Western Liberalism
I don't really like the new kind of journalism where a "reporter" simply transcribes a TV interview or repeats some tweets, but the bit below tells the story of today's federal government as efficiently as it can be told.
Here is a text-copy of a Twitter thread posted by CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper.
Here is a text-copy of a Twitter thread posted by CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper.
@jaketapperOur enemy states that the fundamental principle of American democracy is obsolete, and our President is unaware of his opponent's intention, and of the principle itself. He literally thinks Putin is talking about California Democrats. The world's leaders are talking over his head. How can we defend ourselves under this kind of leadership?
ICYMI: Putin told FT that Western liberal had run its course, that "the so-called liberal idea...has outlived its purpose...Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/europe/g20-putin-end-of-liberalism-intl/index.html ... [NOTE: bad link fixed - read summary in The Post]
2/ FT ed board disagreed: "Liberal, market-based democracy remains the organising principle in most non-petrostate countries with the highest living standards — and vital to the dynamism that generated their prosperity."
3/ EC president Tusk said "strongly disagree with President Putin that liberalism is obsolete. What I find really obsolete are authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs."
Retweet of Donald Tusk/ Verified account / @eucopresident
I strongly disagree with President Putin that liberalism is obsolete. What I find really obsolete are authoritarianism, personality cults, the rule of oligarchs.
My press statement at #G20OsakaSummit: https://europa.eu/!Gp89kF
@jaketapper
4/ @peterbakernyt asked President Trump about Putin's "comments to the Financial Times right before arriving here was that Western-style liberalism is obsolete...."
5/ Trump: "Well, I mean he may feel that way. He’s sees what’s going on,... if you look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, where it’s so sad to look, and what’s happening in San Francisco and a couple of other cities, which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people.
6/"... I don’t know what they’re thinking, but he does see things that are happening in the United States that would probably preclude him from saying how wonderful it is....
7/'...I’m very embarrassed by what I see in some of our cities, where the politicians are either afraid to do something about it, or they think it’s votes or I don’t know what. Peter, I don’t know what they’re thinking...
8/"... But when you look at Los Angeles, when you look at San Francisco, when you look at some of the other cities — and not a lot, not a lot — but you don’t want it to spread. And at a certain point,...
9/"... I think the federal government maybe has to get involved. We can’t let that continue to happen to our cities."
The president seemed to think "Western-style liberalism" was the same as "liberal Democrats." It isn't.
posted by JimK at 2:19 PM
223 Comments:
Rump does not hold American values.
He's got the whole world at feeling at risk due to his bromances with despots like Kim, Xi, Duterte, Putin, Erdogan, bin Salman, and el-Sisi.
Our New York thug president feels good in such company because he's a despot-wannabe .
I have never been more concerned for the immediate fate of the world than now.
Its obvious Trump is laundering money for Putin and Putin wants to install Trump as American dictator to make the USA a satellite of Russia.
And evangelicals led by Tony Perkins and Wyatt and Regina Hardiman are blindly helping Trump discredit reality so he can become dictator and reward his key supporters by looting the nation.
It was obvious by Friday that Donald Trump's trip to Japan for the annual G20 meeting was going to be a doozy. I don't think anyone expected quite the circus it turned out to be. At least the European allies don't have to feel as if Trump has it in for them alone. This time around he showed he can be rude and disdainful toward America's Asian allies as well.
Ignorant of history and contemptuous of existing treaties, as usual, Trump insulted the host country on his first day by complaining, “If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III. But if we’re attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us at all. They can watch it on a Sony television.” He either doesn't know or doesn't care that the U.S. dictated the defense treaty while Japan was under American military occupation after World War II, and the upside for us has been pretty obvious. Japan is a non-militarized, peaceful, democratic country, something that Trump apparently thinks should change. What could go wrong?
That was just the beginning of the slow-motion train wreck that took place over the next 48 hours. He spent virtually all his time palling around with his favorite strongmen. He praised Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to high heaven, telling him, “You have done a spectacular job." When asked about the ghastly murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump said that “nobody so far has pointed directly a finger at the future king of Saudi Arabia," which is a bald-faced lie. U.S. intelligence agencies and UN investigators have both concluded that the prince ordered the gruesome execution.
And then there was Vladimir Putin, Trump's bestie. The old pals shared some laughs before the cameras about sabotaging the American election and "getting rid" of journalists. Trump later claimed that he spoke to Putin "a little bit" about election interference, but let's face facts. Our president has made it quite clear that he thinks there is nothing wrong with a foreign adversary helping him win elections. (Needless to say, he would not feel the same way if his rivals were similarly aided. This isn't a matter of principle. He does not have any of those.)
But even with all the glad-handing and backslapping with his favorite dictators, Trump found time to watch the Democratic debates and get into a spat with former President Jimmy Carter, who said he believed that Trump is an illegitimate president because of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This upset Trump greatly, and many people clutched their pearls over the allegedly inappropriate comment by a former president. But it should be noted that nobody in the world has observed more elections over the past 40 years than Carter. He knows a thing or two about the subject.
Kim, of course, becomes a much more powerful player on the world stage as a result of all this. Meanwhile, the U.S. looks silly, particularly since Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner attended the meeting with Kim at the DMZ as well, along with — Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Yes, you read that right.
And what can we say about Ivanka Trump, who seemed to be everywhere on the trip. She attended bilateral meetings with heads of state, did weird video read-outs of high-level meetings and generally acted as though she was a combination of secretary of state and the first lady, even inappropriately inserting herself into official photos. You have to wonder whether Mike Pence might have something to worry about.
The real highlight of all these trips is Trump's traditional freewheeling press conference at the end. He often seems a bit over-caffeinated and confused, perhaps the result of jet lag and spending too much time watching his favorite news shows on TiVo. This one featured some memorable moments, starting with the fact that it's pretty clear he doesn't know what "busing" is.
But the big news of the trip, of course, was the spontaneous reunion with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ between South and North Korea. Trump basically sent out a "call me maybe" tweet asking if they might say hello when he was in South Korea and Kim agreed. And why not? The most powerful man in the world is begging for Kim's attention and requires nothing but some pictures to make him look like he's accomplishing something. Kim doesn't have to give up his nukes, and in fact, they become much more valuable to him every time Trump comes looking for a photo-op.
In fairness, ratcheting up tensions with North Korea would be much worse — as Trump is currently doing with Iran. But the idea that he's somehow working toward a positive goal of denuclearization is absurd. Kim understands perfectly well that his nuclear weapons are his calling card. He's not giving them up no matter how many cheap beachfront condos Trump offers to build.
Unfortunately, Trump's compulsion to lick the boots of murderous dictators is actually making Putin's contention that Western liberalism is obsolete look more and more as if it's true. The world's oldest liberal democracy is led by a former TV celebrity who goes around the world being advised by his totally inexperienced daughter and son-in-law and a Fox News pundit. It's hard to argue that liberal democracy, as practiced by the United States at the moment, is healthy and thriving.
The three-year-old group, which has roughly 9,500 members, shared derogatory comments about Latina lawmakers who plan to visit a controversial Texas detention facility on Monday, calling them “scum buckets” and “hoes.”
Members of a secret Facebook group for current and former Border Patrol agents joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in Texas on Monday and posted a vulgar illustration depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to screenshots of their postings.
In one exchange, group members responded with indifference and wisecracks to the post of a news story about a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant who died in May while in custody at a Border Patrol station in Weslaco, Texas. One member posted a GIF of Elmo with the quote, “Oh well.” Another responded with an image and the words “If he dies, he dies.”
Created in August 2016, the Facebook group is called “I’m 10-15” and boasts roughly 9,500 members from across the country. (10-15 is Border Patrol code for “aliens in custody.”) The group described itself, in an online introduction, as a forum for “funny” and “serious” discussion about work with the patrol. “Remember you are never alone in this family,” the introduction said.
Responsible for policing the nation’s southern and northern boundaries, the Border Patrol has come under intense scrutiny as the Trump administration takes new, more aggressive measures to halt the influx of undocumented migrants across the United States-Mexico border. The patrol’s approximately 20,000 agents serve under the broader U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which has been faulted for allegedly mistreating children and adults in its custody. The agency’s leadership has been in turmoil, with its most recent acting chief, John Sanders, resigning last week.
ProPublica received images of several recent discussions in the 10-15 Facebook group and was able to link the participants in those online conversations to apparently legitimate Facebook profiles belonging to Border Patrol agents, including a supervisor based in El Paso, Texas, and an agent in Eagle Pass, Texas. ProPublica has so far been unable to reach the group members who made the postings.
ProPublica contacted three spokespeople for CBP in regard to the Facebook group and provided the names of three agents who appear to have participated in the online chats. CBP hasn’t yet responded.
“These comments and memes are extremely troubling,” said Daniel Martinez, a sociologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson who studies the border. “They’re clearly xenophobic and sexist.”
The postings, in his view, reflect what “seems to be a pervasive culture of cruelty aimed at immigrants within CBP. This isn’t just a few rogue agents or ‘bad apples.’”...
JUST THE WAY RUMP LIKES IT!
During the interview Carlson asked the president about Japanese cities which he said are clean, have no graffiti and there is “no one going to the bathroom on the streets.” By contrast, Carlson noted that American cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco have a problem with what he called "filth."
He pointed to the “liberal establishment” and sanctuary cities run by "very liberal people" to blame for this crisis.
“It's a phenomenon that started two years ago. It's disgraceful,” Trump said in response, seeming to refer to when he took office in 2017.
According to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, homelessness overall has decreased by 15% since 2007. Between 2016 and 2018, the rate of homelessness has stayed between 550,000 to 553,000 per year, the HUD figures show.
Fox News: "President Trump returning triumphantly from Singpore.
President Trump has now accomplished what no other American president has ever had the vision or the courage to even attempt."
NK State TV: "With our venerable supreme leader's acute intelligence and courageous leadership, the world is able to witness this zenith of world peace and a vital moment for our humanity."
Fox News: "Only days ago, President Trump ushered in a new era of diplomacy."
NK State TV: "Our venerable supreme leader comrade opened a new, triumphant era of diplomacy."
Fox News: "This is something that many analysts and pundits thought was totally impossible."
NK State TV: "Who could have imagined that this moment was possible?"
Fox News: "The president's continued success in his every undertaking, whether in domestic politics, international trade or foreign policy, President Trump standing taller than ever on the world stage."
NK State TV: "The venerable statesman, whose leadership has been verified by the world, our Supreme Leader Comrade is a hero revered by all people."
Fox News: "Donald Trump has instincts that are different than ours, but most often, 99 percent of the time, they tend to be better than ours."
NK State TV: "We have this world-respected outstanding statesman, a once-in-a-lifetime great man as our leader."
Fox News: "You simply can't comprehend the genius of Donald Trump. Our president has no fear."
where for the Fourth of July celebration, the White House is handing out tickets to the event to GOP donors and political appointees and passes are being distributed by the Republican National Committee and Trump’s reelection campaign.
All-time heat records are at risk in Alaska in coming days as a massive and abnormally intense area of high pressure locks in and strengthens over the region.
This heat dome is expected to produce temperatures near and above the highest values ever recorded for multiple days, particularly in southern parts of the state. It’s the latest in a slew of record-shattering heat events in Alaska.
Anchorage is predicted to test or best its highest-temperature ever recorded of 85 degrees (set in 1969) on five straight days between July 4 and 8. It could even flirt with 90 degrees.
The National Weather Service in Anchorage wrote that most of southern Alaska will be “downright hot with many locations in the 80s and even low 90s.”
Anchorage’s nighttime lows may settle only in the mid-60s during this hot stretch, which is close to its average high at this time of year.
“This 7-day forecast contains the warmest 1-day, warmest 2-day, warmest 3-day, warmest 4-day, warmest 5-day, warmest 6-day, and warmest 7-day period on record for Anchorage,” tweeted Alaska climatologist Brian Brettschneider.
This heat wave is the latest in a nonstop barrage of warm weather for the northernmost state. It comes right on the heels of a June that was well above average and filled with wildfires that are persisting and/or growing into July. Spring was disturbingly warm before that, and so was winter.
It also follows a historic heat wave in Europe, which shattered records.
Alaska’s temperatures have shifted abruptly higher in the past few years, and it’s a similar story across the Arctic more broadly because of climate change.
Sea ice surrounding the state is at record-low levels. The open water and lack of ice has elevated ocean temperatures more than 4.5 degrees (2.5 Celsius) above normal.
The combination of the unusually warm coastal waters, the intense dome of high pressure over land, and near peak energy from the sun (just 10 days removed from the summer solstice) will act to maximize the potential for historically high temperatures.
Even before the development of this latest heat dome, strong high pressure has frequently sprawled over Alaska in recent weeks, leading to unusually high temperatures.
Alaska climatologist Rick Thoman tweeted that Anchorage, Kotzebue, Talkeetna and Yakutat all posted their warmest June on record, while Nome, King Salmon and McGrath logged their second-warmest June.
Record-breaking temperatures to close June helped the monthly averages soar this high. As one example, it hit 92 in Northway, near the eastern border with Canada on June’s final day.
In southeast Alaska, where moderate to extreme drought has persisted for about a year, Juneau tied its third warmest day on record on June 28. The city also just completed its warmest five-day stretch on record (since 1936), according to Brettschneider.
While this blast of heat will eventually ease next week, the forecast calls for more warmer-than-normal conditions later into July and August.
"for the Fourth of July celebration, the White House is handing out tickets to the event to GOP donors and political appointees and passes are being distributed by the Republican National Committee and Trump’s reelection campaign"
tickets to events for donors AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??
what a scandal!
that couldn't happen in the Clinton and Obama reigns
they didn't celebrate the Fourth at all because they didn't, uh, care for America
for their donors, they gave them a free night in the Lincoln bedroom
for an extra donation, Hillary or Michelle would visit the bedroom for a nightcap
"All-time heat records are at risk in Alaska in coming days as a massive and abnormally intense area of high pressure locks in and strengthens over the region"
that would make sense since they get more sunlight this time of year than anyone else
"This heat dome is expected to produce temperatures near and above the highest"
you'd think, after all this time, some liberal scientist would have been able to manipulate the data to produce evidence that human activity is causing an increase in Arctic temperatures
yet, despite the lack of evidence, the liberals rant on about the coming apocalypse
sad....
"While this blast of heat will eventually ease next week, the forecast calls for more warmer-than-normal conditions later into July and August"
the weatherman was wrong about the weather last night
why would anyone think they have any idea about the next two months?
Female Veterans Are Fastest Growing Segment of Homeless Veteran Population
When you think of homeless veterans, you may not immediately think of female vets. But the Department of Veterans Affairs says that women comprise the fastest-growing segment of the homeless veteran population.
In its 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that just over 40,000 veterans were homeless on a single night in January of that year. Of those, about 9% were women. From 2016 to 2017, the number of homeless female veterans increased by 7%, compared with 1% for their male counterparts.
In a 2016 report, the VA-funded National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans said the number of women identified by the program as homeless, or who accessed VA programs to end homelessness, tripled to 36,443 in a five-year period ending in 2015. That figure, according to the center, is projected to rise by about 9% to nearly 40,000 by 2025.
Many Homeless Female Veterans Don't Seek Assistance
Many homeless female veterans were victims of military sexual trauma and feel resentment toward the military and the VA, officials said. As a result, many do not identify themselves as being veterans. They tend to stay away from the organizations wishing to help them because they feel they were betrayed by that organization in the past, officials added.
According to the VA's National Center for PTSD, data from the VA's military sexual trauma screening program shows that about one in four women and one in 100 men say that they experienced sexual trauma or assault while in the military...
Trump says he purged homeless from DC streets so foreign dignitaries wouldn't see them
"the weatherman was wrong about the weather last night"
Still proving you have no idea of the difference between weather and climate. Some things never change.
Fortunately, smarter people are figuring out how to fix things.
Chubb will become the first US insurer to turn its back on the global coal industry by beginning to phase out its coal investments and insurance policies within the next three years.
Chubb has ruled out selling new insurance policies to companies which build or operate coal power plants, or those which generate more than 30% of their revenue from coal mining or supplying coal-fired electricity.
It will also stop investing in these companies because of their contribution to the global climate crisis.
Chubb said its existing investments and insurance policies with coal-powered companies and miners would be phased out by 2022.
It will begin cutting ties with major coal-using utilities, such as the German energy giant RWE, from the same year.
Evan Greenberg, the chairman and chief executive of Chubb, said: “Chubb recognises the reality of climate change and the substantial impact of human activity on our planet.”
This is expected to deal a blow to global coal kingpins such as Anglo-American, Glencore and RWE.
Chubb’s anti-coal pledge is the latest in a rising number of divestments among major financial players as the risks of the climate crisis become clearer.
The climate breakdown poses a financial threat to insurers because severe weather, hurricanes and wildfires are all likely to increase in frequency and intensity as global temperatures climb.
Already at least a third of the global reinsurance market has restricted its cover for coal, with the reinsurance firms Swiss Re and Munich Re limiting their underwriting last year.
“Making the transition to a low-carbon economy involves planning and action by policymakers, investors, businesses and citizens alike. The policy we are implementing today reflects Chubb’s commitment to do our part as a steward of the Earth,” Greenberg said.
As part of the pledge it has also ruled out underwriting or investing in companies that generate more than 30% of their revenues from oil sands or oil shale.
The new law means the fund is free to dump investments in eight coal companies and an estimated 150 oil producers. This will include dropping coal investments worth an estimated $6bn.
If you are eagerly awaiting each new development in America’s quadrennial drama to select a president, then here's a spoiler:
Trump's assured of reelection.
I have seen this movie before, and I know how it turns out. In fact, I have seen the movie several times.
I was there in 1972 when President Nixon soundly defeated the left-wing candidacy of George McGovern. I was actually in the McGovern campaign, and I was in on the early stages of the Dukakis campaign 16 years later, when George H.W. Bush defeated the liberal Massachusetts governor. I wasn’t associated with the Mondale campaign in 1984, but it was pretty much the same plot: left-wing Democrat wiped out by right-wing Republican. Mondale, like McGovern, only managed to carry one state.
So, as the candidates seeking next year’s Democratic presidential nomination compete to outdo each other on issues like socializing medicine, opening borders and providing racial reparations, I think I have a pretty good idea of how this drama is going to turn out.
With Democratic presidential hopefuls steadily trending Left, President Trump has good reason to be smiling about his reelection prospects.
President Trump is going to be reelected.
The American electorate simply doesn’t like left-wing ideologues. You can trace this pattern back over a hundred years to the defeat of William Jennings Bryan in three different presidential runs, during each of which he offered radical cures for what supposedly ailed the country. Even in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR knew he had to run as a centrist and populist rather than a socialist to bolster his chances of getting elected (Carter and Clinton successfully embraced the same lesson).
Today’s Democrats have decided they can’t win the party’s nomination unless they go far Left, and that will be their undoing come November of next year. As we have all learned the hard way, the Internet has a memory. Trying to move to the center after securing the party’s nomination doesn’t work the way it once did because the other side won’t let you forget all those awful things you said during the primary season about ICE, gun owners, coal miners et. al.
But wait, you say. Isn’t Trump different from past candidates—so eccentric that the usual rules applying to electoral outcomes aren’t operative? I don’t think so. His reelection campaign will massage the president’s policy initiatives and pronouncements into a platform that sounds like something Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan would have had no trouble supporting.
"When my dad was 16, America welcomed him as a Palestinian refugee. It wasn’t easy moving to a new country, but it was the greatest blessing of his life.
Throughout my childhood, my dad would remind my brothers and me of the challenges he faced before coming here and how fortunate we were to be Americans. In this country, he told us, everyone has an opportunity to succeed regardless of background.
Growing up, I thought a lot about the brilliance of America. Our country’s founders established a constitutional republic uniquely dedicated to securing the rights of the people. In fact, they designed a political system so ordered around liberty that, in succeeding generations, the Constitution itself would strike back against the biases and blind spots of its authors.
My parents, both immigrants, were Republicans. I supported Republican candidates throughout my early adult life and then successfully ran for office as a Republican. The Republican Party, I believed, stood for limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty — principles that had made the American Dream possible for my family.
In recent years, though, I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.
George Washington was so concerned as he watched political parties take shape in America that he dedicated much of his farewell address to warning that partisanship, although “inseparable from our nature,” was the people’s “worst enemy.” He observed that it was “the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
Washington said of partisanship, in one of America’s most prescient addresses: “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. …
“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
True to Washington’s fears, Americans have allowed government officials, under assertions of expediency and party unity, to ignore the most basic tenets of our constitutional order: separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. The result has been the consolidation of political power and the near disintegration of representative democracy.
These are consequences of a mind-set among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. Instead of acting as an independent branch of government and serving as a check on the executive branch, congressional leaders of both parties expect the House and Senate to act in obedience or opposition to the president and their colleagues on a partisan basis. ...
Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party. No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I’m asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system — and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it."
Rep. Justin Amash
In fact, I can already predict in advance what that streamlined expression of Trump principles will look like. Unlike the Democratic platform, which will consist almost entirely of domestic economic and social issues, the Trump principles will be heavy on security and nationalism. When the smoke clears late on Election Day, Trump will have prevailed against the Democrats’ latter-day Dukakis. And here are the ideas that will do the trick.
Peace.
Trump said this week that if he hadn’t been elected, the U.S. would be at war with North Korea. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he is not eager to use America’s military overseas. In addition to smothering North Korean despot Kim Jong Un with love, he has signaled from day one he wanted to get along with a nuclear-armed Russia; refrained from bombing Iran; tried to pull all remaining U.S. troops out of Syria; avoided sending forces to remove Venezuela’s discredited dictator; and told his advisors he wants to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Having watched what happened in past presidential elections to parties that were blamed for unpopular wars, Trump is not going to let anybody accuse him of being a military interventionist.
Prosperity.
The single most reliable indicator of whether an incumbent president will be reelected is whether the economy is doing well. Under Trump, the economy is going gangbusters—in fact, better than most economists predicted was even possible. With unemployment at record lows and the stock market at record highs, there isn’t even a hint of inflation. Trump stimulated an economy thought to be in the late stages of expansion, and gave it a new lease on life. Democrats will say his trade policies are undermining prosperity, but the nation’s yawning trade deficit actually cuts a full percentage point off the economic growth rate each year, so there’s a link between all his tariffs and bolstering prosperity.
Sovereignty.
If a country can’t control its borders and can’t stop foreign entities from interfering in its domestic affairs, then it has diminished sovereignty. Nationalists like Trump believe the sovereignty of nation-states, at least legitimate ones, should be absolute. So of course the fact that apprehensions of illegal migrants on the southern border were averaging over 3,000 per day in April is an issue, especially given uncertainty as to how many illegals were not apprehended. And signing onto multilateral treaties like the Paris climate accords or the Trans-Pacific Partnership can also be construed as potentially infringing sovereignty. Trump’s campaign will say he wants to restore America’s control of its destiny. How the Democrats will explain their incoherent approach to border security is anyone’s guess.
The Real Americans In Trump’s New Ads Are Foreign Stock Models
The Trump campaign’s latest ads use footage from overseas models along with supposed testimonials from real supporters.
Everyone has long been aware of his love of foreign models
Self-sufficiency.
Like sovereignty, self-sufficiency is not a term Trump would likely invoke at a campaign rally. But the two ideas are related. Trump doesn’t subscribe to the theory of comparative advantage among nations, or to free trade, or to economic globalization, because he believes every nation is out to get the best deal for itself even if that means breaking the rules. In that regard, the international economy is not much different from the New York real-estate market where Trump made his fortune. So rather than sacrificing his generation to a principle (as Churchill might have put it), Trump wants America to be self-sufficient in key commodities and manufactured items. That’s why he tells Apple to make its iPhones here, and Mercedes to make its cars here. He doesn’t care if that violates trade rules—
and neither do most voters.
Energy.
Initiative. Trump is an activist who is relentless about pursuing his agenda, whether the topic is deregulation of the economy or denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. His energy level surpasses the performance of any president in living memory, and once he decides what his goals are he doesn’t pay much attention to critics. Having an activist at the helm conveys a sense of dynamism about the administration and the nation that is largely missing from the politics of other nations. You don’t need to agree with Trump’s agenda to see why nobody in Republican circles is talking about “passing the torch.”
Peace, prosperity, sovereignty, self-sufficiency and energy are the ideas that will win President Trump a second term. A handful of Democratic hopefuls such as Mayor Pete might give Trump a run for his money in the general election, but any candidate espousing a left-leaning agenda in a strong economy is doomed to failure. That’s what the historic record shows. Trump’s low approval rating don’t really matter, because come Election Day, many voters will be casting their ballots against a candidate they can’t stand, rather than to support a candidate they like. That’s the way these things usually play out
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 43, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +10
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 43, Disapprove 55 Disapprove +12
President Trump Job Approval Gallup Approve 41, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +13
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 49, Disapprove 50 Disapprove +1
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 44, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +9
Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 14, Disapprove 65 Disapprove +51
Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 38, Wrong Track 55 Wrong Track +17
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 33, Wrong Track 57 Wrong Track +24
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 41, Wrong Track 59 Wrong Track +18
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Politico/Morning Consult Democrats 45, Republicans 35 Democrats +10
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Economist/YouGov Democrats 48, Republicans 39 Democrats +9
Tehran, Iran -- Iran confirmed on Monday that its enriched uranium stockpile had passed the 300-kilogram limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif confirmed the news, but left room for the remaining adherents to the agreement to try and salvage it, noting that the move announced on Monday was "reversible."
The global nuclear watchdog agency tasked with monitoring Iran's compliance with the agreement confirmed the breach, which is Iran's first since the deal was implemented in October 2015.
Iran had recently quadrupled its production of low-enriched uranium to be on pace to break one of the deal's terms, frustrated over President Trump's decision to pull the U.S. unilaterally out of the 2015 agreement and impose crippling new sanctions on Tehran.
Iran has also vowed to begin enriching its stockpile of uranium to higher levels, closer to weapons grade, later this month if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for the nuclear accord. European countries opposed the U.S. withdrawal, but have repeatedly urged Iran to abide by the deal.
"Our next step will be enriching uranium beyond the 3.67% allowed under the deal," Zarif was quoted as saying by Iranian state-run TV station IRIB. "The Europeans have failed to fulfill their promises of protecting Iran's interests under the deal."
Possessing uranium enriched beyond 3.76% -- especially if it purified part of its stockpile to the next major technical benchmark of 20% -- would greatly reduce the time necessary for Iran to "break out" from its civilian nuclear program and start working toward nuclear weapons capability. Mr. Trump has said he will not allow Iran to gain that capacity.
The unraveling of the landmark nuclear agreement comes amid heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf, where Iranian forces shot down a U.S. drone last month. The U.S. said the drone was in international airspace while Iran insisted it veered across its border.
The crisis stems from Mr. Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear accord and his policy of exerting "maximum pressure" on Iran with economic sanctions to try to force it to change its policies in the region. The policy thus far has only driven tensions higher.
I was first elected to the Iowa legislature in 1978, when I was still in my late 20s. I served for seven terms in the House and another three terms in the Senate. I worked on passing nonpartisan redistricting legislation, creating REAP (a program enhancing and protecting Iowa’s natural resources), developing sentencing-reform legislation, protecting the elderly from abuse, and floor-managing one of the toughest drunk-driving laws in the nation.
While my emphasis was on bipartisan legislative undertakings, I was comfortable with my party’s priorities and felt at home in the Republican caucus. Governor Robert Ray, a Republican, was in office when I first served and was a wonderful mentor. I continue to believe that he epitomizes what is best about public service—integrity, compassion, moderation, and a spirit of rational inquiry.
