaign promises, and they want to stop that because it will make it difficult to run against him in 2020
they want to create an HW Bush-type "read-my-lips" moment
Donald Trump just may be our most honest president since Abraham Lincoln.
Sure, the Washington Post’s valiant if pedantic fact-checkers claim that “In 710 days, President Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading claims.” The Post’s Glenn Kessler even introduced a new rating for the Trump era, the “bottomless Pinocchio,” for a false claim repeated over and over again.
The competing fact-checkers over at Politifact have five long pages of what they term “pants on fire!” statements from Mr. Trump. The president “has a well-documented problem telling the truth,” The New York Times insists. Even before Mr. Trump took office, his trustworthiness about personal matters ranging from his marital fidelity to his wealth was widely doubted.
Another dimension of integrity, though, doesn’t involve precision about details or about anything personal. It has to do with the president’s commitment to following through on his campaign pledges. In that department, Mr. Trump has been astonishingly, almost unprecedentedly faithful.
Wyatt/Regina said "I've never ever said I was morally superior to anyone".
Riiiiight. Far more times than I can count you've made the unsupported claim that its immoral to have sex, or romance, or marriage with a same sex partner, that you don't do that and are therefore morally superior in that way to gays, just as I am (in reality - unlike you) morally superior to a murderer or someone who does not believe in fairness.
I've known you to constantly argue that the first amendment gives christians the special right to ignore laws they don't like (like anti-discrimination laws against gays), the special right to oppress people with harmless characteristics, and preferential treatment by the government above and beyond non-religious (or even non-christian) people. Clearly conservatives like you believe the first amendment gives you superiority over other Americans like LGBT people and atheists.
Having a favourite imaginary belief in no way morally entitles you to the special rights you so adamantly and undeservedly demand. There is nothing special about religious beliefs that means they should be privileged above non-religious beliefs. Just as the first amendment does not give you the right to murder gays because your psychotic fictional god demands it, the first amendment does not give you the inherent right to discriminate against LGBT people.
Wyatt/Regina said "if Wayne says I have, he can provide the quote".
Right. Just like you can provide the quote where you falsely said I believe its never wrong to lie if you have good intentions.
If you never have to provide the quote and a link to it of people you (falsely) accuse of saying or believing certain things, why would anyone have to provide such for what they claim you said?
You broke the social contract by lying first. Once you do that we are no longer bound to honour the social contract to treat you fairly. Once you repent of your breakage of the social contract we will then re-enter the contract with you as long as you don't break it again.
If we honour the social contract after you've broken it, then we're just letting ourselves be played for fools and abused. You hypocritical conservatives constantly demand we do that but that's just not on.
Treat us fairly, we'll treat you fairly. Stop, and we'll stop. That's the only way the social contract can work.
I do what I can to get society to adopt as its highest priority maximizing the happiness and minimizing the sadness for all in an equal and fair fashion.
What's your highest priority societal goal - "Giving glory to the lord"?
Of what possible value to an all powerful and all knowing being is the praise of inferiors he's threatened with eternal torture if they reject his "love"? Obviously, to a being that can have or do anything it wants, the coerced worship of vastly inferior beings can't thrill him much unless he's a malignant narcissist.
Surely making the world a better place for all people is a far better top priority for society than that, don't you think?
The partial government “shutdown” underway in Washington can best be understood as Mr. Trump attempting to be true to his word to voters that he would build a wall along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration.
It’s baffling to longtime Washington observers, who have a hard time conceiving of a president shutting down the government over something as trivial as a mere campaign promise.
Mr. Trump’s recent decision to withdraw American troops from Syria — walked back some over the weekend by the national security adviser, John Bolton — is likewise best understood in the framework of Mr. Trump attempting to keep true to his campaign themes.
If you’ve forgotten Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign speeches, the American Presidency Project at University of California Santa Barbara has a selection of them available. In a November 2, 2016, appearance in Orlando, Fla., Mr. Trump said, “we will build a great wall.”
In the same appearance, Trump said, “Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spend $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East that we never won and that never end. And it's now in worse shape than ever before. The Middle East is a catastrophe, it's far worse off than had we spent nothing. They've dragged us into foreign wars that have made us less safe.”
In that same Orlando speech, Mr. Trump said, “A Trump administration will renegotiate NAFTA.” He did that. He also said, “We will also immediately stop the job killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.” He did that, too. In the Orlando speech, Mr. Trump said, “we're going to lower taxes on American business from 35 percent to 15 percent.” He did win a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 21%.
Mr. Trump promised during the presidential campaign to nominate a Supreme Court justice from a list of names released before the election, and he kept that promise with Neil Gorsuch. He said during the presidential campaign that he would move the American embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, and he kept that promise, too. He said in the campaign that he’d scrap the Iran nuclear deal, and he indeed has.
There’s something admirable about a politician keeping his word to this degree. It’s also exceedingly rare, especially recently. George H.W. Bush ran on a “read my lips” pledge against tax increases; he turned around and broke it.
Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 promising a middle class tax cut; once in office, in 1993, he signed into law a tax increase. George W. Bush ran promising a “humble” foreign policy but cast that approach aside after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Mr. Bush also failed to deliver on the Social Security reform he campaigned on, though it wasn’t for lack of trying.
Our greatest presidents have reputations for integrity that have endured to this day, from the cherry tree myth about George Washington (“I cannot tell a lie”) to the stories about “Honest Abe” Lincoln. It’s certainly not yet clear that Mr. Trump is in Washington or Lincoln’s class. Few presidents are.
Though Mr. Trump does seems to be trying, he’ll eventually be judged more on results than on effort. No new physical border barrier has been fully built. American troops have not ended their deployments overseas.
Regardless of what anyone’s individual personal views are on either the wall or the troops in Syria, the only one who has been elected president of the United States on the basis of his stated view of those issues is Donald Trump.
One needn’t be an advocate of the border wall or an opponent of the Syria deployment or even a fan of Mr. Trump to appreciate that it’s actually good for democracy when politicians, after elections, try to keep the promises they made during campaigns. When such promises are quickly or easily abandoned, it risks breeding voter cynicism, disillusionment, and disengagement.
Why even bother listening to political rhetoric if what the candidates say bears no resemblance to what they eventually do? If Mr. Trump, in at least this particular way, is not corrupt, it’s a kind of honesty that’s important — maybe even more important than some of the misstatements for which he has been faulted. Call him the promise-keeper president.
I see that Wayne is trying to rationalize his lie about me
won't work
everyone sees through the excess verbiage
I've never ever said I was "morally superior" to anyone
he said I did, which is a lie
Post a Comment
<< Home