But after 24 years in the legislature, I made the decision to return to Jones County to serve as a county supervisor. My four children were in or approaching their teenage years, and I felt I was needed at home. I had missed some important moments in my children’s lives—school concerts, parent-teacher conferences, sport events—and wished to make up for the time I had lost. And with college expenses on the horizon, I also needed to put more time into my law practice.
Fifteen years later, after my kids were grown and I retired from my law practice, I decided to return to the state capitol. I wasn’t quite ready for retirement and felt that I had more to contribute. What I found, however, was very different from the legislative body I had once served in.
The legislature is considerably more partisan and regimented than it used to be. I believe the increased partisanship often stands in the way of good legislation, and I’m also deeply concerned by the growing influence that big money exerts on the legislative process.
I also found a very changed Republican caucus. While I have great respect and personal regard for my Republican colleagues, I found myself more and more uncomfortable with the stance of my party on the majority of high-profile issues, such as gutting Iowa’s collective-bargaining law and politicizing our method of selecting judges. I worked for changes to improve legislation that I had concerns about, but also voted against many of these priorities.
I might have limped along—attempting to work within my caucus for what I felt was best for the people I represent—if it hadn’t been for another factor. With the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon, I felt, as a Republican, that I needed to be able to support the standard-bearer of the party. Unfortunately, that is something I’m unable to do.
I believe that it is just a matter of time before our country pays a heavy price for President Donald Trump’s reckless spending and shortsighted financial policies; his erratic, destabilizing foreign policy; and his disdain and disregard for environmental concerns.
Furthermore, he sets a poor example for the nation and our children. He delivers personal insults, often in a crude and juvenile fashion, to those who disagree with him, and is a bully at a time when we’re attempting to discourage bullying, on- and offline.
In addition, he frequently disregards the truth and displays a willingness to ridicule or marginalize people for their appearance, ethnicity, and disability.
I believe that his actions have coarsened political discourse, contributing to unprecedented polarization and creating a breeding ground for hateful rhetoric and actions.
Some would excuse this behavior, claiming Trump is just telling it like it is—and that this is the new normal. If this is the new normal, I want no part of it. Unacceptable behavior should be called out for what it is—and Americans of all parties should insist on something far better from the man holding the highest office in the land.
All of which is to say that my decision to switch political parties has been a very difficult decision for me and has only come after considerable reflection, much prayer, and many restless nights. I had been a registered Republican for close to half a century, a Republican officeholder for 35 years, and the longest-serving Republican currently in the Iowa legislature. I am proud of many good things that the Republican Party has accomplished over the years.
I am all too aware that my decision is a disappointment to many friends and colleagues who have supported me over the years. However, the time comes when you have to be true to yourself and follow the dictates of your conscience. For me, that time is now.
I want the people I represent in Jones, Jackson, and Dubuque Counties to know that I’m still the same Andy McKean today that they knew yesterday. We still share the same basic values, are proud of our families and our communities, and want to make Iowa an even better place. I’ll continue to work for the same goals and priorities that I always have during my years in public service.
I look forward to continuing my service in the Iowa House and bringing people together to improve the quality of life for all Iowans.
Germantown MD rocks!
Too bad Rump does not have a natural base of support in Washington, DC...
The White House and Republican National Committee have spent the past week scrambling to distribute VIP tickets to President Donald Trump’s Fourth of July speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Now, White House officials and allies are wringing their hands over the risk of the hastily arranged event morphing into Trump’s Inauguration 2.0, in which the size of the crowd and the ensuing media coverage do not meet the president’s own outsized expectations for the event.
“They started this too late and everyone has plans already,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and CEO of the drilling services company Canary, LLC. “Everyone will be there in spirit, but in reality, people planned their July 4th activities weeks ago.”
Less than 36 hours before the event, White House aides were crafting Trump’s speech, while administration and RNC officials finalized the guest lists.
A White House official declined to explain the system for handing out tickets or the various tiers of VIP access, except to say the reserved seating area — extending from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the middle the reflecting pool — will feature veterans, Trump family and friends and special guests. The first lady, vice president and second lady, and a number of Cabinet officials are expected to attend, as well as several senior White House officials — though the aide stressed this, too, was still coming together.
“They are creating this thing from scratch, and I do not know if anyone knows how it will go off,” said another White House aide. “There are questions about the ticket distribution and who will show up. The weather might be bad. Heads are spinning.”
An informal survey of more than a half-dozen Trump donors and allies showed that none plan to attend. Several Republicans close to the White House returned POLITICO’s calls from beaches at least one plane ride away from Washington.
While the RNC is trying to use Trump’s speech to woo high-end donors, few, if any, seemed to want the tickets because they’d already escaped D.C.
One Republican close to the White House said he has not heard any chatter among the donor class about attending the speech, even if it meant securing top-notch seats before one of Washington’s most majestic memorials. A Republican political operative called the week of July 4 normally a “dead zone for donors.”
“It’s not a very tough ticket to get,” said another Republican close to the White House. “They’re not going to give it away to anyone off the street, but if you have any juice at all, you can probably get the tickets.”
The White House allowed staffers to enter a lottery to receive up to 10 tickets per person — a sign of the administration’s rush to fill up that space on the mall, said a third White House aide.
JFK Jr. Is Coming Back on the 4th of July: He’s an avid Trump supporter and has been hiding in Pennsylvania for two decades
JFK Jr Mask on Abel Danger + Do-It-Yourself Mask Tutorial (download and print)
Rump's base
Peter Daou
Verified account
@peterdaou
In all my years—including several in a war zone during my youth—it's almost invariably the case that males like Trump who play war have never been in a real one. #BoycottTrumpJuly4 #BoycottTrump4thOfJuly
"July 04, 2019 8:45 AM
Anonymous Real Clear Politics poll results"
look at the sad TTFer try to deny historical facts
the current crop of Dems, currently savaging their one viable candidate, have virtually no chance that America will endorse their socialist agenda 15 months from now
Dems, and the liberal press, again are showing America what fools they are
"The White House and Republican National Committee have spent the past week scrambling to distribute VIP tickets to President Donald Trump’s Fourth of July speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Now, White House officials and allies are wringing their hands over the risk of the hastily arranged event morphing into Trump’s Inauguration 2.0"
yesterday, the lies of the liberal press were revealed and America celebrated
Trump's event was packed
we've been hearing about this Communist style display of tanks and missiles
instead, two tanks were parked for people to look at while the Air Force did a few flyovers like they do during Super Bowls and Trump gave a speech, a little long perhaps, describing our military heroes throughout history
maybe a bit more Veterans Day than Independence Day but hardly the abomination Dems have been predicting
Dems, and the liberal press, again showed America what fools they are
about an hour later, at the other end of the mall, Carole King, who regularly sends me emails asking me to contribute to Dems running vain campaigns, was praising our military on a stage in front of the Capitol
what other lies were bebunked?
a crowd of people were sworn in at the Archives as new Americans. people of every color and race, some wearing Muslim head coverings, became citizens in a ceremony attended by our wonderful VP, Mike Pence
so much for the "Trump is anti-immigrant" myth
consider also his wife who was once similarly sworn in as a new American citizen
Dems, and the liberal press, again showed America what fools they are
then there was the story of an Arctic fox who was tracked by scientists as he walked 2700 miles from Norway to Canada
guess the sea ice is not gone after all!
Dems, and the liberal press, again showed America what fools they are
"...The coastal fox the researchers tracked, also known as a blue fox, landed in Ellesmere Island in Canada on July 1, 2018. Of the 50 or 60 animals the scientists put trackers on for a study, it was the only one that ventured outside of Norway.
The researchers think the fox may have taken off due to a food shortage, but they’re not sure. The tracker stopped working this February [2019], so researchers no longer know the fox’s whereabouts, but it was last detected on the same Canadian island in the Nunavut territory.
Another arctic fox has been documented traveling a similar distance, but it made the journey over a longer time period of about half a year..."
So your fox tale happened last year.
Meanwhile in 2019, the BBC reports Greenland’s ‘unusual’ melting sea ice captured in stunning image, Forbes reports Greenland Lost 4 Trillion Pounds Of Ice In Just 1 Day, and USAToday reports Record-smashing heat wave bakes Alaska, worsening wildfires
But you support Rump so you'll believe a single fox's journey disproves all other facts about the damage climate change is causing Earth.
Enjoy burning coal like Blankenship! It's a twofer, you can pollute the environment and spread black lung disease to coal workers you don't want to unionize for their own protection.
Apparently your view yesterday was impeded by the VIP chain link fencing.
Jim Acosta
Verified account
@Acosta
It appears most of the folks down on the National Mall won’t be able to get very close to the tanks and military vehicles down by the Lincoln Memorial. That area is behind a lot of fencing and security (accessible to VIP’s and other ticketed guests).
11:06 AM - 4 Jul 2019
It's good to know Rump was so impressed by President Macron's 2017 Bastille Day celebration he wanted to copy it, but it's awful to see that yesterday was more like the garish and muscular public ceremonies held by autocratic regimes in Russia, North Korea and China with the politicization of the event -- only RNC and White House gave out tickets to their supporters -- and using military equipment and my tax dollars.
Meanwhile, American citizens in Flint, Michigan still can't drink their tap water proving America is not as great as Rump imagines it to be.
Trump, clearly reading from a teleprompter, talked about how the Continental Congress in 1775 “created a unified Army out of the Revolutionary Forces encamped around Boston and New York.” The army suffered a “bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown,” Trump said.
“Our Army manned the air, it rammed (or ‘rand’) the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do,” Trump added. “And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”
< eye roll >
Would he pass the citizenship test??
"Anonymous Real Clear Politics poll results"
look at the sad TTFer try to deny historical facts"
The poll results just showed the poll results. They had nothing to say about historical facts, non-historical fiction, UFOs, or sasquatch. What you read into them is your own issue.
"the current crop of Dems, currently savaging their one viable candidate, have virtually no chance that America will endorse their socialist agenda 15 months from now"
Dems learned a lot from the last election, like the fact that staying home in protest because you didn't like the fact that Bernie didn't win the nomination, and allowing the Mango Mussolini to take over simply wasn't worth it.
Republicans have been using the "SOCIALIST!!!!" scare tactic since FDR days. It sill sells well with the conservative base, but as the American worker has seen the real value of their incomes steadily shrink over 40 years of Reaganomics, their anger is getting more and more palpable. It helped propel the Rumpster into office even, but so far they've mostly seen the rich get BILLIONS of dollars in tax breaks while they're lucky to see they paycheck go up by a few cents per hour.
Meanwhile, many people know that in other western democracies (Canada, Germany, Finland, etc.), workers have good healthcare they can afford, liberal parental leave policies, more vacation, better schools, and less pollution. Yet somehow they've managed to stay out of the death spiral of Soviet style communism / socialism that republicans have screamed about for decades. At some point, if their situation doesn't improve, hungry American workers are going to hungry, angry and desperate enough to eat the rich. Or at the very least, suspect that the supposedly "socialist" democrats are a reasonable alternative to the obviously pro-white nationalist and probably fascist republicans.
There are going to be PLENTY of people who vote Dem this time around not because they love the democratic candidate, but because "WHOEVER IS NOT TRUMP" is by far the safest bet for keeping our democracy intact.
Meanwhile, it looks like some elected Republicans are continuing to leave the party because of the Rumpster; it seems that there are still a few Republicans with a conscience left.
Who knew?
Donald Trump Dropped Fireworks Tariff The Same Day Company Donated $750K In Fireworks For His Show
A company called Phantom Fireworks had been lobbying the Trump administration to drop a plan to institute new Chinese tariffs that would have slapped 25 percent tariffs on imported fireworks.
Donald Trump would later decide to scrap the plan to impose the tariffs — on the same day Phantom Fireworks donated $750,000 worth of sparklers and bottle rockets for Trump’s Fourth of July celebration.
COINCIDENCE???
Yeah, right.
"about an hour later, at the other end of the mall, Carole King, who regularly sends me emails asking me to contribute to Dems " had a bigger audience than Rump did: Capitol Hill Fourth of July celebration dwarfs Trump’s Lincoln Memorial crowd size
Oops!
In an appeal written for the Daily Beast, a conservative columnist urged former Republican Rep. Justin Amash (MI) to take the next logical step and run for president against Donald Trump as a third party candidate even at the risk of electing a Democrat.
According to Matt Lewis — who claims he also no longer calls himself a Republican in line with Amash — he was “delighted” that Amash announced his own Declaration of Independence from the GOP on the Fourth of July, and said it gave him hope that it could bring about a sea change among fellow conservatives.
“I just really want someone to vote for come November 2020. Donald Trump (see his treatment of migrants on the border) is a non-starter for me.” he wrote. “And I’m left pining for a third-party designated hitter for the Republican Party.”
“Choosing Independence Day to announce your liberation from the Grand Old Party is both clever and poetic. And, having read Amash’s rationale for leaving the GOP, it seems to me like he now has an obligation to seek the presidency,” he continued. “Today’s Republican Party is, as Hunter Thompson said of the Kentucky Derby, decadent and depraved. As for me, I’m ready to go rogue. There’s a reason why I don’t self-identify as a Republican (though I am a proud conservative). I didn’t leave the party; the party left me. And I’m more than willing to follow Amash—if he does the right thing and runs for president.”
According to Lewis, there was no reason for Amash to stick around in the Republican Party after what it has become under Donald Trump, writing, “It’s time for Justin Amash to run for president.”
“Sure, he’s not gonna win and he might even get blamed for electing a Democrat. But presidential campaigns are about more than the here and now,” he confessed. “Maybe someday the GOP will get its act back together, and maybe an Amash run will help inspire a new generation of conservatives and libertarians who will do just that. Or maybe this will be the beginning of a whole new movement—a whole new political party?”
Adding that he can’t vote for Trump and finds Democratic positions unpalatable, Lewis said he has set his sights on a “less ambitious goal.”
“To have someone on the ballot in 2020 that I’m not embarrassed to support,” he wrote, adding, “As far as I can tell, Justin Amash is the only game in town. ”
President Donald Trump gave a nonsensical answer to a question about his nonsensical comments during his July 4 speech in which he claimed Revolutionary War soldiers “took over airports.”
“Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do,” Trump said in his remarks at the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday. “And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”
When asked on Friday about the glaring mistake, Trump blamed the rain for supposedly knocking out the teleprompter that he was reading from.
“When you’re standing in front of millions and millions of people on television, and I don’t know what the final count was, but that went all the way back to the Washington Monument,” he told reporters on the White House lawn. “And I guess the rain knocked out the teleprompter, but I knew the speech very well, so I was able to do it without a teleprompter.”
It remains unclear why, if the president knew his prepared speech “very well,” he said there were airports during the Revolutionary War.
So let me get this straight...
Cadet Bonespurs escaped the draft with a fake doctor's note, now wants to build a multi-billion dollar "Space Force," and thinks our Revolutionary war heros took over enemy airports from the Redcoats.
Somebody please tell me this is an episode of "Saturday Night Live."
He's starting to make Sarah Palin look like a very stable genius.
Remember this?
[PHOTO]
The humiliation of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib by putting women's underwear on his head and taking pictures of it.
"CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --
LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"
The impulses that led to the lawless sadism of Abu Ghraib are now appearing in the border camps in the United States. The torture is less violent, more subtle, but the appetite among those in power to humiliate and degrade is the same.
So is the obvious sense of impunity. That comes from the top:
"US Customs and Border Patrol agents at a migrant processing center in Texas allegedly attempted to humiliate a Honduran migrant by making him hold a sign that read, "I like men," according to emails written by an agent who witnessed the incident.
The emails -- obtained by CNN -- were sent to the agent's supervisor and outlined the March 5 episode in which a Honduran man was forced to hold a piece of paper that said, "Me gustan los hombre(s)," which translates to "I like men," while being paraded through a migrant detention center.
The incident is one of many, per the emails, in which the CBP agent allegedly witnessed several colleagues displaying poor behavior and management's failure to act...."
If you didn't think his pageant was done specifically for his campaign you weren't paying attention:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146981084531441664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1146981084531441664&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.blogspot.com%2F
He co-opted the military and took millions from the National Park Service to make a one-minute infomercial.
As former ethics adviser Walter Schaub tweeted, it was always going to be about this and filling up his hotel with suckers paying top dollar over the July 4t week-end.
This is fine. It's all fine. No need to worry.
Republicans are starting to figure out when the Cheeto Benito is lying...
Former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele is the latest person to point out a mannerism he believes indicates when President Donald Trump is lying.
“America, here’s your tell. Whenever the president says, ‘I heard,’ shut it down, stop it, call it a lie and move on, because the next sentence, word, phrase out of his mouth will be a lie.”
“I don’t know who all of these people talking to him, telling him this information that he’s now spewing up,” added Steele, who urged the media “don’t write that story” whenever Trump “comes out with the ‘I heard’ or ‘people say.’”
Wallace suggested that Trump’s previous references to his “friend Jimmy” were also a telltale sign. “Jimmy’s never real,” she claimed.
“Jimmy doesn’t exist,” replied Steele. “Jimmy is in his head. Jimmy is running from this eyeball to that eyeball, OK, can you understand that? Let me tell you where Jimmy plays: He’s right here,” he added, pointing between his eyes.
"I've know Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
-Donald J. Trump
https://twitter.com/timobrien/status/1147681218714095616
Arriving early at the Mall for Donald Trump’s “Salute to America” event on Independence Day, I saw no tanks. But I did see, everywhere, the face of John F. Kennedy, Jr.—on hand fans, on signs, and, in one instance, as a cutout fixed to the back of a chair. The chair belonged to a dark haired and trimly bearded forty-something man and a blonde woman of about the same age. Both wore red T-shirts prominently featuring the letter Q and some other indecipherable text. I asked the woman what “Q” meant. She smiled warmly.
“What I believe it is, is a military operation that is communicating with the public,” said the woman, a follower of Q, a mysterious online conspiracy theorist who claims to have top-secret information about various plots and intrigues involving the Trump Administration and the wider political world. “I don’t think it’s just one person,” she added, explaining that posts on the Web site were perhaps written by Donald Trump himself. I then asked what the J.F.K., Jr. cutout was all about.
“You know how he died, right?”
“A plane crash,” I replied.
“So there’s a theory that there’s a possibility, that, maybe . . . ”
She smiled almost apologetically.
“ . . . he didn’t actually perish.”
“I see,” I said.
“That he staged his own death. In order to not only avenge his father’s death—J.F.K., who was assassinated—but also to take back our government. So it’s for the people, not an elite group.”
“So, he’s working with Trump to do that?” I asked.
“Possibly. Wouldn’t it be a neat ticket for 2020?”
I replied that it would be an interesting one.
As the President’s speech drew closer, the crowd thickened. Conversations broke out. I overheard a short blonde woman in a parka talking to a young man in an American flag shirt about clashes that had taken place between the far-right group the Proud Boys and anti-fascist protesters in Portland. The woman argued that the Mafia would not have tolerated open violence in the streets back in its heyday. She was Italian, she said by way of explanation. A minute or two later, the pair turned to the annual Independence Day parade that had taken place that morning.
“You know what I found interesting about the parade?” she asked. “The Taiwan-Americans, the Sikh-Americans, the Chinese-Americans playing ‘I’m proud to be an American, where at least . . . ,’ you know?”
“How did that make you feel?” the young man asked.
“It actually made me cry,” she said. “It was so nice to see them be grateful to America for giving them a better life!”
“Yeah, it really is!”
“But what you didn’t see,” she continued, “were Muslims. Muslim-Americans. Almost every different sect was represented except for the Muslims. They don’t want to assimilate.”
At about this point I decided to ask the woman, who had said she was Italian, how her ancestor or ancestors had come to the country; perhaps through Ellis Island?
“He was a stowaway, actually,” she replied. “He killed a man.” Then she turned away.
Some seconds passed in silence. I then asked her, with an apology for the question, whether she believed that a Mexican immigrant who had killed a man should be allowed to cross the border and enter the country. She considered this for half a moment.
“It was a different time,” she said. “Around the turn of the century! And, I mean, this was an honor killing, you know? The man was flirting with his girlfriend.”...
Bolstered by a strong economy, Donald Trump reached the highest job approval rating of his career in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll and runs competitively for re-election against four of five possible Democratic contenders.
Trump’s overall job performance is 5 percentage points from April and 2 points better than his peak early in his presidency.
More than half approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, historically the most important indicator of looming re-election.
Support for Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against Trump remains unchanged since April at 37%, while opposition to this step has grown by 13 points since August to 59%, a new high. Just 37% of independents favor impeachment action, the likely swing group.
Among registered voters (not necessarily likely voters), Biden leads by 10 points in a hypothetical 2020 general election contest but the other races all tighten to virtual or actual dead heats – Trump a non-significant -2 points against Harris, -1 against Sanders and exactly tied with Warren and Buttigieg.
Another question tests Trump against "a Democratic candidate who you regard as a socialist." Among registered voters it goes +6 to Trump vs. a perceived socialist.
Trump's campaign responded to the poll Sunday morning, telling ABC News that the president in a stronger position for his re-election bid than past incumbents, including Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. The campaign added that Trump will stress the issues, rather than matchups between any of the Democratic candidates.
It’s worth noting that, as the 2016 contest showed, polling ahead in – and winning – the national vote is not necessarily the same as winning the Electoral College.
The economy, health care and immigration top the public’s list of most important issues in the 2020 election.
Not since the 1972 discovery that George McGovern’s vice presidential pick, Thomas Eagleton, had been hospitalized and given electroshock treatments have the Democrats had a worse week than the one we just concluded.
Because Democrats live on social media and watch CNN, they don’t know this yet…
But they had a catastrophic week — hoo, boy, did they ever — a week that will haunt them straight through to November 2020.
Let us count the ways…
1. The Fake News Media Is the Only Shrinking Institution in America’s Booming Economy
Before 2019 is over, there will be upwards of 12,000 job cuts within the American media. That’s 12,000 fewer Democrat foot soldiers; 12,000 fewer propagandists, serial liars, cheerleaders, and toadies to hold Antifa’s jacket as they beat elderly Trump supporters to death with crowbars.
Every industry in Trump’s America is expanding and thriving … except for the media.
What’s more, the Democrats primary propaganda outlet, the far-left CNN, is hemorrhaging viewers like an Ebola victim hemorrhages solid foods.
2. Democrats Lost “The Sane One” Joe Biden
Slow Joe will always be the stupid one, the gaffe machine on the verge of imploding, but he has now openly embraced gun confiscation, taxpayer-funded abortions, the banning of every gun currently being manufactured (except those stupid “smart guns”), raising everyone’s taxes, and putting an end to deportations of illegal immigrants. And now, we don’t really know where Creepy Joe stands on awarding health insurance to illegals and decriminalizing illegal immigration because he’s flip-flopping all over the place on those two.
The so-called “sane one” is an aging moron ready to take our guns, ban all the others, and force us to pay for an illegal alien’s abortion.
4. Democrats Handed the 4th of July to Trump
Because Democrats and the media have to be assholes about absolutely everything America-related, rather than join President Trump in celebrating America on the Fourth, they — no joke — raged against the idea of celebrating the birth of our great nation in our nation’s capital. And then…
After assuring us no one would show up, it would get rained out, it would end in a military takeover, and Trump would make it all about himself — none of that happened.
None.
4. continued
Of.
It.
The mall was packed with Americans who weathered a literal storm to celebrate the country they love, everything went off without a hitch — from the flyovers to the fireworks — and Trump gave one of the best speeches of his presidency, a speech that had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the greatness of our nation.
It was a perfect way to celebrate the Fourth, a wonderful, stirring, and unifying event, and where I had been indifferent to the idea before Trump pulled it off, I am now in favor of making this an annual tradition regardless of who’s president.
What’s more, our military deserve this annual recognition, including the army, and honoring the army means tanks, and tanks are freakin’ awesome.
3. Democrats Came Out Against the American Flag
The freakin’ Betsy Ross flag — you know, that adorable little flag with 13 stars in a circle…? Democrats hate that now. No joke, we now have Democrat presidential candidates arguing the American flag, the most potent symbol for freedom and liberty in the history of mankind, is a symbol of oppression.
Hey, do you remember when Democrats, the media, and all those Never Trumpsters told us it would stop with Confederate monuments?
I didn’t believe them, either.
This won’t stop until all our symbols are gone and replaced with a hammer, a sickle, an upside down cross, and a vagina.
5. Democrats are Campaigning for Votes in … Mexico
Not New Mexico — Mexico-Mexico.
For those wondering why Democrats want to flood this country with illegal immigrants, I give you the “Fiercely Heterosexual” Cory Booker and the fake Hispanic Paddy O’Rourke, both of whom went looking for votes … in another country … in Mexico … I shit you not.
6. Democrat Presidential Candidates are Documented Extremists
Look at this list of left-wing lunacy. Look at this bottomless list of threats promises made by these candidates, promises that include gun confiscation, open borders, legalizing abortion until the fetus registers for college, government-funded health insurance for illegal aliens, slavery reparations, gay reparations, forced busing, no one has to pay back that $1.5 trillion in student loans taxpayers are on the hook for, eliminating everyone’s health insurance, abolishing the electoral college, and taxpayer-funded abortions for transsexual women who are really guys and will never need an abortion.
7. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Bad news for Democrats is almost always good news for America, and the jobs number this week, a very healthy jobs number, is the Democrats’ worst nightmare. A downturn in the economy is really the only way to convince the American people to fire a sitting president, and the 224,000 jobs created last month once again prove that Gaia does not exist because all that praying for a recession these baby-sacrificing pagans did before Gaia did zero good.
8. Stock Market Go Boom
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
9. Cherokee Warren and Kamala ‘Forced Busing’ Harris Are Now Presidential Frontrunners
The Fake Indian wants to outlaw everyone’s private health insurance, pay slave reparations, pay gay reparations, decriminalize illegal immigration, give government-funded health insurance to illegal aliens, end the deportation of illegal aliens, raise everyone’s taxes, force taxpayers (including those who paid back their student loans) to eat $1.5 trillion in student debt, pack the Supreme Court with left-wing justices, force taxpayers to pay for abortion, end the electoral college, and confiscate our guns.
Grinning Kamala wants all of the above. Plus she wants to bring back busing, a policy both black and white people hated 45 years ago.
Nevertheless, according to last week’s polls, these fascist harridans are surging against Biden and maybe even in the lead.
The old saying is This is not your father’s Democrat Party.
Hell, Barry Obama looks like Barry Goldwater compared to these power-hungry, freedom-hating, America-loathing woketards who hate us so much, they are making foreigners and illegal aliens a priority over American citizens and legal immigrants.
Breitbart crap?!?
GROSS
CLEAN THIS TRASH OUT
https://twitter.com/skenigsberg/status/1147922695188881409
Sara Pearl✔
@skenigsberg
lmao @FoxNews just went live from a bar in France after the #USWNT win and people started shouting "Fuck Trump" on air😂😂
10:40 AM - 7 Jul 2019
Anon, this diarrhea series of numbered posts does not really say anything. The only thing that Dems might be concerned about is some economic statistics. Otherwise, all these are literally nothin'.
"The only thing that Dems might be concerned about is some economic statistics"
that and the fact that their only plausible candidate is being destroyed by the other candidates
oh, and that they have set themselves up to be anti-American
they oppose Betsy Ross's flag and think the speech Trump gave about American history was dictatorial
they want the taxpayers to give benefits to illegal aliens and think Americans should pay reparations
then there's no idea that we should start busing again
while we're at it, let's raise taxes, eliminate the electoral college, pay off all student loans, make college free, and make it illegal to have your own doctor
so, what do Dems have to "be concerned about"?
they're like Alfred E Neuman
what me worry?
In case anyone forgot, a reminder of right-wing scare tactics...
Obama's Plan to Destroy America Has Failed Miserably
PAUL WALDMAN NOVEMBER 7, 2016
Can't this guy do anything right?
Barack Obama will be president for only two more months, and any judgment of his presidency will have to account for all he failed to accomplish. Consider this partial list of things Obama was supposed to do but never did:
Destroy America's image and influence in the world
Dismantle our military
Send us into a Greece-like debt spiral that would crash the economy
Institute a government takeover of all health care
Kill elderly and disabled people who had become a drain on the system
Transition the U.S. to communism
Outlaw Christianity
Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine then use it as a tool to silence conservative media
Force gas prices up to $8 or $10 a gallon to make driving impossible
Open the borders to a flood of undocumented immigrants
Confiscate Americans' guns
Throw dissenters into concentration camps
Force whites to pay reparations to blacks in order to wreak vengeance for the sins of the past
Declare martial law and cancel the 2016 election so he could stay in office
As I said, that's only a partial list. If you go back to look at the way conservatives were talking eight years ago, the level of panic they demonstrated is nothing short of comical. Sometimes the terms were literally apocalyptic, painting a horrifying picture of the wreckage an Obama presidency would leave behind. But even those who stayed away from the most ridiculous claims agreed that his administration would be an unmitigated disaster. And critically, while they sometimes said that Obama was stupid and incompetent (He can't even talk without a teleprompter, har har!), more often they asserted that it was all a careful plan: Obama wasn't just going to destroy America, he wanted to destroy America.
This is an idea they have never let go of. You'll recall the primary debates, when Marco Rubio was mocked for repeating over and over, "Let's dispel with the notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing." Rubio is supposed to be one of the sensible Republicans, and his point—which neither his opponents nor any other conservative seemed to disagree with—was that Obama was carrying out a plan to intentionally harm, diminish, or completely destroy the United States of America.
So here we are, with just weeks to go. How's that plan working out? It appears that it has failed. Obama has overseen the creation of 15 million jobs since the bottom of the Great Recession a year after he took office. Inflation is all but nonexistent, wages are rising, and GDP growth is getting stronger. Gas is at around $2 a gallon, and America is practically energy-independent, due not only to an explosion in the development of renewables but also the spread of fracking, which has vastly increased domestic supplies of oil and natural gas (which somehow happened despite Obama's radical anti-fossil-fuel agenda).
And that's just the beginning. America is admired all over the world. The Affordable Care Act has some challenges, but it has given 20 million more people health insurance, slowed the rise in health-care spending, and brought unprecedented health security to Americans—without killing any old people and while leaving the bulk of the health-care system in private hands. Obama hasn't opened the borders; in fact, there are fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were when he took office. Those FEMA concentration camps were never set up, he didn't turn America communist, and he didn't confiscate anyone's guns. Christianity, as far as I can tell, is still legal.
And I'm fairly certain he's going to depart the White House in January, even if Donald Trump were to win. (Man, this guy is downright prescient!)
If you're a conservative, you may be extremely unhappy with the choices Obama has made and the things he has done. But you'd have to admit that the predictions you and your allies made about about how Obama would turn this great country into a hellscape of suffering and despair didn't quite pan out. So what happened?
There are a few possibilities. First, perhaps Obama just forgot. He was going to take away our guns and outlaw dissent, but you know how it is—other things get in the way, then the holidays roll around, and before you know it eight years have gone by and you haven't even fixed that loose railing in the residence, let alone herded your opponents into concentration camps.
Or perhaps Obama tried to do all those things but was thwarted by heroic Republicans. But that's not an easy argument to make, particularly when you're also saying that he's a tyrant who spits on the Constitution every day as he goes about doing whatever he wants.
Or—and stick with me here, because I'm going to suggest something crazy—perhaps Obama was never trying to destroy America in the first place. The things he said about what he wanted to accomplish and how he'd go about it were basically true. He made a bunch of proposals when he ran for president, and at least tried to follow through on the vast majority of them. There wasn't a hidden agenda, there was a genuine agenda, whether you liked it or not.
And he actually wanted things to go well. Like all presidents he wanted the economy to thrive under his watch, and did what he could to make that happen. He wanted America's foreign policy to succeed. He wanted a health care system that provided security and was as affordable as possible. He didn't want to snuff out free enterprise, or religion, or the spark of hope that burns within every American heart. He was trying to do his best.
I suspect that many or perhaps even most elite Republicans know this to be true. But they also know that telling their followers that their political opponents are out to destroy all they hold dear is pretty good for business. Just consider an article that ran over the weekend in The New York Times, about gun enthusiasts heading to the Georgia woods for paramilitary training in preparation for the civil war that's sure to come should Hillary Clinton become president. "We thought it was bad under eight years of Obama, but the gun-grabbing is going to get a whole lot worse if Hillary gets elected," one militia member said.
He has been told in every election he can remember that if the Democrats win they're going to take his guns. It never happens, and yet he's actually convinced that 1) there has been gun-grabbing going on under Obama, and 2) it'll be even worse under Clinton. This nincompoop and millions of people like him are the audience for those predictions of doom whenever a Democratic president is elected.
Republicans' eagerness to exploit and encourage that kind of stupidity is what makes it so difficult to resolve ordinary political differences. Because in order to resolve them, both sides have to accept that they are in fact ordinary, that the world is not going to end if one side prevails, and that somebody who has a substantive disagreement with you about policy isn't necessarily a demon bent on ripping you open and feasting on your entrails.
But that's what Republicans have told their constituents to believe—and despite the fact that their dark predictions about the destruction Obama would wreak never came to pass, they'll be saying the same things about Clinton. In one recent poll of Florida voters, 40 percent of those voting for Donald Trump agreed with the assertion that Clinton is literally a demon. I wish that were a joke, but it isn't. Neither is this election, and neither is the next four years.
nice attempt at diversion
what the Dems are doing, they are doing to themselves
no need to make anything up
we've all heard them try to outdo each other with nutty ideas
everything that's good for America is bad for Dems
when that's true, it's gonna be hard for them to win an election
"Every industry in Trump’s America is expanding and thriving … except for the media."
Nope:
U.S. firearms sales fell 6.1 percent in 2018, according to industry data reported on Tuesday, marking the second straight year of declines and extending the “Trump slump” following the November 2016 election of pro-gun rights President Donald Trump.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated 2018 sales at 13.1 million firearms, down from 14 million the previous year and down 16.5 percent from record 2016 sales of 15.7 million.
Harley-Davidson (HOG) Shuts Production at Kansas City Factory
Sanjoy DeZacks May 29, 2019
Harley-Davidson, Inc. HOG is reportedly said to have closed the factory in Kansas City, MO, as of May 24. The closure, which was announced around 16 months ago, resulted into 800 job loss. Declining motorcycle sales prompted the Milwaukee, WI-based motorcycle manufacturer to take such a decision.
A South Carolina plant that assembles televisions using Chinese parts plans to shut down and lay off nearly all its employees because of new tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration, the company announced this week.
Element Electronics — which describes itself as the only assembler of televisions in the U.S. — plans to lay off 126 of its 134 permanent full-time employees and close the Winnsboro, S.C. plant on Oct. 5. Notably, there are still at least two smaller companies that continue to assemble speciality televisions in the U.S.
“The layoff and closure is a result of the new tariffs that were recently and unexpectedly imposed on many goods imported from China, including the key television components used in our assembly operations in Winnsboro,” Carl Kennedy, Element’s vice president of human resources, said in a letter to the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce on Monday.
President Donald Trump often lamented on the campaign trail that the United States “doesn’t make television sets anymore.” At the time, it was already true that there were no U.S. factories making televisions from scratch — just a few that assembled televisions using imported parts. But with the closure of Element’s plant, the United States will no longer assemble mass-market television sets anymore, either.
Trump has defended his escalating trade war with China as necessary to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and bring back American jobs. But U.S. companies have complained about rising business costs, and trade experts have warned that the tariffs could hurt the U.S. economy. An analysis by the right-leaning Tax Foundation last month predicted Trump’s trade policy could lead to the loss of nearly 365,000 jobs in the long run.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/130-percent-trumps-china-tariff-revenue-now-going-angry-farmers
“I am very happy with over $100 Billion a year in Tariffs filling U.S. coffers,” tweeted President Trump this month. This money is “great for U.S., not good for China!”
The President’s accounting is, unfortunately, way off. First, his China tariffs last year netted the government less than a tenth of what he claims. Second, those tariffs were not paid by China, but by American companies importing Chinese goods—much of them components needed to manufacture products in the United States.
Yet as we pointed out last December, Trump's tariff claims have a bigger flaw. In 2018, the U.S. government committed to paying American farmers $9.6 billion to offset their losses from Chinese tariff retaliation. This is about $1 billion more than it took in all year from Trump’s China tariffs. Tariffs, therefore, ending up not just harming American companies and consumers, but costing the government money. More money left “U.S. coffers” to offset farm losses than came into them from U.S. importers.
We also predicted that, with farmers a critical part of Trump’s electoral base, these losses would grow as the trade war dragged on. And we were right.
Since last year, as the graphic above shows, Trump’s “tariff deficit” has only ballooned further. The Department of Agriculture just unveiled a new $16 billion bailout for farmers hit by the trade war. After just ten months of a trade war with China, subsidies to farmers are set to drain over $25 billion from “U.S. coffers” for damage done to date. China tariffs, meanwhile, have so far brought in just over $19 billion in tax payments from U.S. importers—$6 billion less than authorized farmer payments.
Going forward, Trump’s tariff deficit shows no sign of shrinking—quite the reverse. Just this week, China announced it will, once again, halt purchases of U.S. soybeans—a move that will further devastate the U.S. farm sector. This move, in turn, is likely to trigger further farm bailouts.
If, as the president claimed in 2018, “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” this one is being badly generaled.
Tax refunds for corporations leaves no money for science
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that it’s suspending tracking the plunging honeybee population because of a budget shortfall.
The department will suspend data collection for its Honey Bee Colonies report, and officials did not say when — or if — it would be restarted. It will release data already collected from January 2018 through April of this year.
The Agricultural Department has been a key source of data on the insects, which is critically important to scientists and farmers.
The number of honey bee hives, vital to pollinating crops for the agricultural industry and other plants for wildlife, plummeted from 6 million in 1947 to 2.4 million in 2008. The worst honeybee hive loss on record occurred last winter as beekeepers reported a 40% loss of their colonies over the year.
Critics say the USDA’s move is the latest evidence of the Trump administration’s war on science, and its goal of suppressing information about serious environmental harms increasing under Donald Trump’s presidency.
“This is yet another example of the Trump administration systematically undermining federal research on food safety, farm productivity and the public interest writ large,” Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told CNN.
Ironically, Vice President Mike Pence’s wife, Karen, gushed last month about National Pollinators Week and bragged about hives at the Pence residence.
Second Lady Karen Pence✔
@SecondLady
This is National #Pollinators Week and we’re proud to have honeybee hives and pollinator gardens at the @VP Residence. #Fact: Three-fourths of the flowering plants & about 35% of the world’s food crops depend on pollinators, like bees, to reproduce. ����#bees #pollination @USDA
4:59 PM - Jun 20, 2019...
Just two years ago, the USDA touted its work on honeybees, pointing out that managed colonies were responsible for increasing crop yield and quality by $15 billion. “Honey bees may be some of the hardest workers you’ll ever see, but they need our help,” the USDA said in a statement then. “At USDA, we are making sure that they get it.”
The Obama administration in 2014 launched a program to address declining bee populations — but Trump has been working to reverse those directives....
"Trump has defended his escalating trade war with China as necessary to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and bring back American jobs."
actually, that's true of all the countries Trump has confronted and who have made concessions
China's case is more complicated
they are an evil regime seeking to impose their will on global citizens with the use of advanced technology to suppress human rights
they stole most of this technology from american companies
we need to end China's theft of our technology and stop their march to economically dominate the world
"But U.S. companies have complained about rising business costs, and trade experts have warned that the tariffs could hurt the U.S. economy."
this is the cowardly argument of the resistance
it constitutes surrender and an acknowledgement that China has already won
if we base every decision on short-term materialistic gain, we are doomed
unbelievably, Dems who spent most of the last two years fretting about a minor power, Russia, now wants us to surrender to China out of fear
add this to the list of why Dems have no hope in November 2020
"they are an evil regime seeking to impose their will on global citizens with the use of advanced technology to suppress human rights
they stole most of this technology from american companies"
No, American and other companies GAVE most of that technology to China so they could build it cheaper with their lower labor costs and all-but-non-existent pollution laws. Now China has world class production facilities that can make whatever they want... and staggering amounts of pollution to go with it.
No one held a gun to the CEOs of American corporations and told them they had to produce more and more of their products in China. American CEOs did that all on their own in their unceasing quest for greater and greater profits.
"if we base every decision on short-term materialistic gain, we are doomed"
Too late for that. There are plenty of scientists and lay people alike that think we should limit our carbon emissions so that we don't destroy our planet. But Republicans are trying to thwart all efforts to save our ecosystem and way of life by insisting climate change itself is a hoax (by China, according to the Rumpster) and that fixing it will cost too much - in fact it will destroy our economy. When projections by the scientists show that it will be far cheaper in the long run to avoid the problem rather than try to fix all the damage afterwards.
And while Rump and Republicans are complaining about China stealing all our tech, Rump is trying to bring back coal while Chinese (and European) researchers researchers are advancing the state of the art in lithium-sulfur battery technology:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/07/20190705-azulene.html
"A team of researchers from China and Germany have used azulene—a benzene-free and vinyl-free molecule—to polymerize with sulfur to create a cathode material for Li-S batteries. As described in an open-access paper in the RSC journal Chemical Communications,the polymer exhibits high sulfur content and offers longer lifetime stability compared to pure sulfur, providing new protocols to develop new cathode materials for Li-S batteries..."
China has gone past the point of needing to steal technology, and can now develop it themselves. Clearly, they intend to be a major player in the upcoming electric vehicle industry.
Meanwhile, the Rumpster is busy wooing the votes of that big 19th century industry - coal mining.
With the leadership of the anti-science cult of Republicans led by Rump, it won't be long before the US doesn't have much China even wants to steal from the US.
This link provides articles to research, development, and manufacturing news in the Chinese transportation sector - mostly cars but marine and air industries as well:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/china/
China is buying and building its way to being a 21st century superpower - taking full advantage of capitalism the entire way.
All public beaches along Mississippi’s Gulf Coast have been ordered closed for swimming and fishing amid a sweeping bloom of harmful blue-green algae that authorities warn can sicken people and animals upon contact.
The order imposed Sunday by the state Department of Environmental Quality affects a total of 21 public beaches.
The blue-green algae, actually a bacteria called cyanobacteria, grows on the surface of water and can cause rashes, stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting in humans. The effects are even more serious for other animals, and infection can turn fatal within hours or days, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Health officials warn against swimming, wading or fishing in the water until further notice. The sand portions of the beaches remain open.
Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, have been reported in every U.S. coastal state, though less than 1% of algal blooms produce toxins. Still, HABs can be harmful to the environment in other ways, including depleting water of oxygen and sunlight, according to the National Ocean Service.
The current Mississippi bloom is linked to freshwater entering the gulf shoreline through the Bonnet Carre spillway. The spillway has been opened twice this year to relieve flooding along the Mississippi River following an extremely wet winter, the Clarion-Ledger reported.
The spillway was opened in February and in May to protect New Orleans from flooding ― the first time in its 90-year history that it has been opened more than once in a year.
Once the spillway closes, likely in mid-July, experts predict the algae bloom will dissipate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees the spillway, has acknowledged that flooding the shoreline with freshwater has an immediate adverse environmental effect. But the corps asserts that the harm is temporary, and that long-term benefits include the spreading of valuable sediment and nutrients.
In addition to fueling cyanobacteria, the surge of freshwater has been blamed for the deaths of at least 48 dolphins between May 22 and June 7 due to low salinity levels. This is more than half of the number of dolphins killed by the BP oil blowout during all of 2010, the Clarion-Ledger reported.
“During the BP oil spill we had 91 dolphins the entire year,” Moby Solangi, president and executive director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies, told the local paper. “So, that’s a considerable increase and the year isn’t over yet. Ecologically, we’re seeing a lot more sustained damage than the BP oil spill.”
The release of freshwater has also harmed oyster harvesting areas in Lousiana, the Times-Picayune reported.
Last month, scientists warned that the Gulf of Mexico would experience one of the largest “dead zones” in recorded history because of unusually heavy rainfall and pollution from agricultural runoff that feeds massive phytoplankton blooms, which destroy the water’s oxygen supply.
This oxygen-starved area is expected to grow to roughly the size of Massachusetts, or approximately 7,829 square miles, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
The Gulf Coast is particularly vulnerable to such dead zones because 41% of the U.S. drains into the Mississippi River, whose watershed is largely composed of farmland, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"No, American and other companies GAVE most of that technology to China so they could build it cheaper with their lower labor costs and all-but-non-existent pollution laws"
ignorant fool
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK. Uniformly, the alterations have the effect of lowering temperatures early in the record, and raising recent temperatures, in order to create and enhance a warming trend that does not exist in the data as originally reported. The purpose of the fraudulent data alteration is to support the continuation of the “global warming” climate scare.
Despite what you might think from reading the mainstream press, the past few years in world temperatures have not been particularly good for the continuation of climate alarm. No matter how you measure them (the main methods being ground thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites), world atmospheric temperatures have gone down for more than three years since a peak reached in early 2016. The most reliable — the satellite-based measurements from the University of Alabama at Huntsville — gives the global temperature “anomaly” for the most recent month (June 2019) as +0.47 deg C. That is well down from the peak of +0.88 deg C in early 2016, and represents a decrease of about a third of what had been the entire increase since the satellite record began in 1979.
The failure of temperatures to continue to rise in accordance with alarmist model predictions has left the alarm-promoting guys at NASA and NOAA without fodder for their former annual “hottest year ever!!!” press releases. From the NASA end-of-year-2018 release:
2018 Was the Fourth Warmest Year, Continuing Long Warming Trend. . . . The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015.
I leave it for you to figure out how a year that was down from 2017, which in turn was down from 2016, somehow “continues a long warming trend.” In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?
So what is to be done? The temperature adjusters have been beavering away in the bowels of their collections of data, continuing to send inconvenient readings of the past down the memory hole, and to “adjust” the temperatures of the past down, and of the present up.
Let's look at a small roundup of some things that have been discovered recently.
At NoTricksZone on June 25, Pierre Gosselin posts some work by a Japanese guy named Kirye. Kirye is a Japanese climate skeptic Twitter-blogger, but his Twitter page is in Japanese, so you probably won’t be able to read it. Kirye noticed that NASA came out on June 14 with a new version, version 4, of its surface-thermometer-based temperature series known as GISTEMP. GISTEMP v.4 is now based on the records of the also-newly-adjusted Global Historical Climate Network group of temperature stations, now called GHCN v.4. Kirye then analyzes the new data from NASA at six particular and widely-scattered weather stations: Punta Arenas, Chile; Marquette, Michigan; Port Elizabeth, South Africa; Davis, Antarctica; Hachijojima, Japan; and Valencia, Ireland.
Sure enough, there have been additional adjustments, as always in the same direction — older down, and newer up. But those adjustments between v.3 and v.4 have been relatively minor. More significantly, Kirye discovered a different maneuver which is even more incredible, and which he proves by direct links back to NASA’s own website: In the v.4 graphs that it provides, NASA has relabeled the hugely-adjusted v.3 data as “unadjusted.”
Let's go in detail through just one of the sites for purposes of illustration. Look at Marquette, Michigan. The NASA graph for v.3 for that site shows both “unadjusted” and “adjusted” temperatures. The “unadjusted” graph shows a temperature peak in the 1930s followed by a substantial cooling trend since. The v.3 adjusted temperatures closely match the unadjusted in the recent years; but in the early years (1880 even to the 1970s) there are dramatic downward adjustments, averaging over 2 full deg C, thus creating a strong artificial warming trend. Then go to the brand-new NASA v.4 graph for the same site. The series that was labeled as “adjusted” on the v.3 graph has now been relabeled “unadjusted,” as a prelude to some further adjustments (which are less dramatic than the previous ones but still up to 1 deg C).
Kirye provides an animated comparison of the NASA v.3 and v.4 “unadjusted” temperature series. A small cooling trend in the v.3 unadjusted series has been turned into a strong warming trend in what is called v.4 “unadjusted” series (but is actually the v.3 adjusted series).
You can go to the links for the NASA graphs and verify that Kirye has accurately copied what they have done. Amazing. The exact same thing occurs at each of the five other sites, although the magnitude of the change in trend is not as great at the other sites. However, although the magnitude of the change in trend may vary, the direction of the change in trend created by the now-memory-holed “adjustments” is always the same — the warming trend is enhanced.
Another data point for today comes from the UK and from an independent blogger named Clive Best. Best reminds us that back in the period 1998 to 2013, there was something called the “hiatus,” where world temperatures failed to rise for a full 15 years despite ongoing calls for climate alarm. One of the data sources supporting the existence of the “hiatus” at the time was a UK-based surface temperature series called HadCRUT, coming from the Hadley Center at the University of East Anglia. In a post on June 24 titled “What Ever Happened To The Global Warming Hiatus?”, Best traces “adjustments” to the HadCRUT data series that have occurred in recent years. Turns out that in a series of seemingly very small adjustments, the “hiatus” has been completely erased. In the most recent data release, the years 2005, 2010 and 2014 have all suddenly turned out to have been warmer than 1998, although recorded at the time as cooler.
Funny that once again, each one of the adjustments somehow enhances the warming trend. Is it really possible that never once does any new data, or adjustment to data, lead to a change in the other direction?
And finally, over at the site Climate Scepticism on June 30, Paul Matthews notices that the Hadley guys have also recently come out with a new version of their sea surface temperature series, HadSST4. And how does this v.4 compare to the superseded v.3? I’ll bet you can’t guess.
Matthews points out the the larger tick marks on the graph are for 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000. Anyway, just this most recent adjustment has added about 0.1 deg C to the claimed temperature increase. It may not seem like much, but remember, they “adjust” these things regularly, and every adjustment results in a little bit more of the ongoing artificial enhancement of the supposed warming.
The few sane Democrats still left in Washington are starting to sweat.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination appear to be thinning faster than his head of hair. And they don’t make hair plugs for that kind of problem.
One minute he’s reminiscing about the good ol’ days when he got along so well with all the racist segregationist Democrats around here. Then he gets into strange arguments about federally forced busing — because that’s what the people are all talking about these days.
Next, Mr. Biden is rambling on and on and on about how Russia is meddling in everybody’s elections.
“You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack Obama’s watch?” he asks one sympathetic interviewer. “You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have and didn’t.”
Okaaaaaaaay. Only problem being that, well, the entire purpose of existence for the Democratic Party these past two years is that Russia supposedly DID meddle in U.S. elections under Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden’s watch. In fact, according to all Democrats and most of the media, that is the only reason former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.
It really should be no surprise that Joe Biden is bad at this. After all, he has been part of the problem around here for nearly a half-century. And he has been running for president pretty much the entire time.
Yet the closest he ever got to the White House was when he won the political lottery because Barack Obama needed an old white guy with thinning hair who had been around Washington forever.
Lucky for those few sane Democrats left, their party remains the last party in America that gladly steals elections. In 2016, Vermont socialist Sen. Bernard Sanders was fiercely battling his way to the nomination — until party elders stepped in and stole it from him so they could give it to Mrs. Clinton.
Those same elders were hoping Mr. Biden would save their party from the army of kooky Bernie Sanders running this time around. They look around and cast their gaze on people like Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who is one of the 425 Democrats running for president right now.
He was on “Fox News Sunday” this week and accused President Trump of being “at war with American tradition.”
You mean, like having a magnificent military air parade on the Fourth of July over the objections of everybody in all of Washington?
These people really suck the life and joy out of everything they touch. It is amazing.
But it is worse than that. Even the best that the Democrats have to offer these days are fundamentally unserious people who constantly lie about everything.
“We don’t need a president who doesn’t believe in the rule of law,” Mr. Bennet continued. “We don’t need a president who doesn’t believe in freedom of press.”
Where do these people come up with this wacky stuff?
I have literally never seen a freer press in my life. These people are free to print and broadcast literally anything they feel like — and do! For two years, they have been spinning fantasy tales about Russian hookers urinating on beds in Moscow hotel rooms.
And Mr. Trump somehow doesn’t believe in the rule of law? You mean, like, on the border? Where he and he alone is doing everything in his power to enforce the law?
While the best Joe Biden and Michael Bennet’s Democratic Party can contribute is to send their most charismatic new member to the border — where she immediately spun a new fantasy about illegal aliens being forced to drink toilet water.
What is it with these people and their obsession with the scatological? There is something seriously wrong with them.
Let’s hope they get help before one of them wins the Democratic nomination.
"2018 Was the Fourth Warmest Year, Continuing Long Warming Trend. . . . The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015.
I leave it for you to figure out how a year that was down from 2017, which in turn was down from 2016, somehow “continues a long warming trend.” In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?"
NO. You profligate idiot.
Look up the "Dunning-Kruger" effect before you read any further.
Read the next part VERY SLOWLY so some of it sinks into the sludge pool you think is your brain, and look at the pictures here to help you along:
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
Scroll down toward the bottom of the page to the heading "Long-Term Trend." A little under that you will see a graph with little blue dots that show the "Annual Average," i.e. the average for 1 calendar year. Note how these bounce around quite a bit from year to year - a few times on the order of 0.5 deg C.
The "Ten-Year Moving Average" is the red line. For the mathematically impaired, they take 10 consecutive years of data (typically + and - 5 years from each data point) calculate the average value for that spot and plot it, move to the next year, take the data + and - 5 years from that average it, and plot that new point. This process smooths out the year to year variations and allows one to see TRENDS in the data.
Looking at the other plots on this page, it is easy to see that the average temperatures bounce around quite a bit from year to year, sometimes going up or down several years in a row, with occasional flat spots.
So the fact that "The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015" is not a surprise at all.
"In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?"
You have the utterly simplistic mind of a 4th grader. There is nothing "long term" about the time frame of 2015 to 2018 in the context of global temperatures. Even a decade is relatively "short" in terms of climate effects.
The TREND that is being here is measured in DECADES, and started back in the late 1970s. In the "Long-Term Trend" graph the dashed line on the right extrapolates what will happen assuming the same TREND continues. It could be worse if we don't do something about it, or it could be better if we wise up and start fixing the problems.
The fact that you would even ask a question like "In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?" belies your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the topic, or even the most basic of statistical concepts - much less how they would apply here.
I'd have to guess you never made it past high-school algebra in terms of math - and that's being generous.
Your blissful and utter ignorance of how math and science work is simply not an indication of a massive cover-up by a cabal of climate scientist hell-bent on keeping more oxygen in the atmosphere and recouping their losses on Solyndra stock, but of your total lack of even a BASIC foundation on which to build an understanding of this topic.
Yet you keep posting drivel like this as if it makes some cogent point. It is only believable to other people who are equally ignorant as you are.
You'd be better off making wild, random remarks about quantum chromodynamics - there are so few people who really understand that subject that few would know whether you're making a fantastic point, or just fishing around those precancerous polyps your proctologist found for another piece of crap to post here.
Former President Bill Clinton’s spokesperson said Monday he did not know anything about the crimes committed by billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein.
He then detailed the relationship between Clinton and Epstein: “President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation.”
Epstein was arrested on Saturday with at least two charges, one count of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. Prosecutors said Epstein used cash to solicit sex from underage girls as young as 14, asking them for “massages” and then molesting or sexually abusing them. Like Clinton, Epstein has denied everything.
Epstein was ordered to stay in jail until his bail hearing Thursday.
Center for Responsible Politics reported that Epstein donated $139,000 to Democratic federal candidates and committeestheir website opensecrets.org.
"NO. You profligate idiot.
Read the next part VERY SLOWLY so some of it sinks into the sludge pool you think is your brain, and look at the pictures here to help you along:
the "Annual Average," i.e. the average for 1 calendar year. Note how these bounce around quite a bit from year to year - a few times on the order of 0.5 deg C.
The "Ten-Year Moving Average" is the red line. For the mathematically impaired, they take 10 consecutive years of data (typically + and - 5 years from each data point) calculate the average value for that spot and plot it, move to the next year, take the data + and - 5 years from that average it, and plot that new point. This process smooths out the year to year variations and allows one to see TRENDS in the data.
Looking at the other plots on this page, it is easy to see that the average temperatures bounce around quite a bit from year to year, sometimes going up or down several years in a row, with occasional flat spots.
So the fact that "The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015" is not a surprise at all.
"In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?"
You have the utterly simplistic mind of a 4th grader. There is nothing "long term" about the time frame of 2015 to 2018 in the context of global temperatures. Even a decade is relatively "short" in terms of climate effects.
The TREND that is being here is measured in DECADES, and started back in the late 1970s. In the "Long-Term Trend" graph the dashed line on the right extrapolates what will happen assuming the same TREND continues. It could be worse if we don't do something about it, or it could be better if we wise up and start fixing the problems.
The fact that you would even ask a question like "In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?" belies your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the topic, or even the most basic of statistical concepts - much less how they would apply here.
I'd have to guess you never made it past high-school algebra in terms of math - and that's being generous.
Your blissful and utter ignorance of how math and science work is simply not an indication of a massive cover-up by a cabal of climate scientist hell-bent on keeping more oxygen in the atmosphere and recouping their losses on Solyndra stock, but of your total lack of even a BASIC foundation on which to build an understanding of this topic.
Yet you keep posting drivel like this as if it makes some cogent point. It is only believable to other people who are equally ignorant as you are.
You'd be better off making wild, random remarks about quantum chromodynamics - there are so few people who really understand that subject that few would know whether you're making a fantastic point, or just fishing around those precancerous polyps your proctologist found for another piece of crap to post here."
the problem is that global warming alarmists every year make pronouncements that a year "continues the long-term trend" when, as you say, a single year could never do that
it's similar to how alarmists are continually taking a single weather event and pointing to climate change as the cause but when events happen that don't support that, they howl that one event means nothing
face it, the data from 1998 to the present, 20 years, don't support a continued warming observation
the best that can be said is that the warming that occurred in the 20 yeas prior to that didn't reverse
btw, how many math credits were required for your degree in gay studies?
Democrats and their liberal media pals are in full panic mode as it dawns on them: Donald Trump could actually win reelection.
Despite fielding an unprecedented number of would-be candidates, Democrats have so far failed to find a standard-bearer likely to unify their party. As the recent debates showed, the party has moved left, and further left still, leaving the majority of Americans behind as they try to placate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and other noisy progressives.
At the same time, the better-than-expected June jobs report confirms the economy remains strong, dampening ceaseless speculation (and left-wing hope) about a pending recession. Meanwhile, relentless hounding of the president by his political foes has had zero impact on his popularity among Republicans. If anything, the unimaginable vitriol has further hardened his support.
Maybe the intelligentsia is not so intelligent after all.
The liberal media is working feverishly to undermine the president, critical of his every move. They tell us that his venturing into North Korea to shake hands with Kim Jong Un delivered a “propaganda win” to the Korean dictator. To whom? To the oppressed citizens of that miserable country who have been told their noble leader’s father was so pure that he never needed to defecate? Or that he scored 11 holes-in-one in his first round of golf? We’re worried about feeding that absurd propaganda machine?
Most Americans likely saw Trump’s move as characteristically gutsy and unconventional, but also a gesture that might someday bear fruit. Moreover, many saw it as a refreshing departure from the uber-cautious foreign policy of the Obama years.
Democrats and their media pals were also churlish about the president’s Fourth of July celebration in Washington. The New York Times described it as a “made-for-television production starring America’s military weaponry” and Democrats said parading tanks in the nation’s capital was the hallmark of a tyrant. Please don’t tell President Emmanuel Macron; it was the Bastille Day parade in democratic France, complete with military hardware, that inspired Trump’s celebration.
It says something that the press was rhapsodic about the Pride Parade in New York but could not find anything good to say about a parade celebrating our nation’s military.
Here’s the bitter truth for Democrats: the unending slamming of the president is not working. It was announced last week that President Trump and the Republican National Committee have raised $105 million for his reelection bid, far surpassing the amounts raised by any predecessor or by any Democrat hoping to unseat him.
Not only was Trump’s overall fundraising impressive, he received 725,000 individual contributions which averaged $48. That kind of online small-donor haul is unprecedented for a Republican politician. The RNC attracted “a larger share of donations under $200 than the Democratic National Committee,” reported the New York Times. As the Times noted, Trump will have far more money to boost his run than he did in 2016.
Gallup tells us that only 32 percent of the country is satisfied with “the way things are going in the United States at this time.” That is hardly cause for celebration, but at the same point during President Obama’s tenure, only 16 percent of the nation thought we were on the right track.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s personal polling has gradually improved. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll put the president’s approval rating at 47 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. Among registered voters that survey showed the president beating a Democrat candidate identified as a socialist 49 percent to 43 percent. Notably, 66 percent of respondents in that poll self-identified as Democrats or Independents. Trust me, any Democrat now running will be branded a socialist by Mr. Trump.
And why not? The Democrat candidates showed their “free-for-all” stripes during the first round of debates. Every single candidate on the stage for the second night’s forum raised their hand in support of giving free health care to people in the country illegally, a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to pay for their own health care.
That show of hands should not have surprised anyone. Democrats eager to bludgeon the Trump White House over its treatment of people detained at the border (and hopeful of winning Hispanic voters) have adopted ever more idiotic positions on immigration. Though only a few years ago Democrats favored controlled borders but lenient immigration guidelines, now Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren and others want to repeal Section 1325 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the law that outlaws entering the country illegally. They want that action to no longer be a federal crime, but rather a civil offense, like parking in front of a fire hydrant. That is not where American voters are.
Several candidates said in the debates they wanted to abolish private health insurance, a shocker to those 140 million people who have such insurance. The private health insurance industry earns revenues of hundreds of billions of dollars and employs 600,000 Americans; Medicare-for-all amounts to a federal takeover of the means of production, which meets the definition of socialism.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress will soon continue their investigations into every aspect of President Trump’s finances, pushing to get hold of his tax returns in order to find…what exactly? That he has done something wrong that the IRS has failed to uncover? No, simply to embarrass him. The hints of impeachment and theatrical do-over of the Mueller probe will continue.
The Democrats look increasingly small, while President Trump looks big. While the president is attempting to reset our trade relations with China, trying to reach some understanding with nuclear-armed North Korea, searching for a means to rein in Iran and to solve our dysfunctional immigration policies, Democrats needle and prod and pick, carping at the White House and at each other.
If Trump is reelected, Democrats will have only themselves to blame.
Trump continues to cite his Wharton background, sometimes in misleading ways. Awarding the Medal of Freedom to Laffer on June 19, Trump claimed that “I’ve heard and studied the Laffer curve for many years in the Wharton School of Finance.”
Trump graduated from Wharton in 1968, and Laffer did not outline his tax-cutting theory on the back of a napkin until 1974, according to Laffer’s account in a book he co-wrote called “The End of Prosperity.” Thus, studying the Laffer curve during Trump’s time at the school would have been impossible.
"Trump continues to cite his Wharton background, sometimes in misleading ways. Awarding the Medal of Freedom to Laffer on June 19, Trump claimed that “I’ve heard and studied the Laffer curve for many years in the Wharton School of Finance.”
Trump graduated from Wharton in 1968, and Laffer did not outline his tax-cutting theory on the back of a napkin until 1974, according to Laffer’s account in a book he co-wrote called “The End of Prosperity.” Thus, studying the Laffer curve during Trump’s time at the school would have been impossible."
in what bizarre universe is this relevant?
Dems are in deep trouble and if they want to present America with a viable alternative in 2020, they need to start focusing on substance and drop this kind of crap
no one is impressed
"the problem is that global warming alarmists every year make pronouncements that a year "continues the long-term trend" when, as you say, a single year could never do that"
Yet, when you look at the data in the graphs, (the ones included in the previous link) they keep showing that the red line - the TREND line - keeps increasing.
Are you BLIND too?
Are you really so obtuse you can't understand what the trend line in the graph is showing you?!?!
"If Trump is reelected, Democrats will have only themselves to blame."
Republicans will have to re-nominate Rump before that can happen. It would be EXTREMELY easy for Republicans to vote for a primary candidate that is eminently more qualified than the Rumpster to be president.
It's not too hard to predict though that they simply won't - even to save their own party. They've already given up on the country.
"face it, the data from 1998 to the present, 20 years, don't support a continued warming observation"
Face it. The trend line (red) in the graph under "Long-Term Trend" at:
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
has increased by about 0.25 degrees since 1998, and that doesn't include the last 4 years in the plot. If those are included, the trend would be up another 0.15 deg C or so.
How you deny what's in front of your own eyes?
"has increased by about 0.25 degrees since 1998, and that doesn't include the last 4 years in the plot. If those are included, the trend would be up another 0.15 deg C or so.
How you deny what's in front of your own eyes?"
do you even look at the data you post?
virtually all of that increase happened in the last three years, less than the decade you were previously claiming is necessary to call it a "trend"
of course, this after the data has been adjusted multiple times annually, always in the same direction
as it is, the line from 1998 to 2016 looks eerily like the line from 1855 to 1879
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal program to help injured veterans and their spouses conceive children through in vitro fertilization is being hobbled by anti-abortion forces that oppose how the process can lead to embryos being destroyed.
Since 2012, Democrats in Congress have repeatedly championed legislation permanently extending IVF benefits to veterans whose injuries in the line of duty have left them unable to conceive children otherwise.
But those bills have fizzled in the face of opposition from Catholic bishops and others in favor of a temporary program that must be reauthorized every year, complicating efforts by eligible veterans to begin or extend their families. The benefit is further limited to exclude veterans who are not married, straight, able to produce their own sperm and eggs and, if they're female, able to carry the baby in their own uterus.
Those limitations have been a problem for couples like Jacob and Ashley Lyerla, who needed to use donor sperm and eggs to create viable embryos after three heart-wrenching rounds of IVF using their own genetic material failed. The Milroy, Indiana, couple has spent about $35,000 out of pocket to continue the expensive procedure with donor material, despite Jake being rendered a paraplegic at 19 by an IED blast in Afghanistan.
Ashley Lyerla, not a veteran herself, said IVF gives them and other couples trying to conceive the ability to bond with their babies as soon as physically possible, unlike alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.
"By using donor embryos, you have all those memories, you have all those firsts," she said. "You're not having to make yet more sacrifices, more compromises."
Fertility treatments using IVF involve combining extracted eggs and sperm in a lab. The process involves producing multiple embryos and transferring them all into the woman's womb, in hopes one would implant and cause a pregnancy. Today, many embryos are usually frozen, as couples opt to transfer the most viable one at a time to avoid multiple births. Unused embryos may be stored indefinitely, donated to science or destroyed — a prospect opponents see as tantamount to abortion and a key sticking point in their opposition to this military program...
Heather Ansley, head of government relations and advocacy for Paralyzed Veterans of America, is among backers of the permanent benefit for veterans and their families.
"We have a responsibility as a society to make them whole and, certainly, for many people, being a parent is part of that," she said.
In Crystal Wilson's opinion, limiting access to a permanent IVF benefit harms the families of disabled veterans who are trying to have babies. Wilson has conceived two IVF babies through the VA benefit with her husband, Tyler, who was paralyzed from the waist down when struck by a bullet in Afghanistan in 2005.
The Wilsons' difficult journey to parenthood — they have a 2-year-old son, and a baby on the way — has led them to champion federal legislation expanding and making permanent the IVF benefit on behalf of other military families.
"IVF is pro-life, because we're all looking to build a family and bring children into this world, and then build them into amazing, incredible citizens of the world," Wilson said.
A total of 1,549 U.S. service members sustained groin-area injuries, 599 categorized as severe, from 2001 to 2018, according to figures from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry.
"virtually all of that increase happened in the last three years, less than the decade you were previously claiming is necessary to call it a "trend"
Obviously, you did not comprehend what I wrote or how trend is calculated or the appropriate time frames.
The "Ten Year Moving Average" is how the red line is calculated - it takes a ten year window centered on a one-year (average) measurement (the blue dots), averages those measurements, and puts a red dot for that year at the 10-year average value. This is called the "trend line."
This DOES NOT mean "the decade you were previously claiming is necessary to call it a "trend", or that 10 years is sufficient to call it a trend.
One could also calculate a 5 year trend line or a 100 year trend line. The 5 year trend line would follow the yearly averages more closely and bounce around more. A 50 or 100 year trend line would lose most of the squiggles but still go up and to the right for this data.
The red line stops before the end of the blue dots because it doesn't have enough data points around the later years to complete a 10 year moving average. However, if you use a 5 or 8 year moving average, you include more of the dots near 1.25C on the right, and lose more more dots below 1C on the left.
It doesn't take too much math knowledge to realize that when you use more big numbers and few small numbers to calculate your average, you GET A HIGHER AVERAGE VALUE.
In the *strictest scientific" sense, it is not valid to tack on these shorter-time averages onto the end of a 10 year moving average. However, assuming the variance (another statistics term that has a specific meaning that quantifies the "spread" of the data) remains the same, (a reasonable assumption), we can that it would take an uncharacteristically large drop in temps for the next couple of years to drop the 10 year moving average below the dashed line in the graph. That is VERY unlikely to happen (but strictly speaking not impossible) based on what we see in the rest of the graph - the TREND.
The trend involves the entire red line but can be viewed in various sections.
"as it is, the line from 1998 to 2016 looks eerily like the line from 1855 to 1879"
The SLOPE of the lines in those two time periods are very similar, so I know you are at least looking at the graph now. Unfortunately the slope isn't the problem.
Between 1850 and roughly 1920, it looked like the atmosphere was slowly "wandering" around "0." Zero is the baseline measurement all these numbers are compared to. During that time period, temps usually stayed within about 0.25 degrees of that.
Unfortunately for us, we haven't been close to "normal" since about 1945. Even when the trend (red) dips in the 1950's and 70's, it didn't drop close to the max in about 1875. And now we are sitting a full degree C above the baseline. The trend hasn't been near the 0 degree mark for nearly a century - and since then it has spent roughly 2/3rd of the time going up - in line with predictions based on CO2 emissions. The last time there was a noticeable "cooling trend" was right after WWII, but it didn't last long.
If things were closer to "normal" we should expect to see more "humps" like those around 1875 and 1900. Maybe we see a bit of that in 1945, but after that, it's gone.
Whatever was driving temperatures before 1910 has been overwhelmed by something else, and has led to nearly a century of "above average" temperatures, which for the most part, slowly keep creeping up. If there was a "hiatus" from global temperature rise, it happened between roughly between 1942 and 1975. And that only happened once in the last 100 years. And nothing in the data or scientific models indicate that we should expect another one any time soon.
"of course, this after the data has been adjusted multiple times annually, always in the same direction"
Yes, data is adjust to make comparisons easier and more relevant. Much of the older data is derived from inaccurate thermometers, or from indirect measurements like ice cores, ships at sea, and tree rings.
When new information is learned that more precisely maps say tree ring or ice core data to air temps, people plotting the air temps will use that new information to more accurately present the data.
This is not some nefarious plot to cook the data.
When a weather station is moved, its prior values have to be adjusted and this extends at times to neighboring stations.
Some of the changes occur naturally. For example, trees grow up or are cut down, and the wind pattern changes at the weather station thermometer. Or, an airport opens up nearby and the traffic pattern changes in the vicinity.
It would be stupid of scientists NOT to adjust the temperature reading to account for these things - otherwise they'd be working with faulty data, and you can't get useful conclusions with bad data.
Adjustments like these are common in science and industry. If a company measures the frequency of their oscillators and find out some of them are just barely out of spec, they might by a more accurate (and expensive) frequency counter and see if those units were actually just barely passing or really failing.
Unfortunately that doesn't tell them if the oscillators they already shipped really passed or not.
HOWEVER, if they take measurements of devices with both the new and the old test device, they can determine what the "delta" (difference) in frequency between the two measurement devices are.
They can then go back into their records and (add or subtract as appropriate) that delta from all their previous measurements. Those measurements have then been "adjusted" to more accurate values - within limits of course.
If you bother to go to the source material, they will explain what adjustments they did to the data and why (or they will reference whose adjustments they use). You are of course free to quibble with the amount and direction of the changes and propose a more accurate adjustment if you have better information.
But just insisting it's all part of a nefarious plot by evil scientists on board the liberate climate change hoax agenda is just misinformation and propaganda.
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY DOES NOT SUPPORT IVF FOR U.S. VETERANS
Jim Daly, head of Focus on the Family never served in the US military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Daly_(evangelist)
James Dobson, founder and original head of Focus on the Family never served in the US miliary. He did, however, call for mass kidnapper, rapist, murderer, and severed head collector, Ted Bundy, to be forgiven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson
There was no discussion of the Virginia Beach mass shooting by the GOP-led Virginia legislature today.
Not even thoughts and prayers.
Just total refusal to even discuss the mass shootings and how to prevent them in the future.
You’ve seen this before. A man associated with President Trump — his former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta — is part of a story in which women or girls were allegedly abused, mistreated and/or sexually molested. There was pictorial evidence Porter abused his spouse. There were multiple, credible accounts of women who claimed Moore abused them as girls. Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford (who told witnesses about the allegation years earlier). Acosta’s plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein was widely criticized by those involved in the case and was illegally crafted in secret to avoid allowing witnesses to know and object.
Trump comes out with a variety of excuses to the men: He was “no fan” of Epstein. Acosta’s deplorable plea deal that allowed Epstein to escape justice was a long time ago. Moore denied the claims. Kavanaugh denied the claims.
Trump expresses appreciation for the accused man. Porter and Acosta were doing a great job, you see. Trump calls evidence from female witnesses “fake news” or claims eyewitness testimony (even by multiple witnesses) is not “corroborated” (as if that were a defense anyway). He says the males were treated very unfairly. Trump suggests the great risk is not that men like Kavanaugh (rich, white lawyers) are held accountable for their crimes but that women make false claims (which make up a tiny percentage of cases in sex crimes, no higher than false reports for other crimes). Trump does not expresses horror, concern or sympathy for the women involved.
Republicans go along with this charade for a time. If the stakes are low and the evidence great (e.g. Porter) Trump might even dump the person on his own. If the facts are grotesque, Republicans might not back the president (e.g. Moore’s Senate run), but they would never condemn Trump for supporting a character they consider heinous and unfit. They refuse to make an informed decision of their own, as multiple Senate Republicans have done in saying their judgment on Acosta depends on whether he breached professional ethics. (A court already held his prosecutors broke the law in crafting a secret plea deal.) And they will never, ever criticize Trump as being unduly solicitous of accused predators or cruel to victims.
The incident doesn’t have to be exclusively about women. In border detention centers mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are held in dreadful conditions, which the inspector general and eyewitnesses describe in depth (and which border control officials tried to complain about internally). Trump expresses no sympathy for victims. He blames them for coming in the first place. He denies facts (fake news, again) substantiating abuse...
...Suffice it to say, his conduct is not how the vast majority of people view credible accusers and their abusers. And you know who really cannot fathom such thinking? Women. It is not the sole reason that white women have streamed out of the GOP, contributing in large part to Democrats’ 2018 wins, but it is a substantial motivator. (Other reasons include Republicans’ effort to take away health care, Trump’s obstruction of justice and contempt for the rule of law and the over-reliance on hard power — i.e. war — in foreign policy.)
Trump, in a majority of women’s eyes, is an abusive bully who coddles other abusive bullies, refuses to hold male wrongdoers accountable and derides their female victims as nuts, devious or both. It’s one reason the gender gap, already wide, has exploded even further in the Trump era. It’s not simply that women prefer Democrats; it is that they have come to view Trump Republicans as cruel, abusive and inhumane. They are voting their values, and Trump Republicans trample on their values every day.
Republicans officials have enabled Trump every step of the way and mount zero opposition to his renomination. These Republicans, therefore, in the eyes of millions of women, become indistinguishable from Trump. And women will have the last say — at the ballot box. That might be the political death trap that Republicans so richly deserve.
The interview was contentious at first, according to two people familiar with the matter, but investigators ultimately found his testimony credible and even surprising.
Christopher Steele, the former British spy behind the infamous “dossier” on President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, was interviewed for 16 hours in June by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The interview is part of an ongoing investigation that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been conducting for the past year. Specifically, Horowitz has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser based in part on information from Steele, an ex-British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010.
Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. But Steele was initially reluctant to speak with the American investigators because of the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal DOJ probe as a foreign national and retired British intelligence agent.
Steele’s allies have also repeatedly noted that the dossier was not the original basis for the FBI’s probe into Trump and Russia.
The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.
The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016. Steele’s American lawyer was present for the conversation...
...The interview was first reported by Reuters.
During the 2016 election, Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to research Trump’s Russia ties. His work was funded in part by a law firm that represented the Democratic National Committee.
Since then, Steele has become a villain to Trump allies who claim that anti-Trump DOJ officials conspired to undo the results of the 2016 election. Conservatives have also seized on Mueller’s conclusion that no criminal conspiracy existed between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin as evidence that Steele’s sensational dossier was a fraud.
But the extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.
Page had been on the FBI’s radar since 2013, when he interacted with undercover Russian intelligence agents in New York City. A trip to Moscow in the summer of 2016 further aroused the bureau’s suspicions, according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant the FBI got approved in October 2016, allowing the bureau to intercept his electronic communications.
Steele’s defenders have noted that the information he provided which made it into the FISA warrant application to monitor Page was not far off. According to Steele’s sources, Page met with high-level Russian officials while in Moscow in July 2016, including the CEO of Russia’s state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
Page denied the claim publicly until pressed under oath by lawmakers in 2017, when he acknowledged meeting “senior members of the presidential administration” during his trip, as well as the head of investor relations at Rosneft. Page had originally claimed only that he went to Moscow to give the commencement address at the New Economic School.
"The SLOPE of the lines in those two time periods are very similar, so I know you are at least looking at the graph now. Unfortunately the slope isn't the problem."
actually, it is, because it indicates the rate of change
if the temperatures level off, as they did from 1998-2013 or 1945-1970, it's not something that can't be dealt with
what the alarmists do is extrapolate without any justification, based on the historical record
"Yes, data is adjust to make comparisons easier and more relevant. Much of the older data is derived from inaccurate thermometers, or from indirect measurements like ice cores, ships at sea, and tree rings."
they adjust the current data as much as the old data, and they do invariably in a direction to reinforce anthropogenic global warming theory
and they do it frequently
"This is not some nefarious plot to cook the data."
no, it's more subtle
a culture has developed among scientists where climate change, like evolution, is considered a sacred cause among the scientific establishment
any scientist who contributes to this struggle against the forces of ignorance is considered a hero
it's a positive reinforcement loop
this has happened often in the past when science develops a consensus, whether it was opposition to heliocentrism or the Big Bang theory or relativity or quantum physics or support for eugenics
scientists are as susceptible to group social pressure as anyone else
they are looking for ways to support AGW theory and automatically reject anything that doesn't support it
"It would be stupid of scientists NOT to adjust the temperature reading to account for these things - otherwise they'd be working with faulty data, and you can't get useful conclusions with bad data."
the adjustments are way too frequent
you can't get useful conclusions when you start out with an intense desire to support a predetermined conclusion
"But just insisting it's all part of a nefarious plot by evil scientists on board the liberate climate change hoax agenda is just misinformation and propaganda."
it's not really nefarious, they are just succumbing to peer pressure
we just need to be aware of that and consider it
Emphasis on "MORON"
"sacred cause among the scientific establishment"
if you don't think the scientific establishment can have a sacred cause, you are a moron
Jon Voight is once again sharing his admiration for Donald Trump.
The actor has posted a video message praising POTUS on Twitter. Angelina Jolie’s father — who was tapped by the president to be a trustee for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — called Trump the “greatest president” and said a 2020 re-election would be “God’s trust for this nation.”
“My fellow Americans, I stand with you and the truth of our nation, with great pride and honor. I say this truly from a place of God’s truths. Our nation is stronger and wiser because we have taken a chance on a man who has become the greatest president. I’m honored to call him President Trump.
“And as we come closer to 2020, let us track all the magnificent documentations that have been signed, sealed and delivered to this country and its glory. We must continue this race of truths and stand with President Trump for his next win. Because this is more than win; this is not a sacrifice. This is God’s honor, God’s trust for this nation. For this land of liberty. For justice for all.
“This is America, this land of the free. This is our president, Donald Trump, that will set the nation to be the greatest land of peace and love ... and great again. God bless.”
What a great NYC ticker tape parade honoring the world champion USA women's soccer team!
John Voight's extramarital affair ruptured his family and his kids wouldn't talk with him for years.
No wonder Voight supports President Pussy Grabber.
Rump makes him look like a good husband by comparison.
"Voight was raised as a Catholic and attended Archbishop Stepinac High School in White Plains, New York, where he first took an interest in acting...Following his graduation in 1956, he enrolled at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he majored in art and graduated with a B.A. in 1960. After graduation, Voight moved to New York City, where he pursued an acting career."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Voight
Like Rump, Voight's no climate or any kind of scientist, that's for sure.
"The SLOPE of the lines in those two time periods are very similar, so I know you are at least looking at the graph now. Unfortunately the slope isn't the problem."
"actually, it is, because it indicates the rate of change"
So you looked up the definition of "slope." Yes, the rate of change is the slope. That does not define it as a problem - that is the measurement. And the slopes of the two sections in question were nearly the same. You have not identified any actual problem with either of them over those areas.
The problem now is that unlike 100 years ago, the slope continues to go up unabated, whereas before it oscillated around zero.
"if the temperatures level off, as they did from 1998-2013 or 1945-1970, it's not something that can't be dealt with"
First, there is no indication that the temp trend leveled off from 1998-2013. Look at the red line again. Climate denialists frequently use 1998 as a reference year because it was particularly hot - an extreme that was hotter than several of the next few years, but that isn't enough to define a whole trend. Ultimately, it shows that denialists don't understand how statistics and trends are calculated.
Second, scientists have been warning us since the 1970s that green house gas emissions would lead to increasing global temperatures. Looking at the both the annual averages and the trend at that time, they had little evidence to back up their arguments which were based mostly on the physics of CO2 and extremely crude models.
Nearly 50 years later, the data - as shown by the trend line has so far proven them right, and the climate models have become far more sophisticated and are able to run on much more cable computers.
"any scientist who contributes to this struggle against the forces of ignorance is considered a hero"
This is only your opinion, apparently based on the supposition that you can read the minds of millions of scientists and figure out who they think are heros. Science doesn't have a "heroes" list. A list of Nobel prize winners, yes.
"it's a positive reinforcement loop"
The positive reinforcement loop in science is that of favoring theories that provide useful, measurable, and repeatable results. That's why rocket scientists use equations figured out by Newton and Einstein rather than "thoughts and prayers."
"this has happened often in the past when science develops a consensus, whether it was opposition to heliocentrism or the Big Bang theory or relativity or quantum physics or support for eugenics"
You know, I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that you subscribe to the Flat Earth theory, but to put up heliocentrism as an example of how scientists created a "sacred" cause and "positive reinforcement loop" gone bad is ridiculous. Your desperation to paint science with religious overtones akin to blind faith illuminates the basis of your perspective, as well as your misunderstanding of how science actually works.
Yes, eugenics, supported by a handful of scientists at the time was a bad idea - it was soundly rejected by scientists and most of the public alike decades ago.
Arguments in science can persist for decades - it took roughly 60 years to find evidence of a sub-atomic particle first proposed by Professor Higgs. Before that, there were plenty of arguments that could be made for and against them. This disagreement is essential to keep digging until testable evidence can be found to either refute or reinforce the theory, or perhaps even show that a new, previously unimagined theory is necessary to fit the data points.
Scientists will often argue vociferously that their interpretation of the data is correct, but once data comes in that refutes their theory, they all know you have to either accept it, or prove - with more tests - how it is wrong.
Unfortunately, we only have 1 planet earth. We are running a giant chemistry experiment with it - pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. So far, the past 100 years of data show that the scientists predicting warmer temps are correct.
If they continue to be right, we don't get a "do-over."
President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report.
In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said.
"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" former Trump associate George Houraney reportedly said. "It was him and Epstein."
"I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein," he recalled saying.
Houraney claimed to have warned Trump about Epstein's behavior and said the real estate tycoon did not heed his notice. Houraney, a businessman, reportedly said Trump "didn't care" about how he had to ban Epstein from his events.
"Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can't have him going after younger girls," Houraney recalled of his conversation to The Times. "He said, 'Look I'm putting my name on this. I wouldn't put my name on it and have a scandal.'"
Houraney had a falling out with Trump after his girlfriend accused him of making unwanted sexual advances in the early 1990s.
Trump previously said he knew Epstein for 15 years and suggested he was well-acquainted with the financier.
"He's a lot of fun to be with," Trump said to New York Magazine in 2002. "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."..
"Voight's no climate or any kind of scientist, that's for sure"
he's similar to TTFers in that regard
btw, no one quoted any statement from Voight about a scientific matter
your statement is a non sequitur, nothing but empty rhetoric
"So you looked up the definition of "slope.""
so sad that TTFers think the "definition of slope" is some esoteric knowledge that one must look up
really pathetic
"You have not identified any actual problem with either of them over those areas"
the problem, genius, is this: the alarmists extrapolate and say what has happened in the last three years will continue indefinitely
but, it didn't then and is not likely to now
during the period with the greatest increase of automobiles, the 1945 through 1970, with an associated rise in carbon output, the global temperatures scarcely budged
"First, there is no indication that the temp trend leveled off from 1998-2013. Look at the red line again. Climate denialists frequently use 1998 as a reference year because it was particularly hot - an extreme that was hotter than several of the next few years, but that isn't enough to define a whole trend. Ultimately, it shows that denialists don't understand how statistics and trends are calculated."
actually, most scientists were scrambling to explain that hiatus earlier in the decade and was even mentioned in the IPCC report but scientists, looking for a predetermined result, found an excuse to retroactively adjust the numbers
"scientists have been warning us since the 1970s that green house gas emissions would lead to increasing global temperatures"
ten years prior to that, scientists thought we were on the verge of a new ice age
in the 70s, apocalyptic pronouncements of all kinds became fashionable
at the time, they were saying fossil fuels would be depleted by now and overpopulation would result in widespread food shortages
it was that old extrapolation fallacy that they still fall for
"the climate models have become far more sophisticated and are able to run on much more cable computers"
the climate is still largely a mystery even with "cable computers"
LOL
"Science doesn't have a "heroes" list"
I don't know if you really think that, but you're wrong
"The positive reinforcement loop in science is that of favoring theories that provide useful, measurable, and repeatable results"
or if you can concoct some rationale to support climate change theory or the gay agenda
it's a long-held scientific principle that beginning with a predetermined result will affect conclusions
if you think climate scientists commence research with an open mind, you're delsusional
"You know, I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that you subscribe to the Flat Earth theory, but to put up heliocentrism as an example of how scientists created a "sacred" cause and "positive reinforcement loop" gone bad is ridiculous"
no, it isn't
st the time of Copernicus, scientists thought the sun revolved around the Earth and they didn't appreciate his theory
just like windbag climate scientists today!
"Scientists will often argue vociferously that their interpretation of the data is correct, but once data comes in that refutes their theory, they all know you have to either accept it,"
no. they don't
they spent years arguing against the Big Bang theory because they knew it suggested deism, specifically the account in Genesis
"Unfortunately, we only have 1 planet earth. We are running a giant chemistry experiment with it - pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. So far, the past 100 years of data show that the scientists predicting warmer temps are correct."
actually, that data doesn't show that any warming resulted from "pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere"
we do have ways we can cool the atmosphere though
we aren't scientists advocating them?
"President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report.
In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said."
this was back in the days when Trump was a Democrat and avid supporter of the Clintons, just like Epstein
Bill must have been busy that weekend
Trump has since evolved
and, yes, Trump is reportedly a heterosexual
I don't see anywhere in this story that these women were brought to Mar-a-Lago against their will
there you go again
another TTF extrapolation fallacy
A historic slow-moving flood of polluted Mississippi River water loaded with chemicals, pesticides and human waste from 31 states and two Canadian provinces is draining straight into the marshes and bayous of the Gulf of Mexico — the nurseries of Arnesen’s fishing grounds — upsetting the delicate balance of salinity and destroying the fragile ecosystem in the process. As the Gulf waters warm this summer, algae feed on the freshwater brew, smothering oxygen-starved marine life.
And as of Wednesday, an advancing storm looks likely to turn into a tropical storm or hurricane by the weekend, with the potential to bring torrential downpours and more freshwater flooding.
Fishermen and state government officials agree this long, hot summer may go down in history as one of the most destructive years for Gulf fisheries. The torrent of river water pushing into Gulf estuaries is decimating crab, oyster and shrimp populations. The brown shrimp catch this spring in Louisiana and Mississippi is already down by an estimated 80%, and oysters are completely wiped out in some of the most productive fishing grounds in the country, according to state and industry officials. The polluted freshwater has also triggered algae blooms, which have led to beach closures across Mississippi.
“The Army Corps of Engineers says we had the most rainfall in 124 years,” said Joe Spraggins, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. “Shrimpers and crabbers are struggling. Oystermen are almost nonexistent. … It’s not going to get better soon.”
“I’ve had grown men call me on the phone and cry,” said Arnesen, who serves on the board of the Louisiana Shrimp Association and works on state coastal management issues. “This feels like the height of the BP oil spill.”
Mississippi and Louisiana have already started the process of requesting federal disaster assistance for damaged fisheries. But it will likely be a long while before any money reaches the fishermen whose nets are coming up empty. To officially apply for disaster relief, Louisiana state officials say they need more data, which will take months to compile.
“We are seeing impacts across the coast in all sectors of the fishing communities,” said Patrick Banks, assistant secretary for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. “We will continue to collect data to support a disaster declaration.”
It’s not just fisheries that are suffering. Dolphins have been dying in huge numbers across the region — nearly 300 this year already, which is three times the number in a normal year, according to federal and state officials. Fishermen report finding dead dolphins floating in water near shore or beached in the marshes, covered in painful skin lesions that scientists have linked to freshwater exposure. One fisherman reported finding a mother dolphin pushing her dead baby along in the water.
“Their skin looks like a Brillo pad,” said Louisiana charter boat captain George Ricks, who heads the Save Louisiana Coalition, a coastal management advocacy organization.
Ricks and many other fishermen blame the unprecedented deluge of freshwater pouring into the Gulf. The Bonnet Carre, a huge spillway that protects New Orleans, has already opened an unprecedented two times this year to divert surging Mississippi River water and is currently pouring more than 100,000 cubic feet per second into Lake Pontchartrain. Being able to close the spillway again depends on rainfall upriver.
The Army Corps of Engineers operates the spillway and says it has no choice but to keep it open to protect property upstream. The Corps argues that some of this flooding can be beneficial to the ecosystem. “The introduction of fresh water during leakage events simulates the natural cycle of overbank flooding and provides numerous ecosystem benefits to the aquatic and terrestrial resources in the spillway,” the agency notes on its website.
But some marine biologists say the flood of freshwater can be catastrophic for species such as bottlenose dolphins, which are very territorial and are reluctant to leave their spawning grounds even when salinity levels become toxic. Endangered species like Kemp’s ridley turtles are also threatened by river water exposure, since they depend on rich Gulf marshlands to grow and develop.
“We are experiencing a Cat 5 aquatic hurricane,” said Dr. Moby Solangi, director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi. Dolphins are particularly vulnerable to incursions of river water, he said. “Every time they open the Bonnet Carre spillway, we see a spike in deaths.”
Solangi’s team recently found a stranded dolphin on a Gulfport beach, breathing slowly and covered in freshwater lesions. It died a short time later.
“Dolphins are like the black box found on airplanes,” Solangi said. “They tell you what’s happening in the environment. When dolphins are doing well, the environment is doing well.”
By all accounts, the Gulf marine environment is not well. Scientists predict the annual dead zone — a giant blob of polluted, deoxygenated water linked to algae blooms — will grow to the size of Massachusetts and suffocate even more marine life later in the Gulf this summer.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared the bottlenose dolphin deaths an “Unusual Mortality Event” in February, and its investigation is ongoing. Officials say higher-than-normal dolphin strandings spiked in May, when there were 88 discovered along the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama coasts. That’s nearly eight times the average monthly number of dolphin mortalities during the BP spill from 2010 to 2014.
Total dolphin strandings have not reached the levels seen at the height of the BP spill, and there were fewer in June. Dr. Teri Rowles, NOAA’s marine mammal health and stranding program coordinator, said that researchers know freshwater exposure could be contributing to the health concerns, but that it’s too early in their investigation to pinpoint an exact cause.
“We do see dolphins with freshwater lesions, but not all the animals have skin lesions,” said Rowles.
Some dolphin populations have yet to recover from the BP oil spill, Rowles said, mainly due to reproductive problems. NOAA reports dolphins in heavily oiled areas are still suffering from chronic health problems and higher rates of failed pregnancies and mortalities.
But many fishermen who have worked in these areas for generations suspect something else is threatening their future: politics. As part of a plan to save Louisiana’s rapidly sinking coastline, state agencies want to pump in more sediment-heavy river water to help rebuild the disappearing land. Fishermen question the efficacy of freshwater diversions and worry about the dangers to fisheries and marine life posed by these projects. They question why NOAA would grant waivers to Louisiana last year to bypass the Marine Mammal Protection Act and allow the freshwater diversion construction to proceed.
Meanwhile, fishermen know a changing climate is not working in their favor. Scientists say the Mississippi River is expected to continue to flood in future years as the atmosphere heats up and produces stronger storms and more rainfall. Barry, the storm heading for the coast right now, is the latest to threaten the Gulf ecosystem, but certainly not the last.
All of this worries Acy Cooper, a fourth-generation fisherman and president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association who is leading a delegation of fishermen to Washington this month to plead their case for disaster assistance. He blames the Army Corps for not adequately managing the river and controlling and dredging the river passes that empty into the Gulf, making the effects of freshwater worse.
But his biggest worry is for his family and future generations. He comes from a long line of fishing families who have prospered and persevered in one of the most bountiful fisheries in the world, and he doesn’t want to be the last.
“My sons can’t make enough to feed their families,” he said. “What’s going to happen to them?”
Arnesen worries about this as well.
“If we keep operating like this, we’re going to kill the estuaries and the oceans, yet they still dismiss us,” she said. “Our fish feed America. That should matter to everyone.”
Why should a Chinese hoax that's killing the Gulf matter?
"the problem, genius, is this: the alarmists extrapolate and say what has happened in the last three years will continue indefinitely
No, very stable genius, that is NOT what people said about the last 3 years. That is a gross oversimplification of what was said, and you extrapolated far more than you should have. It is obvious those 3 points are very likely to continue the trend for those 3 years because the 3 points taken out of the 10-year average are about 0.4deg lower. Unless the temp for the next couple of years suddenly drops by 0.6deg or more - which appears very unlikely given the size of the drops since 1980, the temperature trend will continue inching upward.
And the simple physics of heat-trapping by CO2 and methane, which keep increasing, is likely to continue pushing it up.
"during the period with the greatest increase of automobiles, the 1945 through 1970, with an associated rise in carbon output, the global temperatures scarcely budged"
Do you have data showing that was the biggest rise in automobiles? Or is that another data point you made up? This might have been true in the US, but much of the rest of the modern world spent years slowly recovering their homes and industrial base.
The earth had a lot of ice on it. Converting that ice to liquid requires a LOT of heat - but the temperature of that ice doesn't budge until it turns into water. All it would take is a shift in ocean flows to bring more warm water to ice to cause a flat spot like what is seen in the data for 45 - 79. Unfortunately, we don't have satellite data for the early part of that period to confirm that. We also know that much of the CO2 has gone into the ocean, and not the air, so that limited what has accumulated in the atmosphere, limiting the temperature rise. The ocean simply can NOT keep doing that indefinitely.
"actually, most scientists were scrambling to explain that hiatus earlier in the decade and was even mentioned in the IPCC report but scientists, looking for a predetermined result, found an excuse to retroactively adjust the numbers"
There is always reason to try and explain anomalies better. That's how science advances, very stable genius. That's why we don't have to build computers out of vacuum tubes any more. Scientists figured out better ways of explaining electron flow inside solid devices.
By just looking at the trend line, you can see that there really is no "hiatus" from 1998-2013. The little squiggles are "in the noise" (about 0.05deg C) compared to the roughly 1deg C rise from the beginning to end of the same time period. Arguing about a 0.05deg trend-line dip in a signal that can vary year to year by 3 time that much is ridiculous. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
"at the time, they were saying fossil fuels would be depleted by now and overpopulation would result in widespread food shortages"
At the time, geological science wasn't able to show all the reserves it can now, and even if it did, the technology to extract it hadn't been invented yet. And as modern farming requires LOTS of fertilizer - and a lot of energy to make it, those concerns were reasonable.
Fortunately, scientific advances have continued (so far) to keep ahead of those problems. But there was no guarantee back then that those advances would or even could be made.
Your point is moot.
"in the 70s, apocalyptic pronouncements of all kinds became fashionable"
You must have been reading the grocery store gossip rags. Newspapers and have always made dramatic headlines out of scientific predictions of what "might" or "could" happen given certain conditions. But those kind of reasoned, bounded, and qualified positions stay inside the scientific papers - the ones that the public almost never reads.
But what the scientists actually write and what makes it into headlines are often entirely different things.
Trying to debunk modern scientific evidence with 50 year old headlines is lunacy.
"we do have ways we can cool the atmosphere though
we aren't scientists advocating them?"
Some of them are. You obviously haven't been able to find them under your rock.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/dusting-salt-could-cool-planet
Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta’s underwhelming performance at a news conference Wednesday failed to quell cries for him to resign. He left open a batch of questions: Why did you break the law to sign a secret settlement? Why did you not pursue more evidence, as the Southern District of New York prosecutors did? More important, Acosta left himself open to rebuttal and contradiction by the Florida state prosecutor, who objected to Acosta’s retelling of the case.
Former Palm Beach County state attorney Barry E. Krischer released a written statement after Acosta’s news conference. “I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong,” he said. And it went downhill from there for Acosta. “No matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. Attorney always had the ability to file his own criminal charges,” Krischer said. If Acosta, as he claimed in his news conference, was the only one standing between Jeffrey Epstein and a state charge with jail time, he could have pursued his 53-page indictment, Krischer pointed out. Krischer argued that instead Acosta drafted a secret deal in violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. “Mr . Acosta should not be allowed to rewrite history,” Krischer concluded.
Krischer might have the chance to tell his story to the House Oversight Committee, which is now investigating the matter. In a letter to Acosta, Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), chairman of the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties, called for him to appear in front of the committee on July 23...
In addition, the committee has requested “a briefing from the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice, which has been investigating Acosta’s conduct as United States Attorney.” They might also think of calling Krischer up to the Hill to hear his side of the story.
If Acosta wanted to assure Trump that he could put an end to the coverage of a man Trump once was quite chummy with and get his name out of the headlines, he failed miserably. The story — how a member of the Trump team let a wealthy, high-profile defendant off with a deal ordinary defendants would never have gotten — will stick around as long as Acosta does. And the longer Acosta remains, the more questions will arise as to why Trump is invariably on the side of the accused sex predator and never siding with the victims. It will certainly remind voters that Trump has been accused by more than a dozen women of unwanted sexual conduct, including the most recent claim from E. Jean Carroll that Trump raped her.
You’d think Christian conservatives would be the one group pushing the hardest to dump Acosta, but we’ve come to expect that they will stand by the accused sex predator in the White House no matter what the facts and no matter how odious the conduct.
Acosta should go, but if not, at least Democrats will have ample opportunity to demonstrate that the Trump crew and its evangelical cheerleaders would rather stand by the man who let Epstein go than the girls whose lives Epstein allegedly ruined. And Republicans in the House and Senate will shuffle their feet, mumble something about it all being a long time ago and then go back to lecturing us on family values. It’s hard to know who is most depraved — Acosta, Trump or the Republican enablers of both.
Six men sat down for a business meeting on the morning of October 18 last year, amid the hubbub and marble-columned opulence of Moscow’s iconic Metropol Hotel, to discuss plans for a “great alliance.”
A century earlier, the grand institution was the scene of events that helped change the face of Europe and the world: Czarist forces fought from inside the hotel as they tried and failed to hold the Bolsheviks back from the Kremlin in 1917, and it was here, in suite 217, that the first Soviet Constitution was drafted after the revolution succeeded.
The six men — three Russians, three Italians — gathered beneath the spectacular painted glass ceiling in the hotel lobby last October had their eyes on history too. Their nominal purpose was an oil deal; their real goal was to undermine liberal democracies and shape a new, nationalist Europe aligned with Moscow.
BuzzFeed News has obtained an explosive audio recording of the Metropol meeting in which a close aide of Europe’s most powerful far-right leader — Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini — and the other five men can be heard negotiating the terms of a deal to covertly channel tens of millions of dollars of Russian oil money to Salvini’s Lega party.
The recording reveals the elaborate lengths the two sides were willing to go to conceal the fact that the true beneficiary of the deal would be Salvini’s party — a breach of Italian electoral law, which bans political parties from accepting large foreign donations — despite the comfort with which he and Europe’s other far-right leaders publicly parade their pro-Kremlin political sympathies.
“We want to change Europe,” said longtime Salvini aide Gianluca Savoini — who dined alongside Vladimir Putin at a government banquet to celebrate the Russian president’s visit to Rome last week. “A new Europe has to be close to Russia as before because we want to have our sovereignty,” he continued over the clinking of coffee cups and buzz of conversation around the lobby.
As well as releasing excerpts of the Metropol tape — the existence of which is being revealed for the first time today — BuzzFeed News is also publishing a transcript of the entire recording.
2016 Trump
2018 Salvini
Practice makes perfect!
https://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1148399719334449152
Alex Acosta resigns as labor secretary amid intense scrutiny of his handling of Jeffrey Epstein case
"...As of Tuesday, congressional Republicans continued to stand by Acosta, saying issues about the plea deal were vetted at his confirmation hearing in 2017.
Epstein, 66, signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities and pleaded guilty in state court in 2008 to felony solicitation of underage girls.
During his 13-month sentence in a Palm Beach, Fla., jail, Epstein was allowed to work out of his office six days a week. As U.S. attorney, Acosta approved the deal. A federal judge this year ruled that prosecutors violated the rights of victims by failing to notify them of an agreement not to bring federal charges.
At a news conference Wednesday, Acosta defended his role as a federal prosecutor in brokering the decade-old plea deal for Epstein, but lawyers for alleged victims criticized his explanation and Democrats called for him to appear at a congressional hearing in two weeks...."
The ruling protects an open channel for foreign officials, lobbyists and anyone else who can afford it to funnel money to a sitting U.S. president
A federal court rejected an effort Wednesday to stop President Trump from profiting off a hotel he owns blocks away from the White House, maintaining an open channel for foreign officials, lobbyists and anyone else who can afford it to funnel money to a sitting U.S. president.
The attorneys general of Washington D.C. and Maryland argue that a payment to the Trump hotel doubles as a political investment, giving Trump’s business an advantage over area competitors and allowing him to “brazenly” profit off the presidency. On Wednesday, the hotel’s cheapest room was $671 for the night. The priciest listed: $1,526.
But the federal district court of appeals three-judge panel ordered the case dismissed, overturning a lower court ruling and saying, effectively, that forcing Trump to cut ties with the hotel wouldn’t solve the problem.
“Even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel. After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote.
On Wednesday, the attorneys general said they were undeterred by the court’s decision. “We think that this panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong,” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a joint statement. “Although the court described a litany of ways in which this case is unique, it failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought—in the Constitution—to prohibit.”
They continued: “We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Nation’s original anti-corruption laws. We believe that the federal trial judge correctly decided that the plaintiffs have standing—and that discovery should go forward on President Trump’s receipt of emoluments. All Americans suffer when our chief executive is vulnerable to corrupt foreign influence. The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the President’s violation of the Constitution is plain error. We will continue to pursue our legal options to hold him accountable.”
Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaker Paul Ryan is a truly good man, and while he will not be seeking re-election, he will leave a legacy of achievement that nobody can question. We are with you Paul!
9:50 AM - Apr 11, 2018
How soon he forgets.
Good anonymous said "Yet, when you look at the data in the graphs, (the ones included in the previous link) they keep showing that the red line - the TREND line - keeps increasing.
Are you BLIND too?
Are you really so obtuse you can't understand what the trend line in the graph is showing you?!?!"
Yes, Wyatt/Regina Hardiman and right wing authoritarians like them are willfully blind to the human caused global climate warmming that will destroy all life in earth in 300 - 1000 years.
They know deep down the climate record of the last 100 years clearly shows 50 times the rate of warming that has occurred in the previous 12,000 years and that this can only be accounted for by the greenhouse effect of people burning fossil fuels.
They don't care though. This climate disaster spans multiple generations so Wyatt and Regina couldn't care less what happens to future generations - they're only concerned with maximizing their wealth and power right now, no matter that behaving as they have will result in the extinction of the human race
This weekend, Trump National Doral, one of the president’s Florida clubs, planned to host a fund-raiser allowing golfers to bid on strippers to serve as their caddies. Though the event was canceled when it attracted too much attention, it’s at once astounding and not surprising at all that it was approved in the first place.
In truth, a stripper auction is tame by the standard of gross Trump stories, since at least the women were willing. Your eyes would glaze over if I tried to list every Trump associate implicated in the beating or sexual coercion of women. Still, it’s worth reviewing a few lowlights, because it’s astonishing how quickly the most lurid misdeeds fade from memory, supplanted by new degradations.
Acosta, you’ll remember, got his job because Trump’s previous pick, Andrew Puzder, withdrew following the revelation that his ex-wife, pseudonymous and in disguise, had appeared on an Oprah episode about “High Class Battered Women.” (She later retracted her accusations.)
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, was once charged with domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness. (The case was dropped when his former wife failed to appear in court.) After Bill Shine, a former co-president of Fox News, was forced from his job for his involvement in Fox’s sprawling sexual harassment scandals, Trump hired him.
The White House staff secretary Rob Porter resigned last year after it was revealed that both of his ex-wives had accused him of abuse. The White House speechwriter David Sorensen resigned after his ex-wife came forward with stories of his violence toward her.
Elliott Broidy, a major Trump fund-raiser who became the Republican National Committee deputy finance chairman, resigned last year amid news that he’d paid $1.6 million as hush money to a former playboy model, Shera Bechard, who said she’d had an abortion after he got her pregnant. (In a lawsuit, Bechard said Broidy had been violent.) The casino mogul Steve Wynn, who Trump installed as the R.N.C.’s finance chairman, resigned amid accusations that he’d pressured his employees for sex. He remains a major Republican donor.
In 2017, Trump tapped the former chief executive of AccuWeather, Barry Myers, to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Then The Washington Post discovered a report from a Department of Labor investigation into Myers’s company, which found a culture of “widespread sexual harassment” that was “severe and pervasive.” The Senate hasn’t yet voted on Myers’s nomination, but the administration hasn’t withdrawn it.
And just this week, a senior military officer came forward to accuse Gen. John Hyten, Trump’s nominee to be the next vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of derailing her career when she turned down his sexual advances. “My life was ruined by this,” she told The Associated Press. (The Air Force reportedly cleared him of misconduct.)
Trump will sometimes jettison men accused of abuse when they become a public relations liability. But his first instinct is empathy, a sentiment he seems otherwise unfamiliar with. In May, he urged Roy Moore, the theocratic Alabama Senate candidate accused of preying on teenage girls, not to run again because he would lose, but added, “I have NOTHING against Roy Moore, and unlike many other Republican leaders, wanted him to win.” The president has expressed no sympathy for victims in the Epstein case, but has said he felt bad for Acosta.
If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive; declaring that “the science is settled”; and further declaring that impending further increases in temperatures over the next decade or several decades are an “existential crisis” that must be addressed immediately through complete transformation of our economy at enormous cost.
On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:
What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!
What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!
Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!
You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union.
What’s going on here? If this is “science,” it’s some kind of “science” that turns the scientific method that you thought you understood on its head. There are multiple instances of real scientists attempting to apply the actual scientific method to the human-caused global warming hypothesis. For example, a scientific paper from a group of scientists led by James Wallace concluded that the so-called “Tropical Hot Spot” (a pattern of temperatures in the tropical lower troposphere) could not be found in the temperature data, thus invalidating the basis on which the U.S. EPA had concluded that CO2-induced greenhouse warming was occurring. Another paper with Wallace as lead author that tested whether any statistically-significant relationship could be shown between the time series line of world temperatures (as measured by UAH) and the time series line of atmospheric CO2. Conclusion: “[I]ncreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on the UAH TLT 6.0 temperature data set over the period 1979 to 2016.”
You might think that serious papers like these that seem to have invalidated the very foundations of the global warming scare would draw equally-serious rebuttals from some high-ranking people who back the global warming hypothesis. Perhaps they would point out important data that were not considered, or would demonstrate a flaw in the methodology. But you would be wrong. Instead, these and other comparable papers are simply ignored. In lieu of any rebuttal, we get endless repetition of the mantra that “the science is settled.”
The past few months brought two new and important papers into the mix. The first, from the January-February 2019 issueof a Russian science journal, is O.M. Povrovsky, “Cloud Changes in the Period of Global Warming: the Results of the International Satellite Project.” The second, with a date of June 29, 2019, is J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
Some background will be helpful. Since about 2007, there has been a notable counter-theory to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The counter-theory is that fluctuations in world temperatures over the past several decades have been caused more by fluctuations in the cloud cover of the earth than by increases in greenhouse gases like CO2. This counter-theory is often called the “Svensmark hypothesis,” after Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who proposed it. The basic idea is that heavy clouds act like an umbrella and prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, thus resulting in cooler temperatures. The hypothesis then ties world temperatures to solar activity through the intermediation of cosmic rays. The hypothesis proposes this mechanism: Cosmic rays are a factor in ionization of the atmosphere, which enhances cloud formation. Strong solar irradiation produces a more powerful “solar wind,” which disperses the cosmic rays, leading to fewer clouds on the earth, and hence warmer temperatures. Conversely, lower solar irradiation allows more cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere, forming more clouds and resulting in cooler temperatures.
I have no position on whether this hypothesis is “right.” However, prior to the collection of data, it is a plausible hypothesis — equally as plausible as the hypothesis that increasing temperatures are mainly caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. Accepting the human-caused warming hypothesis as proved requires rejecting the alternative Svensmark hypothesis (as well as all other plausible null hypotheses; but let’s stick with Svensmark for now).
Which brings us to the Povrovsky and Kauppinen, et al., papers. Povrovsky did something that somebody should have long since done by now, which is to collect month-by-month satellite cloud-cover data for the earth for the period 1983-2009, and plot it on a graph, and then compare that graph to the month-by-month temperature graphs. What is the correlation of the two? From Povlovsky:
[T]he correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86). . . . Since the tropics are dominated by water areas, this fact suggests that the increasing influx of solar radiation primarily entails an increase in the temperature of the ocean surface (TPO). Not surprisingly, the cloud cover values themselves and their temporal trends are close to global characteristics. Thus, changes in cloud cover over three decades during global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also some interannual variability.
Lol, Wyatt/Regina have been posting several times a day every day until I make one post on a Friday morning and they're so scared of me they have to wait three days to be sure I'm gone before they post again.
Again we see here with Wyatt/Regina a standard conservative tactic for derailing honest debate - the feigned sincerity of "Just explain this remotely relevant technical detail and I'll be convinced".
That's what their previous two posts are, an attempt to bait the liberal into taking them seriously and going off to provide the proof they're wrong and when that's done the conservative always has yet another "explain this remotely relevant bit" - it never ends. It never ends because there is no good faith debate by Wyatt/Regina, its just an attempt to engage in neverending debate about trivially relevant bits so as to try to create the false impression that there is doubt about Human Caused Global Climate Warming.
If global warming is a hoax/debatable as Wyatt/Regina constantly claim, there must be a better explanation for the drastic global warming seen in the last 100 years than the greenhouse effect from CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels - what is it?
The earth has been warming 50 times as fast as the climate has changed in the previous 12,000 years. Wyatt/Regina would have you believe its just a co-incidence that this is happening as humans have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 50% - that's preposterous. Natural cause can't explain this drastic increase in the rate of warming of our climate. There is no other alternative explanation that readily fits that fact, if there was any doubt that we are causing climate change there would be.
So, Wyatt/Regina, if you want TTF readers to take you seriously:
What is your alternative explanation for our climate now changing 50 times faster than it has in the previous 12,000 years if its "just a coincidence" that this is happening as we've increased atmospheric greenhouse gases by 50%?
If there is any doubt about global warming you should easily be able to provide an alternaztive hypothesis that better fits the data - what is it????
Doesn't Tony Perkins and the Russian GRU have any other tactic than trying to engage in endless ennui posting obscure technical details to try to send debate down a black hole?
Yawn.
The earth has been warming 50 times as fast as the climate has changed in the previous 12,000 years. TTF would have you believe its just a coincidence that this is happening as humans have increasingly began watching movies, then television, then internet videos - that's preposterous!
When it comes to climate change, f the scientific method. There's no need for a falsifiable hypothesis, no need for the data caused a null hypothesis to be rejected, no full data set sufficient to fully replicate the results, no details supporting major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets.
Instead we'll base all our theories on sheer correlation.
Hence it must be videos..
or radio waves...
or antibiotics...
or cars...
or telephones...
or income taxes..
or birth control...
or one of the other million things that happened in the 20th century..
yeah, there aren't that many alternative explanations...
only a couple hundreds, tops...
Dems have made a serious miscalculation over the last 3 years, portraying Russia as our principal enemy. Russia is a third world economy an wants our favor. The true threat to our way of life is the Chinese government, which is currently perfecting the surveillance state and increasingly exporting to deal with its enemies.
In addition to the Supreme Court and the bustling economy, this is another feather in the Trump hat, that he recognized this early on. Some results of our trade war:
China released second-quarter figures on Monday showing that its economy slowed to 6.2% — the weakest rate in at least 27 years, as the country’s trade war with the U.S. took its toll.
From April to June, China’s economy grew 6.2% from a year ago, the country’s statistics bureau said on Monday. That was lower than the 6.4% year-on-year growth in the first quarter of 2019.
The second quarter economic growth was the country’s slowest pace since the first quarter of 1992 — the earliest quarterly data on record, according to Reuters.
China’s statistics bureau said the economy faces a complex situation with increasing external uncertainties, Reuters reported. The world’s second largest economy also faces new downward pressures, the statistics bureau added.
China’s months-long trade dispute with the U.S. has weighed on its economy.
“Uncertainty caused by the US-China trade war was an important factor and we think this will persist, despite the recent tariff truce, ” said Tom Rafferty, principal economist for China at The Economist Intelligence Unit
"What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!"
The "Bastille Day" posts come from Francis Menton, semi-retired contract and security claims lawyer, and climate blogger who shows he doesn't actually understand science, but is really good at wording arguments - like you'd expect from a lawyer.
His climate denying blog post is here: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/?author=503a7965e4b0b543ed24305c
and a short bio is here:
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/francis-menton
Now, back to "What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!"
There falsifiable hypothesis throughout climate science, but apparently, since scientific papers (if he ever actually read one) don't explicitly say "This is the falsifiable hypothesis..." he can't find it. Yet they are implicitly present in many papers.
Here are a couple of examples:
"The CO2 comes more from natural sources than man made sources."
That's falsifiable. Scientists have looked at the Carbon 12 vs Carbon 13 ratio (because it is different between the two sources) and found that the largest footprint belongs to humans:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
"The warming is caused by solar sunspot cycles."
That is falsifiable. The change in solar irradiance does affect our temperature and climate. However, the effects of regular solar cycles are too small to account for the changes we've seen over the last century:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/virtualmuseum/SunCyclesandClimateChange.shtml
So, just because Francis "can't find it!" doesn't mean there aren't falsifiable hypothesis all throughout climate science. If he doesn't even understand what a falsifiable hypothesis is (or bothered to read a scientific paper with one it) just how valid can this lawyer's "scientific opinion" be?!
Wyatt/Regina/Tony Perkins/Russia said "yeah, there aren't that many alternative explanations...only a couple hundreds, tops..."
Now show us how any of your alternative "explanations" better fit the climate data than the greenhouse effect of human caused CO2 emissions.
Global warming deniers should easily be able to demonstrate how an alternative explanation better fits the data...if there were one. And there isn't.
The planet is warming 50 times as fast as the climate has changed in the previous 12,000 years. Only the greenhouse effect from burning fossil fuels explains this.
Wyatt/Regina said "The CO2 comes more from natural sources than man made sources."
Nonsense. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 50% over the past 100 years - a rough tallying of how much fossil fuel humans have been burned during this time accounts for this increase. Its not possible that humans have burned all this fossil fuel and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not from that source.
Wyatt/Regina said "The warming is caused by solar sunspot cycles."
Ohhh,that's a hilarious contradiction of what you've previously posted here, not that that is a surprise.
As you've argued over the past few years, the sunspot activity is currently undergoing a solar minimum which should be resulting in planetary cooling, not warming. Remember? You repeatedly have claimed that sunspot cycles shows the planet is going to cool in the immediate future because this is what has happened in the past with natural climate cycles. Trouble for Wyatt/Regina is that the planet is still warming despite what should be a cooling trend of lower solar output as is evidenced by sun-spot cycles in the past.
When the planet is warming in spite of natural cycles that have always resulted in cooling in the past, we are in deep shit. Not that Wyatt/Regina Hardiman care - they'll be dead before people start dying off in droves from global warming caused food shortages and disasters. So for Wyatt/Regina its like it is with Right Wing Authoritarians like them - "Things are find for me, f*ck everyone else, and f*ck future generations I'll kill with my mess."
First Wyatt/Regina argues that the current sunspot activity is entering a solar minimum and this proves the planet is, or will shortly stop warming and begin cooling. Now they argue that the current sunspot activity which shows the sun in lower activity is causing the global warming we are now seeing.
There's no good faith argument there, they're just bullshitting any way that comes to mind to pretend the disaster humans are causing is not happening. It obviously IS happening.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have 11 years to make the drastic changes necessary to stop out of control global warming due to climate feedback cycles that accelerate warming even more.
If we don't have global greenhouse gas emissions down to zero in eleven years, if we keep going the way we have been up and till now, we will trigger a sudden (on a geological time scale) tipping point in which warming gets out of control and nothing we do can stop it. At that point it will take (in my estimate) 300 to 1000 years before earth is too hot to sustain life at all.
Venus used to have liquid water on its surface. Venus is in the "habitable zone" in terms of its distance from our sun. Yet Venus went into an uncontrolled green-house effect that has resulted in its surface temperature being hot enough to melt lead. Nothing lives there. That's what we're doing to earth
Hey Waytt/Regina - You repeatedly said over the past few months "I WILL NEVER RESPOND TO ONE OF PRIYA'S POSTS EVER AGAIN!!!"
So, here you are responding to my post, what happened, lol!
Just more of the constant flood of lies from Wyatt/Regina and right wing authoritarians like them.
It sure is nice to know the genius Good Anonymous is here when I'm not using his/her vast array of knowledge to easily point out the lies by Wyatt/Regina on any technical detail they dig up from global warming denialists in order to deceive.
Who needs pollinators??
EPA Approves Bee-Killing Pesticide After U.S. Quits Tracking Vanishing Hives
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
130 years of data, including the last five years, which are the
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.31°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)
Stephen King✔
@StephenKing
First, you stoke hatred and fear of minorities. Then you round them up and put them in camps. Next, you send out raiding parties to get those who have been driven into hiding. The armbands come next right?
3:32 PM - Jul 14, 2019
Don't forget the yellow badges!
sloppy spelling bee drop-out said:
"the human caused global climate warmming that will destroy all life in earth in 300 - 1000 years"
but also says:
"the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have 11 years to make the drastic changes"
or what?
"At that point it will take (in my estimate) 300 to 1000 years before earth is too hot to sustain life at all"
notice how sloppy spelling bee drop-out easily flips from "the overwhelming scientific consensus" to "in my estimate"
this person has no credibility whatsover
The crisis at the border is absolutely a manufactured one, created by Trump’s policy of turning away asylum seekers and separating families. Pence presented no evidence of “adult men, many of whom have been arrested multiple times" in his tweet. It sounded a lot like Trump claiming that undocumented Mexican immigrants were “bringing drugs…bringing crime. They’re rapists,” in his June 2015 campaign kickoff.
In the second awful tweet, in which Pence brags about the “excellent care” given to the children in the picture, well, the photos he tweeted himself prove Pence is a liar. We see a little boy whose head doesn’t reach the vice president’s waist staring blankly, as well as a toddler girl sitting alone behind him on a bench, looking forsaken. If that’s “excellent care,” never leave your kids alone with Mike Pence. I couldn’t stop thinking about those two tiny faces all weekend.
Clearly Pence and Trump didn’t want to sanitize their border cruelty; they wanted these images broadcast. Their base no doubt thrills to the photos of brown men in cages; the brown children, well, they’re there because of their criminal parents. Pence’s performative Christianity sickens me, but it’s clear he worships one God, and it’s Donald Trump.
It was a relief that there were very few actual ICE raids on Sunday, although more could come this week. But again, the announcement of the raids had their intended effect: They terrorized immigrant communities and forced advocates to spend scarce time and money strategizing to protect the undocumented, rather than working to get the children and others cruelly detained at the border released. And they broadcast Trump’s trademark cruelty to a base that loves it.
I said "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have 11 years to make the drastic changes necessary to stop out of control global warming due to climate feedback cycles that accelerate warming even more."
Wyatt/Regina said "or what?"
I thought that should be clear. If we don't cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero within 11 years, the global warming trend will be unstoppable, we will have reached the tipping point from which the earth's climate cannot be restored to its normals, it will just keep getting hotter until earth can no longer support life, no matter what we do.
"I said "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have 11 years to make the drastic changes necessary to stop out of control global warming due to climate feedback cycles that accelerate warming even more.""
This is only the consensus among asylum inmates at a certain Canadian nut house.
The earth has been warming 50 times as fast as the climate has changed in the previous 12,000 years. TTF would have you believe its just a coincidence that this is happening as humans have beamed more and more radio waves into the atmosphere - that's preposterous!
When it comes to climate change, f the scientific method. There's no need for a falsifiable hypothesis, no need for the data causing a null hypothesis to be rejected, no full data set sufficient to fully replicate the results, no details supporting major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets.
Instead we'll base all our theories on sheer correlation.
Hence it must be radio waves in the atmosphere.
"The "Bastille Day" posts come from Francis Menton, semi-retired contract and security claims lawyer, and climate blogger who shows he doesn't actually understand science, but is really good at wording arguments - like you'd expect from a lawyer."
if any of the loud-mouth TTFers here have a degree in climatology, do let us know
because we know you aren't really any good at wording arguments
"There falsifiable hypothesis throughout climate science"
not on the theory that human activity causes global warming or that climate change is likely to cause a catastrophe
""The CO2 comes more from natural sources than man made sources."
That's falsifiable."
doesn't prove CO2 is causing global warming
it's irrelevant
theory is often called the “Svensmark hypothesis,” after Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who proposed it. The basic idea is that heavy clouds act like an umbrella and prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, thus resulting in cooler temperatures. The hypothesis then ties world temperatures to solar activity through the intermediation of cosmic rays. The hypothesis proposes this mechanism: Cosmic rays are a factor in ionization of the atmosphere, which enhances cloud formation. Strong solar irradiation produces a more powerful “solar wind,” which disperses the cosmic rays, leading to fewer clouds on the earth, and hence warmer temperatures. Conversely, lower solar irradiation allows more cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere, forming more clouds and resulting in cooler temperatures.
It is a plausible hypothesis — equally as plausible as the hypothesis that increasing temperatures are mainly caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. Accepting the human-caused warming hypothesis as proved requires rejecting the alternative Svensmark hypothesis (as well as all other plausible null hypotheses; but let’s stick with Svensmark for now).
Which brings us to the Povrovsky and Kauppinen, et al., papers. Povrovsky did something that somebody should have long since done by now, which is to collect month-by-month satellite cloud-cover data for the earth for the period 1983-2009, and plot it on a graph, and then compare that graph to the month-by-month temperature graphs. What is the correlation of the two? From Povlovsky:
[T]he correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86). . . . Since the tropics are dominated by water areas, this fact suggests that the increasing influx of solar radiation primarily entails an increase in the temperature of the ocean surface (TPO). Not surprisingly, the cloud cover values themselves and their temporal trends are close to global characteristics. Thus, changes in cloud cover over three decades during global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also some interannual variability.
"So, just because Francis "can't find it!" doesn't mean there aren't falsifiable hypothesis all throughout climate science."
he didn't say there are no falsifiable hypotheses in climate science
he was talking about the theory of causes of global warming
read carefully
"I have never been more concerned for the immediate fate of the world than now."
this is a lie
nuts are always paranoid to the max that everything is all wrong
it's nothing new
All of the asshats in our society seem to be coalescing into a single political identity closely aligned with other global right-wing asshats, with Putin and other bad actors mixed in. Each country/region has it's own Trump and Trumpleton wannabes, who are just copies of Putin and his vatniks. It's like Putin is building a DIY template for dictators and it seems like a whole new game is developing right in front of us. One where traditional national boundaries fade in importance and are replaced with ideological ones thanks to the internet. We'd be wise not to underestimate the asshats because they've taken control and murdered slews of people plenty of times in the past. and there's no reason to think our species has somehow outgrown that. The Bad Guys have got frighteningly incomprehensible technologies nobody is prepared for, and global resources are beginning to wane.
In 11 years 40% of India won't have drinking water. Think about that for a minute, because domestic American politics will be playing out in the midst of a planetary ecological collapse. It's not just India. People from all sorts of countries will need to suddenly emigrate just to survive and if you think there won't be new wars you'd better give it more thought. We can probably get rid of Trump...probably ...but what if the next wannabe Hitler isn't a doofus? What if the next Trump is clever? The next ten years will give him a lot of excuses for a lot of power grabs. We need to be prepared.
All this was predicted by scientists decades ago. And the GOP refused to acknowledge it then or now, because it's not convenient and because it can't be monetized to their benefit. The fact that millions will die is insignificant to them.
"he didn't say there are no falsifiable hypotheses in climate science
he was talking about the theory of causes of global warming"
This is what he wrote:
"On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:
What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!...
...What’s going on here? If this is “science,” it’s some kind of “science” that turns the scientific method that you thought you understood on its head."
It was clearly a condemnation of what he perceived as a lack of proper application of the scientific method in wide swaths of climate science - from the "null hypothesis" to computer code and "major-after-the fact adjustments."
Your attempt to narrowly restrict what he wrote to try an make your point epitomizes your perpetual reading comprehension problem - or that perhaps that you just can't remember what you just read for more than about 30 seconds.
And yes, I read the “Svensmark hypothesis” the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing, for a couple of reasons...
First, let's look at the falsifiable aspect of it, just as Menton suggests, and "comparing the satellite-based cloud data to temperature data for the 1983-2008 period".
So we have one 25 year period period over which to compare this data - maybe a few more years before that if there was some satellite cloud data they haven't found yet, or maybe not - I don't know which satellite first started reporting cloud coverage.
But so far, we only have about 25 years of data to compare this to, and no chance of checking for falsifiability before satellites went up. That's a pretty span of time, even when compared with manual temperature records going back 150 years. And then of course there are the temperature proxies in ice cores and tree rings that other climate scientists use to check their models.
So retroactive falsifiability is very limited, and if someone wants to promote this theory now, they should at least include data from 2009 to 2019 to see if their theory still fits. Has that data been left out because it doesn't fit with theory? If you're really trying to get to the bottom of things start there. At least there is a falsifiable conjecture going forward.
Continued >>>
(>>> Continued)
Next, "The hypothesis proposes this mechanism: Cosmic rays are a factor in ionization of the atmosphere, which enhances cloud formation."
Great, we have something falsifiable here. Something we can latch onto. So where is the data for cosmic rays? Is it in the papers these guys wrote? Is there a graph somewhere that plots it against cloud cover? Did these guys ever actually get any cosmic ray data to corroborate their theory? If so, why is it not mentioned here? If you can find it, please provide a link.
I can propose a theory that global warming is caused by unicorn farts. But if I don't actually have any data on unicorn farts, I don't expect it to go very far.
As for the inverse correlation between cloud cover and temperature, that can be explained by the freezing temperature of water. You don't get much water condensing on the A/C cooled windows of your house in the summer, in spite of the fact that there is MUCH more moisture in the air in the summer than the winter. Your breath doesn't fog up your glasses when you go out on a hot summer day, but it can easily do that in the winter - because it's COLD!
The more cold air there is around, the greater chance there is to condense water into ice crystals and form clouds. With warmer air, the moisture stays in a clear vapor phase that is invisible. Hence, fewer clouds.
This is basic 5th grade science class stuff. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Fewer clouds are just what one would expect with a warmer atmosphere - at the very least to a crude approximation. In which case, the fewer clouds are a SYMPTOM of global warming, and NOT A CAUSE.
If you want to claim that cosmic rays are causing fewer clouds, fine. First you need to show us the cosmic ray data, and then you need to show how you can separate how much of the fewer clouds are caused by cosmic rays and how much was caused by increased temperatures. This is called a "model," and it would be based on the known physics of gasses, liquid, and cosmic ray interactions with molecules.
Did these guys ever bother to make a model? If there was, it's not mentioned in your reference, but it would certainly be worth taking a look at it.
Otherwise, we might as well stick to unicorn farts.
Typo correction, post before last one above:
"That's a pretty span of time,"
Should be:
"That's a pretty short span of time,"
"It was clearly a condemnation of what he perceived as a lack of proper application of the scientific method in wide swaths of climate science"
no, it wasn't
you are displaying signs of TTF false extrapolation syndrome
"Your attempt to narrowly restrict what he wrote"
no attempting necessary
he stated precisely what he talking about
"And yes, I read the “Svensmark hypothesis” the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing, for a couple of reasons..."
it wasn't meant to convince
much like anthropogenic global warming theory, it may not be true
the point was that there was as much evidence to pursue as there is for AGW theory but that biased researchers have ignored it
"This is basic 5th grade science class stuff. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out."
interesting..
before you were attacking this guy because he's not a scientist and has no understanding of these things
now, you're saying it's "basic 5th grade science class stuff"
so, looks like he has the standing to discuss it after all
he made it past fifth grade
you wonder how times that took the average TTFer
Donald Trump’s tweets over the weekend were the basest kind of bigotry, the oldest of racist tropes. And they were a reminder that in the eyes of some, who apparently include our current president, people of color will never be seen as fully American, regardless of how many generations their families have been part of this nation’s story or how much they achieve as individuals.
Annapolis, MD-- On Monday, Maryland Democratic Party Chair Maya Rockeymoore Cummings issued a scathing statement in response to President Trump’s nakedly racist calls for U.S. Members of Congress to “go back” to where they came from. Congressman Andy Harris doubled down on Trump’s remarks, saying Monday that the tweets are “clearly not racist.”
Trump’s language closely mirrors the “go back to Africa” refrains used by white supremacists throughout modern U.S. history.
“The President’s language thrusts a dagger in the heart of our diverse democracy,” said Rockeymoore Cummings. “The President’s attack is a calculated strategy to energize his base who are clearly receptive to white nationalist arguments that reinforce the blasphemous notion that to be legitimately American is to be a white American.”
The tweets were directed at a group of freshman lawmakers including Rep. Rashida Talib, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rep. Ilhan Omar; three of whom were born in the United States; one of whom became a naturalized U.S. citizen; and all of whom are women of color.
Approximately half of all Maryland residents are people of color. And the Maryland Democratic Party has always supported initiatives and legislation that celebrates our diversity while working to ameliorate historical inequities affecting groups that continue to be the target of discrimination in our society. Democrats remain committed to eliminating racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, xenophobia, ableism, misogyny, sexual assault, and other forms of bigotry.
For these reasons, the Chair is issuing a call for Maryland Republicans to join the Party in denouncing Trump’s racist tweets-- including Rep. Andy Harris who has supported Trump’s statements.
“The residents of Maryland deserve to know that their elected officials aren’t in vocal or silent support of blatantly racist tweets coming from the White House. I call on Governor Hogan, Rep. Harris, and all other Maryland Republicans to join us in rejecting Trump’s hate speech. We may differ on issues of politics, but we must be united in our opposition to blatantly bigoted language meant to stoke racial resentment,” Rockeymoore Cummings said.
The Party values social and economic equity, fairness, and inclusion in all policy and political endeavors. As such, the Party adopted a new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative in February of this year to strengthen the values of inclusion within the party, as well as make party operatives more effective at serving the diverse communities of Maryland.
The Maryland Democratic Party’s new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative includes the following new directives:
Making guidance on diversity, equity, and inclusion a mandatory component of all political trainings offered by the Maryland Democratic Party
Integrating culturally appropriate materials and outreach into our year-round community engagement and mobilization strategy
Implementing a diversity in hiring and contracting policy as a fundamental aspect of party operations
Promoting dignity and respect for all human beings as a core value of the state party
"you wonder how [] times that took"
We all notice how you have so much more than a simple spelling problem, like claiming to be Christian while wholly supporting the pussy grabber in chief.
Meanwhile, President Bankruptcy who loves spending other people's money and his party of suck-ups, lead us into ever more debt:
The U.S. government had roughly $19 trillion in debt when Trump took office, and now total government debt has surpassed $22 trillion.
Many Republicans decried raising the debt limit during the Obama administration, saying the government should do more to cut back on borrowing. But they have mostly gone along with Trump’s efforts to widen the debt through tax cuts and large spending increases.
TTF hypocrite Troll bitches about spelling in comments yet fully supports: ‘Really Good Speller’ Trump’s Handwritten Note Shows Embarrassing Mistakes
Twitter users mock the president’s latest spelling errors.
Just last week, President Donald Trump bragged that he was really a “good speller” despite his reputation for Twitter typos. However, another handwritten note caught on camera shows he struggles with writing simple words on paper.
In this case: “people,” which the president spelled as “peopel.”
The note from Trump’s comments on Monday when he doubled down on racist attacks against several lawmakers also contained another gaffe, with the president misspelling “al Qaeda” as “alcaida.”
Last week, Trump claimed his well-documented spelling struggles were simply a matter of clumsy fingers on a smartphone screen.
“Really I’m actually a good speller,” he said. “But everyone said the fingers aren’t as good as the brain.”
Yet Trump’s handwritten notes have consistently contained spelling errors as well, including one last month torching Democrats for having “no achomlishments.”
=====================
Who hates America?
Rump's American Carnage Inaugural Address
"before you were attacking this guy because he's not a scientist and has no understanding of these things
now, you're saying it's "basic 5th grade science class stuff"
so, looks like he has the standing to discuss it after all
he made it past fifth grade"
And here we see the underlying flaw in your logic, and your problems with reading comprehension.
A fifth grader can understand why glasses fog up in the winter, and why there is more ice when it's cold.
That DOES NOT qualify him to speak intelligently on scientific matters, and I never said anything that implies otherwise. But apparently, that's enough of a qualification for you and Francis. That is an unwarranted extrapolation on your part, and probably explains why you fall for the explanations of non-scientists and conspiracy theorists so easily - at least when they agree with you.
Otherwise, you wouldn't claim "looks like he has the standing to discuss it after all."
"doesn't prove CO2 is causing global warming
it's irrelevant"
The first guy to calculate CO2's warming effect on our atmosphere was a Nobel prize winning Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius. After THOUSANDS of calculations he published a paper on it in 1896. Yes, EIGHTEEN-96.
Thousands of scientists around the world have had ample opportunities in the intervening 123 years to prove him wrong or continue to validate his theory. And many scientists have disagreed with him along the way, but none of them have proven his basic premise wrong.
If you have some evidence to contradict his theory, very stable genius, please save the world and let us in on your secret.
Otherwise, not believing that CO2 causes global warming is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nah, nah, nah! I can't hear you!"
This link gives some of the history surrounding the understanding of CO2's contribution to our climate:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/jun/30/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment2
A copy of Dr. Arrhenius' paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" is at:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Should anyone care to read it.
While Trump was doubling down on his controversial [RACIST] tweets [against 4 minority elected officials], Epstein was attending his bail hearing. At the hearing, prosecutors revealed that the contents of a locked safe in Epstein’s Manhattan mansion allegedly included diamonds, cash — and a bogus and outdated passport with Epstein’s photograph, a different name and an address in Saudi Arabia.
Coincidence? Maybe. But, really? What’s clear is that Trump wants to distance himself from Epstein, whom he knew socially, as photos have captured . In one instance, they were reportedly the only two male guests at a party attended by a bevy of young women. That’s a pretty intimate bromance.
It’s also clear that the very private Epstein has received very special treatment despite his illegal activities, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement negotiated by outgoing labor secretary Alexander Acosta, who on Friday agreed to step down after reports detailed his role in the sweetheart deal when he was a U.S. attorney in Miami.
The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.
Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now.
The footage shows two wealthy men laughing and pointing as they appear to discuss young and beautiful women dancing at a party.
Today, one of the men is president of the United States. The other is in federal lockup awaiting a bail decision as he fights sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
The November 1992 tape in the NBC archives shows Donald Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, now a private club, more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to felony prostitution charges in Florida.
The president says he hasn’t spoken to Epstein since, and that his relationship with him was no different than that of anyone else in their elite circle. “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump said last week. “I was not a fan.”
But on the tape, Trump gives Epstein plenty of personal attention.
The 1992 footage was shot by NBC for Faith Daniels’ talk show, “A Closer Look,” in a profile of the newly divorced Trump’s lifestyle. The future president was largely surrounded by cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills, in town for a game against the Miami Dolphins. The women offered the camera glowing testimonials about their fun-loving host.
As music pumps in the background, the tape shows Trump walking through a corridor to greet Epstein and two other guests. “Come on in … Go inside,” Trump says.
Later in the footage, Trump is seen talking to Epstein and another man while they watch the women on the dance floor. Trump noted the presence of an NBC camera to Epstein, and both point out women, while Trump occasionally claps and dances to the beat.
Though exactly what they say is difficult to understand, Trump is seen gesturing to a woman and appears to say to Epstein, “Look at her, back there. … She’s hot.” Epstein reacted with a smile and nod.
Trump then said something else into Epstein’s ear that caused Epstein to double over with laughter.
But as the president says now, he never liked Epstein.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tape-shows-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-discussing-women-1992-party-n1030686
Senior White House “counselor” and Donald Trump sycophant Kellyanne Conway had an illuminating exchange today with Andrew Feinberg, a White House reporter for Breakfast Media. Feinberg had asked Conway to explain Trump’s barrage of racist Tweets demeaning the four Democratic Congresswomen whom he has alternately declared should “go back” to their countries, are “pro-terrorist,” and “hate America.”
Conway’s response was to demand Feinberg’s ethnicity, which she apparently considered a necessary prerequisite to answering his question.
Demanding that a reporter describe their “ethnicity” in response to a legitimate question about this president’s actions would be egregious enough. But because Feinberg happens to be Jewish, it carries with it another, even uglier, level of import.
Here's the video of @KellyannePolls asking a Jewish reporter "what's your ethnicity?" while trying to defend comments the president made asking women of color who serve in Congress to leave the country.
This was not a "rhetorical" question directed to Feinberg. It was an explicit demand for an answer before Conway was willing to respond to his question.
Conway later issued a Tweet explaining her reason for demanding Feinberg’s ethnicity.
"We are all from somewhere else “originally”. I asked the question to answer the question and volunteered my own ethnicity: Italian and Irish. Like many, I am proud of my ethnicity, love the USA & grateful to God to be an American[.]"
That explanation would be more convincing if it was not being used to defend Trump’s comments, which express the exact opposite sentiments.
The Democratic fundraising nonprofit ActBlue announced small donors gave $420 million using their technology in the first half of the year.
With the election still more than a year away, 3.3 million people donated to nearly 9,000 Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations, the organization said. The average donation was $32.
In the second quarter of the year alone, donors gave $246 million.
"Small-dollar donors are already showing that they will be a force in races up and down the ballot this cycle. These numbers show that there is incredible energy among the grassroots already, and we're still more than a year out from Election Day," said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill in a statement.
"We're seeing millions of donors, record-breaking totals every quarter, and a rapidly-growing small-dollar army that is ready to help Democrats take back everything from school boards to the White House next year."
ActBlue said it raised $170 million more in the first half of 2019 than it did by the same stage in the 2018 midterm election cycle...
Meanwhile...
Backlash Ensues as RNC's WinRed Fundraising Hammer Falls
Republican national party leaders decided to publicly strong-arm state and local GOP officials, as well as some members of Congress, in a battle over the best way to raise small-dollar donations from the conservative grassroots.
Now those forces are pushing back against what they regard as both a money and a data grab antithetical to bedrock GOP free market principles, according to RealClearPolitics interviews with more than a dozen state party officials, veteran national campaign operatives and fundraising experts.
One Republican National Committee member called the push to consolidate all Republicans around one fundraising platform “Obamacare for GOP fundraising,” while an executive for a state party labeled the effort “crony capitalism” of the worst kind.
“It’s about freedom, it’s about ‘Don’t tread on me, don’t tell us what we have to do,’” a top state GOP party official said in describing the backlash to RCP. “It gets beyond the pragmatism of finances – you’re taking liberty away.”
Others question exactly who at the top of the GOP food chain is profiting from the consolidation that they describe as Washington stomping on the grassroots in a purported effort to, paradoxically, generate grassroots donations...
Duh.
Charges against Kevin Spacey have been dropped so it looks like another homosexual got away with it.
I see the global warming hysterics have been shamed into silence by their own contradictions. One second they were saying someone's opinion didn't matter because they didn't have a science degree and the next second they are saying it's all basic fifth grade science. One second "the overwhelming consensus of scientists say we have 11 years to get to zero carbon output" and the next second it's "in my opinion" from an individual without a college degree at all.
sheesh!!
Have we mentioned yet that the case against Trump for violating the Constitution be letting foreigners stay at his hotel was thrown out of court by the judge?
As we settle into high summer and the period of maximum difficulty in finding anything to fill in hours of television news, especially 24/7 news television, a political trend is emerging in this pre-electoral period: The president’s opponents continue to dig themselves into foxholes that they will not be able to escape. The initial shock at the success of this blunt and volcanic man who attacked all factions of both parties and assaulted almost every element of OBushinton political correctness and conventional wisdom, whose inaugural address was described at once by George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton as “some weird s***,” has mutated into a fear that Trump presages a Dark Age of dictatorship, official thuggery, and oppressive know-nothingism.
They are failing to make the distinction between Trump’s policies and his mannerisms. No serious person can dispute the president’s economic successes (especially the virtual elimination of unemployment and energy imports), his revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation, taking serious measures to stop mass illegal immigration, moving decisively to address dangerous disadvantages in some trading relationships, and shaping up the Western alliance from an association of freeloading beneficiaries of an American military guaranty. He is the first businessman to be president, and he engaged in a policy form of zero-based budgeting. The underlying premise for climate policy is unproved and almost certainly largely false; he scrapped it. The notion that the U.S. performed a service for international development and world harmonization by allowing the Mexicans, Chinese, and others to pick America’s pockets and export unemployment to the United States was false. He is scrapping that. The idea, cherished by Democratic politicians and Republican employers of low-skilled workers, that masses of people could swarm into the country undocumented, be exploited in the labor market, and not be counted anywhere, but still vote (Democratic) and use the welfare and education systems is an outrage. Trump is scrapping that, too. The country is tired of spending billions more every year on education to destroy freedom of expression in the university and produce ever-less-well-educated students in the unionized state school systems. He is attacking those problems, too.
The enemies of the status quo that Trump was attacking in 2016 were barely numerous enough to put him in the White House, but the number of those who are starting to appreciate the progress that is being achieved in critical policy areas is growing.
Democrats, who had been counting on the fatuity of treasonous Trump–Russia collusion, are now reduced to snobbery and myth-making, since they had no substantive arguments to make. But that's not the whole story. Tens of millions of people in both parties loved the OBushinton declinism, both the randomly militaristic version of George W. Bush and the feckless cult of national self-doubt of Obama. It worked for them, and since it was a bipartisan arrangement, they had no idea how vulnerable it was. The Trump victory and his success in office have profoundly shaken those dependent on the sluggish, state-dependent ethos that gradually took hold between the Reagan and Trump presidencies, and have won Trump a creeping rise in the polls. The confidence that he could be evicted from office, if not in midterm, at least after one term, is evaporating; the fear and hostility of his enemies (and most of them are enemies, not merely opponents) is genuine, if not creditable, and it drives them to their own extremes of hyperbole.
Many are offended by Trump’s bumptious style, though it is moderating. Most of these people probably weren’t much impressed by the lack of panache of Ford, Carter, and the Bushes either, but that was only monotonous, not acoustically jangling, as many intelligent and gentlemanly people find this president. The additional element to normal political controversy with this president is that he is assaulting the citadel of the entire national consensus in a way that has not been done before in American history. Franklin D. Roosevelt took the headship of a country that had economically and psychologically collapsed; he had a blank check from the voters to clean it up as best he could, however he could. Walter Lippmann publicly invited him to ask and receive dictatorial powers. FDR rebuilt the system, keeping as much of it as he could (though he got little credit for this from conservative financial and agrarian sections of society). Ronald Reagan had a mandate to restore American confidence and direction after Vietnam, Watergate, and the hesitancies of the Carter era, the “malaise” in America. Both FDR and Reagan had clear mandates. Very few people imagined that Trump could be as transformative as he has been, given that almost no one in either party in Congress supported him at the outset. And for his enemies, the thought of what he might achieve in the next five years is seriously disturbing.
What is astonishing and unprecedented is that instead of fudging their differences with the president where he has clearly succeeded (as Landon, Willkie, and Dewey did with Roosevelt), almost all the Democrats have retreated into a more extreme dissent from the administration in every area and have amplified their personal attacks on him to a level unheard since Watergate, and apart from that, since the Civil War. The Democratic party has now pretty well locked itself into an inescapable confinement of commitments to open borders, free health care for everyone including those who enter illegally in their millions; a green terror that will disemploy millions and achieve nothing useful; open-ended reparations for about 80 million African Americans and Native Americans; a doubling of upper-level personal income taxes; and a definition of “reproductive rights” that extends to the killing of live, born, and separated children. There is no chance that the voters could possibly support any of this; it makes George McGovern seem like Boss Tweed, and Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda in the 1960s like George and Martha Washington.
President Trump, meanwhile, has cleaned up his presentation a great deal and is usually a fluent and authoritative leader in his remarks. Occasionally, and there is plenty of precedent for this in the presidency, he still produces a malapropism, such as his comment about the kidney and the heart (in support of an excellent measure he took, which will save tens of thousands of lives of people awaiting a kidney transplant). But his deliberately offensive comments, such as inviting four socialist and racially controversial young congresswomen, three of them born in the U.S., to go back to the countries they came from, as it was tweeted, may be assumed to have been premeditated and designed to excite the werewolfish lunacy of the Democrats. It has worked. They are claiming that border control is an effort to retrieve an all-white America. It has somewhat empowered the four (very tedious and limited) women to challenge the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who is finally forced to slap them down as a sinking Bernie Sanders embraces them, like Herbert Marcuse supporting Angela Davis in the Sixties.
And the waters are further muddied by an effort by the Obamas to deliver the nomination to Kamala Harris, requiring poor, aged Joe Biden to drop his “Barack and I . . .” intimations almost of Mount Rushmore and try to defend himself as if he were still assassinating Robert Bork and cribbing lines from a defeated British Labour-party politician (Neil Kinnock, now a trivia question even in Britain). Even the July 4 military parade, an exercise in pacifistic ceremony compared with Paris on Bastille Day, which is what inspired it, caused the retired editor of a well-respected newspaper to say it reminded him of the Nuremberg rallies. It was a Norman Rockwell July 4 festivity, not a pagan festival choreographed by Goebbels and Speer with hundreds of thousands of people screaming “Sieg Heil!” The question in everyone’s mind — “What are we coming to?” — should be put to Trump’s enemies. But they won’t get to answer it.
The Trump steamroller is accelerating.
"The footage shows two wealthy men laughing and pointing as they appear to discuss young and beautiful women dancing at a party.
Today, one of the men is president of the United States. The other is in federal lockup awaiting a bail decision as he fights sex trafficking and conspiracy charges."
But no sex trafficking and conspiracy was happening at the party.
And Bill Clinton also was known to party with Epstein. As did all the big Democrat power brokers at the time, one of whom was a major Dem donor at the time, Donald Trump
Funny how homosexuals, with their lascivious gay pride parades and support for a former President who sexually harassed an intern in the Oval Office, are now implying that any expression of heterosexuality by the current President almost thirty years ago, when he was in the prime of life, is a scandal.
sheesh!!
"The 1992 footage was shot by NBC for Faith Daniels’ talk show, “A Closer Look,” in a profile of the newly divorced Trump’s lifestyle. The future president was largely surrounded by cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills, in town for a game against the Miami Dolphins. The women offered the camera glowing testimonials about their fun-loving host."
So, all consensual activity and the women are all having a great time.
Contrary to TTF belief, heterosexuality is not a scandal.
"As music pumps in the background, the tape shows Trump walking through a corridor to greet Epstein and two other guests. “Come on in … Go inside,” Trump says.
Later in the footage, Trump is seen talking to Epstein and another man while they watch the women on the dance floor. Trump noted the presence of an NBC camera to Epstein, and both point out women, while Trump occasionally claps and dances to the beat."
how scandalous!!
LOL!!
Seventeen women have accused Rump of unwanted "expressions of his heterosexuality" and he has called every one of them a liar.
Yet he believed 4 Clinton accusers and brought them to a pre-debate event.
I wonder which Dem candidates will bring the 17 Rump accusers to such an event.
Jessica Leeds - Trump groped her on an airplane
Kristin Anderson - Trump put his hand up her skirt to her underwear
Jill Harth - Trump allegedly tried to put his hands between her legs. She alleged he also tried to kiss her during a tour of his Mar-a-Lago estate
Cathy Heller - Trump grabbed her unexpectedly and started to kiss her on the lips in front of her family.
Temple Taggart McDowell - the 21-year-old Miss Utah when she participated in the Miss USA contest in 1997. She said Trump, who owned the pageant at the time, kissed her "directly on the lips.”
Karena Virginia - Trump approached her in 1998 outside the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York while she was awaiting a car service, made unseemly comments about her appearance, grabbed her arm and groped her breast. Trump said, "Don't you know who I am?"
Bridget Sullivan - Trump came into the Miss Universe changing room while the contestants were naked.
In a 2005 interview that Trump gave to radio host Howard Stern Trump said "No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. ... ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."
Tasha Dixon - Trump walked into a dress rehearsal for a pageant in 2001 while the contestants were “half-naked’ and the women were told to “fawn all over him,” according to an interview Dixon gave to CBS Los Angeles station KCAL-TV in October of 2016.
Mindy McGillivray - Trump grabbed her rear end while she was working as a photographer's assistant at a 2003 event at Mar-a-Lago.
Rachel Crooks - when she first met Trump in 2005, he shook her hand, then kissed her on the cheeks and then on the lips.
Natasha Stoynoff - Trump inappropriately touched her in 2005 when she was at Mar-a-Lago for an interview timed to coincide with the first anniversary of his marriage to Melania Trump.
Jennifer Murphy - a contestant on the fourth season of “The Apprentice,” the reality-TV show that Trump used to host, told British magazine Grazia that Trump kissed her on the lips after a job interview in 2005.
Jessica Drake - Adult film star Jessica Drake said Trump kissed her and two other women without their consent.
Ninni Laaksonen - "Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt. He really grabbed my butt."
Summer Zervos - rump abused his role as a potential employer, kissing her twice during a meeting at Trump Tower in New York, and later groping and kissing her in a California hotel room.
Cassandra Searles - "He probably doesn’t want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room," Searle wrote, according to Rolling Stone.
E. Jean Carroll - Trump sexually assaulted and penetrated her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, a Republican taking on President Trump in 2020, challenged his fellow GOP members to watch the president's rally in North Carolina and ask if that is the party they "signed up for."
During Trump's Wednesday night rally, the president's comments over Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mass.), one of the four minority congresswoman he recently told to "go back" to where they came from, prompted the crowd into chants of "Send her back."
"I challenge every Republican to watch@realDonaldTrump’s rally last night, complete with chants of 'Send her back,' and ask if that is the Party of Lincoln and Reagan we signed up for," Weld tweeted Thursday morning. "We are in a fight for the soul of the GOP, and silence is not an option."
The long-shot candidate is the only Republican to officially mount a primary campaign against the president in 2020.
Earlier this week, former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford (R) said he is considering a possible candidacy.
And Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who recently left the Republican party after vocally opposing Trump, said he wouldn't rule out a run.
Trump's rally followed a week of backlash against the president's Sunday tweet targeting Reps. Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), telling them to "go back" to where they came from.
All four are women of color and U.S. citizens, and only Omar, who came to the U.S. at age 12 as a refugee from Somalia, was born outside the United States.
The House voted to condemn Trump for his "racist" tweets on Tuesday. Just four Republicans, Reps. Susan Brooks (Ind.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Will Hurd (Texas) and Fred Upton (Mich.), voted with every Democrat to condemn the tweets.
Kerr called out the Republican Party on Wednesday, saying the GOP had “sold its soul” to President Donald Trump.
Kerr, who won three titles as coach of the Warriors and five as a player, has been a persistent Trump critic. Earlier this week, he urged lawmakers to slam Trump for his racist tweets that urged four women of color serving in Congress to “go back” to their countries:
Steve Kerr✔
@SteveKerr
Come on members of Congress, call out the president for his racist tweets this morning. Show some leadership. It’s the job you were elected to do.
10:58 PM - Jul 14, 2019
Kerr in 2017 stood up for athletes who protested during the national anthem after Trump said team owners should fire the “sons of bitches.”
“Just think about what those players are protesting,” he wrote in Sports Illustrated. “They’re protesting excessive police violence and racial inequality. Those are really good things to fight against. And they’re doing it in a non-violent way.”
"One second they were saying someone's opinion didn't matter because they didn't have a science degree and the next second they are saying it's all basic fifth grade science."
Your deliberate misread of what was said (a second time, no less) is only convincing to other conservatives who share your reading comprehension problem.
Republicans have turned stupidity into a virtue to be venerated.
"his [Trumps] revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation"
With whom? Grenada? Puerto Rico? Iran has started enriching uranium again, and there is no sign that that North Korea has gotten rid of ANY of their nuclear material. Love letters from Little Rocket Man to the Cheeto Benito may make Rump blush, but they don't constitute a nuclear non-proliferation agreement by any stretch of the imagination.
At least Obama got Iran to stop enrichment.
A day after President Donald Trump’s supporters broke out in a racist chant that called for Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who immigrated to the United States as a refugee when she was a child, to return to Somalia, he’s now claiming that he was “not happy with it” and disagrees with the act.
Asked by reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday why he didn’t attempt to stop the chant of “Send her back,” Trump responded: “I think I did. I started speaking very quickly.”
“It was quite a chant,” he added. “And I felt a little bit badly about it.”
The president let the chant go on for about 13 seconds and never told the crowd to stop.
Alex Thompson
✔
@AlxThomp
Let’s go to the tape. pic.twitter.com/WPly9f3qmb https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1151898274715930624 …
Embedded video
Peter Baker✔
@peterbakernyt
Replying to @peterbakernyt @djusatoday
Trump asserts that he tried to stop the “send her back” chant: "I think I did -- I started speaking very quickly."
12:57 PM - Jul 18, 2019
No you didn't, you liar. You stood silently for 13 seconds as your deplorable racist base chanted to send a duly elected US official back to Africa.
Americans say, 50% to 35%, that President Donald Trump is a racist, a new HuffPost/YouGov surveyfinds, virtually unchanged from public opinion polling in February.
An overwhelming 88% majority of Trump voters say that the president is not racist, while an equally overwhelming 92% of those who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election say he is. Those who stayed home for the election or supported another candidate say, 49% to 22%, that Trump is a racist.
The poll was taken following the series of racist tweets Trump directed at four minority congresswomen, but before one of his rallies devolved into a racist chant of “Send her back!” about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
Americans say, 60% to 27%, that Trump’s tweets were inappropriate, and 49% to 35% that they were racist. Responses were again deeply divided along political lines. (Another survey, from USA Today and Ipsos, found similar results, with two-thirds of those aware of the controversy calling Trump’s tweets offensive and a majority calling his comments un-American.)
Although a handful of Republicans in Congress have condemned Trump’s comments, others have ducked the question or made excuses for the president.
Thirty-eight percent of Americans said they believe most or all Republicans agree with what Trump said in his tweets, with only 28% saying Trump’s comments had the support of just some or almost none of his party. About one-third weren’t sure.
Of those Americans who found Trump’s tweets to be racist, inappropriate or both, two-thirds said that Republicans did not do enough to condemn them, with just 8% saying the GOP had been sufficiently condemnatory.
In a separate HuffPost/YouGovsurvey, about one-third of black Americans said they had been told to go back where they came from at least once, as did 28% of Hispanic Americans, 18% of white Americans and 38% of those from another racial background, including Asian Americans, whose numbers were too small to break out separately. Given the context, not all the “yes” responses were in good faith (“Every time Nancy Pelosi speaks, I hear, ‘Go back where you came from,’” one white Trump voter offered). But some revealed both recent slights and hurts that have lingered for decades.
"No you didn't, you liar. You stood silently for 13 seconds as your deplorable racist base chanted to send a duly elected US official back to Africa."
as usual, you fail to see the significance
what would be bad is if he said the chant was great
he didn't, which says something about the country
"Americans say, 50% to 35%, that President Donald Trump is a racist, a new HuffPost/YouGov surveyfinds, virtually unchanged from public opinion polling in February.
An overwhelming 88% majority of Trump voters say that the president is not racist, while an equally overwhelming 92% of those who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election say he is. Those who stayed home for the election or supported another candidate say, 49% to 22%, that Trump is a racist."
so, basically, Dems think he's racist and Repubs don't
shocker
notably, few people support racism, they just disagree on what it is
the truth is America has never been more inclusive and diverse and equal and open and yet Dems are obsessed with imposing a totalitarian regime to make any racist thought or word punishable in extremis and wring out the American mind
why?
they have no issues that resound with the American people and they know they cannot win an election without black support exceeding 90%
they also are terrified that signs are developing that black people are on to the bill of goods they've been sold
"The poll was taken following the series of racist tweets Trump directed at four minority congresswomen, but before one of his rallies devolved into a racist chant of “Send her back!” about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)"
ah, Trump is brilliant
while Trump was not factually correct about their origins, these four have consistently attacked America
and people that hate what America stands for should try another country
but the genius of Trump is that he has forced Pelosi and friends, who had been trying to distance themselves from these four, to come to their defense
and thus, these four become the face of the Dem party
and a party with those four as their faces will be easy to defeat in 2020
did you miss the other poll yesterday?
NBC says 48% of Americans approve of Trump
that will get him re-elected
you are going to love what the Supreme Court looks like in 2025!
To say that the Democrats are obsessed with race these days is the equivalent of saying the sky is blue.
I'm a racist. You're a racist. Donald Trump's a racist. Nancy Pelosi was a racist until she attacked Trump for racism. Your neighbor's a racist. Your insurance broker's a racist. Your dentist's a racist as well as your periodontist. All white males are racist. Some white females are racists, especially those married to white males. Everywhere a racist.
Never mind that many of those people have no history of racism. It doesn't matter. Never mind that their families came here in 1923 to flee the Armenian Holocaust or mass starvation in Ukraine, they owe reparations for slavery. It's all about racism—yours.
The Dems' presidential campaigns are based around proving the other man or woman is more of a racist and vice versa, or about showing you're not so racist as people say you are, even if you are or even if you pretended to be a race you weren't. And don't you dare criticize Ilhan Omar or you're a triple-racist even if her ideas are more racist than anyone else's. Got it?
And above all, and never forget this because it is of paramount importance—otherwise we should all check ourselves into those concentration camps on the border and subsist on toilet water—what this country needs most of all is a CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE.
WRONG! (I would have put ten exclamation points but it would have seemed vulgar.)
It's exactly the opposite. There is only one way at this point to end or diminish racism and that is to shut up about it. Otherwise, what you really want, whether you admit it or not, is to perpetuate racism for your own advantage—like Al Sharpton (and many others, obviously, some of whom want desperately to be in the White House).
But don't believe me. Believe Morgan Freeman. Let's roll back to the Early Paleolithic Age (2005), when the great black actor was on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace:
MIKE WALLACE, CBS`s "60 MINUTES": Black History Month, you find...
MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: Ridiculous.
WALLACE: Why?
FREEMAN: You`re going to relegate my history to a month?
WALLACE: Come on.
FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
WALLACE: I'm Jewish.
FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
WALLACE: There isn`t one.
FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?
WALLACE: No, no.
FREEMAN: I don`t either. I don`t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You`re not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?
Stop talking about it. Interesting idea, isn't it? I doubt Cory Booker would approve. 'The Squad" would doubtless go apoplectic. Nevertheless, it's the only way to end racism—stop talking about it. We already have laws against it, for a long time now, as we should. And they should be strictly enforced. But the rest of the blah-blah has got to go. It only makes people hate each other. It creates racism rather than solves it.
Unfortunately, not long after the sane comments by Mr. Freeman, Barack Obama was elected and what seemed at first to be the end or diminishment of racism went the other way. The scab kept being picked, by Eric Holder and Obama himself. They couldn't let go of it. Soon enough, Morgan Freeman walked back what he said under the sadness of peer pressure.
And now we are where we are—in the land of AOC and Omar—every one of us racists until we die. The revolution eats its own.
July 14
Race/Topic Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 51, Trump 42 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Warren NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Warren 48, Trump 43 Warren +5
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Sanders 50, Trump 43 Sanders +7
General Election: Trump vs. Harris NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Harris 45, Trump 44 Harris +1
"And now we are where we are—in the land of AOC and Omar—every one of us racists until we die. The revolution eats its own."
Man, it's like Unite the Right White Nationalists carrying tiki lamps and chanting "Jews will not replace us" never happened.
Anyone know what Morgan Freeman has had to say recently? Anyone check his twitter feed?
Morgan J. Freeman
✔
@mjfree
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a racist. #RacistInChief
115K
3:05 PM - Jul 14, 2019 · Manhattan, NY
Morgan J. Freeman
Verified account
@mjfree
14h hours ago
More
I think racism & ignorance elected Donald J. Trump as some twisted payback for Obama. There is a lot of darkness in America but together we can find the light. Step one: defeat Trump.
81 replies 196 retweets 1,357 likes
Reply 81 Retweet 196 Like 1.4K
Morgan J. Freeman
Verified account
@mjfree
Jul 18
Morgan J. Freeman Retweeted Ilhan Omar
Dems are working to put money into American pockets. Trump working to sow hatred & racism & divisiveness.
Morgan J. Freeman
Verified account
@mjfree
Follow Follow @mjfree
Morgan J. Freeman Retweeted Twitter Moments
Are there seriously enough white supremacists in America to re-elect this racist? #IStandWithIlhan
Trump campaigned on the idea that Muslims should be banned and that Mexican immigrants are rapists who must be walled out or criminals who must be removed en masse, which he reprised in his demagoguery toward Central American migrants in 2018. What did he get for his demagoguery? He lost the House and gained Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a big blue wave.
The more that the suburban, educated whites who abandoned the GOP in 2018 grow convinced that Rump's immigration agenda is an outgrowth of racial animus and white nationalism, the worse it is politically for Republicans.
Rump’s campaign is selling plastic straws to fundraise for his reelection.
Rump has based his entire presidency on lies and divisiveness, so it is no surprise that he is selling plastic straws. Like single-use plastic, his presidency is also a cheap throwaway with disastrous long term consequences.
The vast majority of plastic straws are not recycled in the U.S., which means they end up incinerated, piling up in landfills, or hurting wildlife like turtles and whales. He's also doubling down on his absolute hatred for anything resembling protection for the planet we share. From climate change to plastic waste, Donald J Trump does not give a damn about you, your community, or the environment.
"Trump campaigned on the idea that Muslims should be banned and that Mexican immigrants are rapists who must be walled out or criminals who must be removed en masse, which he reprised in his demagoguery toward Central American migrants in 2018."
this is a lie
"What did he get for his demagoguery? He lost the House and gained Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a big blue wave.
The more that the suburban, educated whites who abandoned the GOP in 2018 grow convinced that Rump's immigration agenda is an outgrowth of racial animus and white nationalism, the worse it is politically for Republicans."
suburban, educated whites really couldn't care less about racism
many of them are racists
here in MC, one of the most liberal counties in America, they bus white kids miles away so they don't have to attend diverse schools they can walk to
suburban, educated whites are much more concerned that Trump threatens the status quo hierarchy that has so enriched them
you're in for a surprise
the electorate in a Presidential election year differs greatly from the mid-terms
barring an economic catastrophe, the Dems have already lost
they'll go down with the squad they love so much
"Rump even bullies the environment, he's such a psycho! said...
Rump’s campaign is selling plastic straws to fundraise for his reelection."
why the obsession with straws?
the Bern has plastic solo cups filled with vodka all over his office
"He's also doubling down on his absolute hatred for anything resembling protection for the planet we share. From climate change to plastic waste, Donald J Trump does not give a damn about you, your community, or the environment."
did you know that, under Trump, we pulled out of the Paris accords and, yet, we're the only country on Earth in compliance with the guidelines?
if you really believe carbon is a problem, support the construction of nuclear power plants, fracking for natural gas, electric vehicles, and NFPs to begin massive forestation projects
stop babbling like a lunatic!
Who are the real American patriots?
Who are the real racists?
These two questions will play a big role in the 2020 election.
The left is desperate to turn any traditional patriotic appeal into an act of racism.
The left is desperate to smear Republicans and moderate Democrats as racists.
Part of this desperation is in the left’s inability to debate the facts and their hope that strong smears can shame their opponents out of broaching the argument.
Part of this desperation is in the left’s growing realization that President Trump and the Republicans are beginning to attract minority support in a serious way.
The 2018 election was a watershed in the shift of minority voters toward Republicans.
Consider the example of the very left-wing African-American female candidate for governor in Georgia. She alienated enough African-American males with her radicalized platforms that the Republican candidate wound up with a significant percentage of African-American male votes.
In Florida, a left-wing African-American candidate for governor lost almost one out of five African- American female votes because of his opposition to school choice.
In Michigan, a charismatic Republican African-American veteran and businessman, John James, received more votes for the Senate in Michigan than any Republican since the year 2000. James is running again, and if he wins, the historic monopoly that the left has on the African-American vote will collapse.
All around the country, President Trump is attracting Latinos to his rallies in record numbers. There is strong support in the Latino community for job creation, income growth, small business prosperity, and enforcing the law.
The left’s reaction to these threats has been hysteria.
Screaming “racist” – which the left-wing propaganda machine did relentlessly this week – is their most common effort to shut up conservatives in general and President Trump in particular. This week, between Sunday and Tuesday CNN and MSNBC used the word “racist” more than 1,100 times.
Defending the flag is racist in this left-wing world. Defending George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is racist according to the left. Again and again, they seek to shame today’s patriots into silence.
Yet the real racists are on the left. Consider Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley saying, “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”
Consider both the racism and the fascist arrogance in that statement.
First, Pressley asserts the right to define the authenticity of voices.
Second, she defines each voice by skin color, religion, or sexual orientation rather than the content of their character.
Third, she dismisses or dehumanizes everyone who fails to meet her standard.
Consider her arrogance just in regard to the African-American community. By her standard, former Secretary of State Colin Powell isn't authentically black. Neither is former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Sen. Tim Scott of South Caroline, or Republican senatorial candidate John James of Michigan.
You can go through each of Pressley’s defined subgroups and find people who deeply disagree with her.
One of the keys to the 2020 campaign will be who the American people conclude are authentically patriotic and what views are actually racist.
President Trump and Republicans will be defined as genuinely patriotic. The left will grow hysterical as it loses its ability to dominate the public narrative with name-calling.
The election of 2020 will be one of the most defining elections in American history.
If the left succeeds in making its “racist” charge stick, it could seal off minority voters from even considering voting for President Trump and other candidates on the Republican ticket.
On the other hand, if Republicans successfully answer the racist attack and then prove that the Democrats have become the party of radical proposals that would destroy America as we know it, then the Democrats could find themselves losing everywhere except on college campuses and in some radical neighborhoods.
Patriotism and racism will be key arguments over the next 15 months.
Meanwhile, IRW Rump damages children's brains with chlorpyrifos or by putting them in cages. Either way is fine by him.
A court ruling requiring that the EPA make a decision on banning pesticides that cause brain damage in children ended this week in the worst possible way, as EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler overrode the recommendation of the—now gutted—EPA scientific advisory board and announced that the EPA will not move to ban chlorpyrifos. The decision represents a big win for the chemical industry, and a major demonstration of how, in the Trump White House, lobbyists beat scientists every time.
As The New York Times reports, this action follows the agency’s recent refusal to ban asbestos, despite the recommendation of the agency’s experts, and despite knowing that the fibrous mineral is the leading cause of mesothelioma. That action led to multiple, still-ongoing lawsuits in an attempt to force the EPA to act.
But the chlorpyrifos decision on Thursday was actually the end result of a series of lawsuits that were kicked off in 2017. The Obama administration had announced a ban on chlorpyrifos in 2015 after initial reports showed that it causes brain damage in children. But the ban had not gone into effect when Trump took office. Scott Pruitt immediately reversed the announcement when he took control of the EPA in 2017 and decided the agency would simply … not decide. It would allow the pesticides to stay on the market by simply not making a decision.
That generated a series of lawsuits, which eventually resulted in a ruling that the EPA had to make a decision on the child-threatening pesticide. And then, after stretching it out to the last moment, Wheeler did decide—to allow the pesticide to remain on the market. Taken together, the pesticide and asbestos nonactions show that, under Donald Trump and coal lobbyist Wheeler, even the most blatantly obvious cases of public harm aren’t enough to generate any restrictions that might cause some industry to lose a dollar.
And the means by which Wheeler made his “decision” show that, from the very beginning, officials under Trump have planted the seeds to destroy any effective regulation and provide free rein to every industry. Or, at least, to every industry that can pay for it.
The GOP has little to nothing to do with it.
"..."...While 52% of the 67 incoming House Democratic freshmen are female, only two, or 4.5% of the 44 incoming Republican freshmen are women — West Virginia's Carol Miller and Arizona's Debbie Lesko. Lesko won a special election earlier this year to replace Rep. Trent Franks, who resigned in the wake of a sexual misconduct scandal.
Republicans saw their roster of female House representatives gutted 43% from 23 members to 13, as many Republican women either stepped down to run for higher office — like Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee and Kristi Noem in South Dakota — or were unseated by Democratic challengers.
As the blue wave swept through suburban America, it unseated many Republican women in its wake, including Karen Handel in the Atlanta suburbs, Barbara Comstock in the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia, and Mimi Walters in Orange County, California — formerly reliable Republican areas.
The 116th House also boasts more women of color than ever before, including the first Native American women to serve in Congress and the first African-American women to represent Illinois and Massachusetts in the House, respectively.
As with gender, the gains in representation for people of color are heavily concentrated in the Democratic Party. A full 34% of the incoming House Democrats but 2% of their Republican colleagues identify as people of color. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio will be the only incoming non-white freshman Republican.
Furthermore, four of the 15 Republican representatives who were identified as Hispanic or African-American in the 115th House either retired or lost-re-election to Democratic challengers, including Florida's Carlos Curbelo and Utah's Mia Love. Among the 200 Republicans in the 116th House, 90% will be white men.
While two of the 115th House's LGBT members, Krysten Sinema of Arizona and Jared Polis of Colorado, resigned to pursue higher office, four new Democratic LGBT candidates were elected: Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Angie Craig of Minnesota, and Katie Hill of California. There have been no openly LGBT Republicans in the House or Senate since 2006..."
Blabber all you want, these are the facts.
"did you know that, under Trump, we pulled out of the Paris accords and, yet, we're the only country on Earth in compliance with the guidelines?"
No I didn't know that, because that's another right-wing lie.
Although every country in the world [had] signed the Paris climate agreement, a global pact meant to keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, very few are actually living up to their commitments under the framework, according to the nonprofit Climate Action Tracker (CAT).
That’s alarming because, across the board, the targets set under the agreement are rudimentary. They were voluntarily established to transition to more sustainable economies and they don’t include major structural changes.
Instead, targets mostly revolve around investing in renewable energy, making industries more efficient, and winding down the biggest sources of pollution.
Countries are expected to gradually ratchet up their commitments in the years ahead to allow for the overall agreement to be achieved. But at the current rate of progress, many countries won’t be able to credibly update their targets when they’re next called upon in 2020.Although every country in the world has signed the Paris climate agreement, a global pact meant to keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, very few are actually living up to their commitments under the framework, according to the nonprofit Climate Action Tracker (CAT).
CAT closely monitors the progress of 32 countries with readily available climate data. The group found that many countries are acting as if the agreement doesn’t exist and are taking few steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The worst offenders include the United States, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has rolled back scores of critical climate change regulations and rules and has pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
And despite praise for their climate leadership in recent years, countries like Canada and China are doing so little to reduce emissions that the world could warm by more than 4 degrees Celsius if all countries follow their lead.
Some countries are actually making progress, however.
CAT determined two countries to be global role models: If other countries followed their lead, global temperatures could be kept from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The first role model is Morocco because of its massive investments in renewable energy that put it on track to get 42% of its electricity from clean sources by 2020.
The second role model is The Gambia, which is on track to reduce its emissions by 44% in 2025 compared to business-as-usual.
Five other countries are compatible with the Paris climate agreement’s goal of 2 degrees Celsius.
India is ranked as compatible because it’s on track to get 40% of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by the end of the year. The country would be ranked higher if it wasn’t also investing heavily in coal energy.
Costa Rica is also ranked as compatible because of its ambitious carbon neutralization plans. Earlier this year, the President of Costa Rica Carlos Alvarado announced his intention to ban fossil fuels.
Other countries ranked as compatible include Ethiopia, Bhutan, and the Philippines.
Earlier this week, the United Nations released an exhaustive analysis of the current research on climate change and concluded that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
Based on CAT’s monitoring, the status quo on climate change — of acknowledging the threat but not acting to stop it — still reigns supreme around the world.
You can check out how some of the countries stack up here:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/#
Notably absent from the CAT watch list above is Uruguay, which has already transformed its energy sector to roughly 95% renewables:
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Uruguay-Renewable-Energy-Equipment
Overview
An absence of tapped fossil fuel resources, coal, and natural gas has made Uruguay historically dependent on hydroelectric power, imported oil, and imported electricity from its neighbors Argentina and Brazil. The fact that 15 percent of Uruguay’s imports are energy products, primarily petroleum, makes the economy vulnerable to external shocks as oil prices rise and fall. Uruguay is pursuing increased electricity interconnectivity in the Southern Cone Region as a strategy to maintain energy supplies in the medium term.
In the last 10 years, Uruguay has shifted dramatically to electricity from renewable sources. Currently 97 to 100 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources compared to just 40 percent as recently as 2012. At times, Uruguay has surplus electricity that it exports to Argentina and Brazil. Uruguay has become one of the leading countries in renewable energy generation, primarily from hydro (60 percent), with the remainder from wind, solar, and biofuels. In less than 10 years, the country has slashed its carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs, without government subsidies. A driving force behind the diversification of Uruguay's energy sector is a desire for energy security and independence.
Alternatives such as wind, biomass, and solar have become cost competitive. Aided by aggressive power purchasing agreements (PPA) to promote renewables, the country has gone from being an importer to an exporter of electricity in just a few years.
Uruguay is one of the most electrified countries in the hemisphere, with 99.4 percent of homes receiving electricity. The government’s objective is to reach 100 percent by 2030.
Uruguay also moved away from petroleum-based generation. As of 2016, hydroelectric capacity was 1,500 MW, but this is unlikely to grow significantly given that the country is already exploiting all its large-scale hydro resources. Uruguay also has more than 1,331 MW of installed wind capacity, which is expected to grow to over 1,650 MW by mid-2018. At that point, there will be 42 wind farms operating in 13 of the country’s 19 departments (states). This conversion will allow Uruguay to use wind energy for base power and hydroelectric to meet peak demand. This will allow the country to keep hydroelectric reservoirs at near-maximum capacity. When needed, the reservoirs could be opened with as little as 15 minutes’ notice to meet additional demand.
And let's not forget about Denmark, doing its part:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Denmark
The proportion of total Danish electricity generated by renewables rose between 2007 and 2014 from 28.1% to 57.4%. Total renewable electricity generation grew from 10,392 GWh in 2007 to 17,562 GWh by 2014, a rise of 69%. Since 2007 most of the growth in RE electricity generation continues to be the result of growing wind power generation (accounting for +56.9% of total generation growth), thermal generation from RE fuels added an additional 6.5%, Solar power has also made an impact as a new power source of an additional 597 GWh (5.7%) since 2012.
Reduction in fossil fuel generated electricity
Renewable energy generation in Denmark increased from 10,392 GwH to 17,562 GWh between 2007 and 2014.[1][11][12][13][14] Fossil fuel generation fell from 26,318 GWh to 12,405 GWh in 2014.[1][11][12][13][14] Electricity generated from renewables first exceeded electricity from fossil fuels in 2012 and again in 2014.
So how does a country which generates the largest share of its electricity needs from wind power cope on calm windless days? Denmark sees this challenge as an opportunity to develop new solutions and in so doing is transforming its energy sector and upgrading its technological and engineering capability and is now exporting these worldwide. One of the ways the country manages it, is by exporting electricity on days when wind production is very high (Some days Denmark produces more electricity from wind power alone than the entire country requires). Much of the power is exported and stored in Norwegian and Swedish hydroelectric systems via the system of pumped storage (storing power for future use by pumping reservoir levels up higher). On calm days the power can be reimported. The country also imports and exports electricity to Germany and across the Nordic region which moves power to where it is most in demand given production conditions on each day. As electricity can be transported thousands of kilometres with only a few percentage point transmission losses the load and variability can be spread across a wider and more stable geographic area. These long distance transmission lines are being upgraded across both the Nordic region and more widely across Europe.
The country has also developed power plants which can increase their output much more rapidly than traditional ones to respond to fluctuating production from wind sources. Many of these plants are the many smaller and dispersed CHP power plants across the country. The production and dispersion of electricity across Denmark, the Nordic region and Germany can be viewed in real time on the Energinet.dk website. The site illustrates wind and power production, electricity imports and exports, and the contribution made by CHP plants to both district heating and stabilising electricity production.
In 2017, India cancelled plans for 13.7Gigawatts of coal power plants because solar was cheaper:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coal-fired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html
India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.
Analyst Tim Buckley said the shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in India would have “profound” implications on global energy markets.
According to his article on the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s website, 13.7GW of planned coal power projects have been cancelled so far this month – in a stark indication of the pace of change.
In January last year, Finnish company Fortum agreed to generate electricity in Rajasthan with a record low tariff, or guaranteed price, of 4.34 rupees per kilowatt-hour (about 5p).
Mr Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the IEEFA, said that at the time analysts said this price was so low would never be repeated.
But, 16 months later, an auction for a 500-megawatt solar facility resulted in a tariff of just 2.44 rupees – compared to the wholesale price charged by a major coal-power utility of 3.2 rupees (about 31 per cent higher).
“For the first time solar is cheaper than coal in India and the implications this has for transforming global energy markets is profound,” Mr Buckley said.
“Measures taken by the Indian Government to improve energy efficiency coupled with ambitious renewable energy targets and the plummeting cost of solar has had an impact on existing as well as proposed coal fired power plants, rendering an increasing number as financially unviable.
“India’s solar tariffs have literally been free falling in recent months.”
He said about it has been accepted that some £6.9bn-worth of existing coal power plants at Mundra in Gujarat were “no longer viable because of the prohibitively high cost of imported coal relative to the long-term electricity supply contracts”.
This, Mr Buckley added, was a further indication of the “rise of stranded assets across the Indian power generation sector”.
Investors from all over the world were showing an interest in India’s burgeoning solar sector.
“The caliber of the global financial institutions who are bidding into India’s solar power infrastructure tenders is a strong endorsement of India’s leadership in this energy transformation and will have significant ripple effects into other transforming markets, as is already seen in the UAE, South Africa, Australia, Chile and Mexico,” Mr Buckley said.
A federal judge halted subpoenas issued by congressional Democrats for President Trump's financial records following intervention from an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sent an emoluments lawsuit against the president, which alleges that he is illegally benefiting from his businesses while serving in the Oval Office, back to a lower court on Friday to reexamine whether the separation of powers between the president and Congress had been properly considered.
According to the judges, "the District Court did not adequately address whether — given the separation of powers issues present in a lawsuit brought by members of the legislative branch against the president of the United States — resolving the legal questions and/or postponing discovery would be preferable, or whether discovery is even necessary" to establish whether congressional Democrats can intervene.
The ruling is a setback for Democrats because Trump will not be forced to prove he hasn't violated the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses, which limit a federal official's ability to accept gifts from foreign governments without Congress's approval.
"Trump will not be forced to prove he hasn't violated the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses, which limit a federal official's ability to accept gifts from foreign governments without Congress's approval."
That's fuckin' awesome for our very own oligarch!
Wooohoooo!
Volume One: Russia
Did you find that there were a series of contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government? (p. 5)
In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6)
Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton? (p. 6)
Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump? (p. 6)
Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia," his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments? (vol 1, p. 5: vol 2, p. 19)
Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI?
Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?
Volume Two: Obstruction
Did you reach a judgment as to whether the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?
Did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?
For example, did you find that the president directed the White House counsel to call the acting attorney general and tell him the special counsel must be removed? (p. 4)
Did you find that the White House counsel decided he would rather resign than carry out that order? (p. 4)
Did you find that the president later directed the White House counsel to say he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president wanted the White House counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)
Did you find that the White House counsel refused to do that because it was not true? (p. 6)
Did you find that the president repeatedly asked a private citizen—his former campaign manager—to deliver a message to the attorney general to restrict the special counsel to investigating only future campaign interference? (p. 5)
Mueller has already specified that there is no evidence that either Trump or any other American colluded with Russia
Trump fully cooperated with Mueller's investigation, other than personally sitting down with Muller
on the matter, Mueller agreed to a negotiated accomodation
Trump has acknowledged that he thought the investigation was improper and based on dubious evidence
he thus, discussed how to end it with advisers
whether exercising his Constitutional duties to oversee the Justice Department constitutes "obstruction" is also dubious although if it clearly was, Mueller would have said so
so, whether to impeach on those dubious grounds is a matter for the elected Representatives of the American people
those Representatives have indicated that they understand that their constituents don't favor impeachment
"Mueller would have said so"
People sometimes do mental gymnastics to preserve their preferred view of reality.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch required for some Rump supporters
You can read a bit about it at https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-psychological-phenomenon-that-blinds-trump-supporters-to-his-racism/2019/07/18/29789344-a8ac-11e9-ac16-90dd7e5716bc_story.html
The Mueller report said, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
Mueller himself said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
It is the job of Congress to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. The White House's refusal to let Congress interview witnesses it yet another instance of obstruction.
Yeah, that's Rump for you, always doubling down.
Admit he made a mistake and say he's willing to try to correct it?!
FAT CHANCE!
What a diva.
"People sometimes do mental gymnastics to preserve their preferred view of reality.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch required for some Rump supporters"
well, you aren't doing any "mental gymnastics" at all
you're doing a rhetorical gymnastic routine called "lying"
"Mueller himself said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”"
yes, but the converse is just as true
If he had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, we would have said so.
your belief that trump is guilty unless there is evidence is un-American
here, it's the other way around
you are innocent until proven guilty
"It is the job of Congress to provide oversight of the Executive Branch."
actually, it's abuse of duty to harass a President when there is nothing unknown
their constituents are not in favor of impeachment based on an expanded definition of "obstruction"
they need to drop it or find another job in 2021
"The White House's refusal to let Congress interview witnesses it yet another instance of obstruction."
Congress is not the Justice Department
refusing to cooperate with them may be contempt but never obstruction of justice
further, since both Comey and Mueller confirmed that Trump was not a target of the investigation, he can't have obstructed justice by fulfilling his constitutional duty to oversee the Justice Department
Trump's is in charge of the Executive branch under the Constitution
the Justice Department is part of the Executive branch but is not mentioned in the Constitution
don't believe me?
ask the Supreme Court
they're pretty good
"you are innocent until proven guilty"
Unless your name is Barack Obama and someone makes baseless assertions about your birth certificate.
"It is the job of Congress to provide oversight of the Executive Branch."
actually, it's abuse of duty to harass a President when there is nothing unknown"
You mean like Republicans did to Bill Clinton when they found out he had a tryst with an intern? Republicans impeached him for less than Rump has done.
"yes, but the converse is just as true"
Mueller did not say the converse.
It's clear who's doing mental gymnastics here.
"If he had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, we would have said so. "
Nice full twist triple back somersault layout position but that's not factual.
After stating that he and his colleagues couldn’t clear Trump, Mueller reiterated that they also didn’t make any determination “as to whether the President did commit a crime.” Then he explained the reasoning behind this omission. Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, “a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
I pray for you to enjoy some reading comprehension here.
Mueller's report made clear under long-standing Justice Department policy, a sitting president cannot be indicted, and Mueller’s team interpreted that to mean they could not even consider whether Trump had committed a crime.
"actually, it's abuse of duty to harass a President when there is nothing unknown"
Rump is the #1 harasser in the world!
We know Mueller's team was unable to clear Rump and -- due to DOJ policy -- Mueller could not indict him and didn't even investigate to see if Rump committed any crimes.
But he also said they could not clear Rump.
Mueller makes his report to the AG who gives it to Congress, whose job it is to provide oversight and possibly do the indicting Mueller was prohibited from doing.
Congress's oversight job is to examine what happened and report it to the public.
When Rump prevents business, campaign, and White House witnesses to what happened from testifying before Congress he is committing another obstruction of justice.
“When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” No sir, you can't.
Thoughts ?
Have you seen this story ?
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/jessica-yaniv-transgender-from-bake-my-cake-to-wax-my-balls
Thoughts? Sure.
That sounds EXCRUCIATINGLY painful, no matter what kind of pubes you have.
My other thought...
How in the world does someone decide "I'd like to put hot wax off peoples' pubes for a living?!?!"
Stay in school folks. Get a good education, and you can avoid these kinds of problems.
Her name was Brooklyn Lindsey and those that knew her said she was a sweetheart.
Kris Wade with the Justice Project in Kansas City, Missouri says she helped Lindsey for 11 years and knew her well. The organization advocates for impoverished women in the area and helps them navigate the criminal justice and social systems.
Wade says that Lindsey didn't come from the streets. She was very intelligent, had a very good sense of humor and was well loved by those who knew her.
"She felt that she had not lost her humanity out there," Wade says.
But now she and many others in the community are heartbroken. Lindsey was found dead on a porch by Kansas City Police on Tuesday.
Her death was ruled a homicide by police who said she sustained multiple gunshot wounds.
Four years ago, Tamara Dominguez, a transgender Latina woman, was repeatedly run over at the same intersection where Lindsey was found this week. Luis Sanchez was found guilty in December 2018 of Dominguez's murder and was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The transgender community has repeatedly been targeted by violence and homicide rates among this group have consistently been at all-time highs. Trans women of color are subjected to even more violence and have higher homicide rates.
Eleven transgender women have been murdered so far in 2019, according to the Human Rights Campaign, which calls itself a civil rights organization for lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender and queer individuals on its website. The groups says that all of the 11 victims this year are black transgender women.
Wade said she last saw Lindsey on June 21 and remembers her saying she feared for her life.
Just weeks ago, she says Lindsey was "brutally beaten" and ended up in the hospital. The assault was reported to police.
Last week, according to Wade, Project Justice tried to get Lindsey off the streets, at least temporarily but there were no shelter beds available.
"We didn't have any money to put her up," Wade says adding that the organization is "dead broke."
Kansas City Police have opened an investigation into Lindsey's murder and ask anyone with any information to call their TIPS Hotline at 816-474-8477.
Sorry you are completely off subject.
No one is suggesting anyone be harmed !
I really don't care what anyone does, unless you start using my tax dollars to teach this all to my kids as "woke" behavior.
and cool behavior.
and that they might not be the sex they were born with...
The subject at hand is should a female salon operator, who typically services females for brazilin waxes, be required to wax a penis and balls, because said subject identifies as female, regardless of the presence of penis and balls !
and apparently everyone now waxes all the hair off and has it permanently removed... according to my adult kids (at least my girls, I have not discussed this with my 22 year old son and if I brought it up I can imagine the look I will get...). I might anyway. Just for the shock factor lol.
so, waxing this area is very common !
Personally I always have other ladies help me with waxing.... and I don't do Brazilians ! I am probably not "woke" and in the dark ages...
and personally, as a very successful female engineer, I find this teaching of kids in highschool that "well if you like guy things like the outdoors and mechanics and how things work..." well then you MUST HAVE a male brain and you must be male.
It's outrageous and wrong to suggest to future female engineers that they must be male.
It is the biggest affront to feminism I have ever seen.
My dad taught me … "do what makes you happy, do whatever you want, you are brilliant..."
I wanted to be an engineer. NOONE in my school EVER SUGGESTED TO ME that might mean I was wired as a male.
but that is EXACTLY what you are promoting to today's tomboys and strong, self-reliant females..
and you are doing an incredible disservice to our children as a result.
Theresa
"I really don't care what anyone does, unless you start using my tax dollars to teach this all to my kids as "woke" behavior.
and cool behavior.
and that they might not be the sex they were born with..."
If your kids were trans, they probably would have told you by now. Trans people figure those things out by themselves. They don't need anyone else to tell them who they are. If they haven't told you yet, then breathe easy - you're probably safe.
"The subject at hand is should a female salon operator"
Actually the subject at hand was "Western Liberalism," and how it related to Rump, Putin and California democrats. But we've become used to conservatives hijacking Jim's blog to spew their vitriol.
"and apparently everyone now waxes all the hair off and has it permanently removed..."
I'll have to take your word for it. I don't know anyone that waxes all their hair off. But then again, it never occured to me to ask anyone. I never considered it any of my business, and frankly I don't wanna know.
"and personally, as a very successful female engineer, I find this teaching of kids in highschool that "well if you like guy things like the outdoors and mechanics and how things work..." well then you MUST HAVE a male brain and you must be male."
No one is teaching this in highschool. That is your grossly oversimplified mischaracterization of it.
Although there haven't been as many women going into the stem fields as people might like, I know of no one telling them they should be male to be an engineer. There are women in STEM all over YouTube and people enjoy their channels. I've never seen anyone suggest they should have a sex change.
"It's outrageous and wrong to suggest to future female engineers that they must be male."
I agree. And I happen to know several female engineers; and I've never heard anyone tell them they should be male, much less to go have a sex change. I can't even imagine a conversation where that might come up. Many of the guys I've talked to in engineering are glad to have women engineers around - they don't get to see a lot of women in their daily grind, and women are a pleasant change of pace.
"I wanted to be an engineer. NOONE in my school EVER SUGGESTED TO ME that might mean I was wired as a male."
Then why do you think someone is telling young women that now? People are a lot more "woke" now. They're not afraid of female engineers. Heck, many have even tried to elect a woman as president. And it was only conservative trolls claiming Michelle Obama used to be a man.
"but that is EXACTLY what you are promoting to today's tomboys and strong, self-reliant females."
I'm not promoting anything like that, and neither is anyone else. I don't know where you get all these crazy ideas about what people are doing, but maybe you should lay off the Brazilian waxes for a while. They seem to have done some serious nerve damage.
If you can't distinguish the difference between a tomboy and a transman, that's YOUR issue that YOU need to figure out. It doesn't appear that anyone else has that problem.
Relax Theresa,
You can still be a woman in engineering. In fact, there's even a famous transwoman in engineering; her name is Lynn Conway. It begs the question, if she had the "male mind" of an engineer, why did she bother going through m2f transition - especially if she was going to try and stay in engineering?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway
Early research at IBM
Conway was recruited by IBM Research in Yorktown Heights, New York in 1964, and was soon selected to join the architecture team designing an advanced supercomputer, working alongside John Cocke, Herbert Schorr, Ed Sussenguth, Fran Allen and other IBM researchers on the Advanced Computing Systems (ACS) project, inventing multiple-issue out-of-order dynamic instruction scheduling while working there. The Computer History Museum has stated that "the ACS machines appears to have been the first superscalar design, a computer architectural paradigm widely exploited in modern high-performance microprocessors."
Gender transition
After learning of the pioneering research of Harry Benjamin in treating transsexuals and realising that genital affirmation surgery was now possible, Conway sought his help and became his patient. After suffering from severe depression from gender dysphoria, Conway contacted Benjamin, who agreed to provide counseling and prescribe hormones. Under Benjamin's care, Conway began her medical gender transition.
While struggling with life in a male role, Conway had been married to a woman and had two children. Under the legal constraints then in place, after transitioning she was denied access to their children.
Although she had hoped to be allowed to transition on the job, IBM fired Conway in 1968 after she revealed her intention to transition to a female gender role.
Career as computer scientist
Upon completing her transition in 1968, Conway took a new name and identity, and restarted her career in what she called "stealth-mode" as a contract programmer at Computer Applications, Inc. She went on to work at Memorex during 1969–1972 as a digital system designer and computer architect.
Conway joined Xerox PARC in 1973, where she led the "LSI Systems" group under Bert Sutherland. Collaborating with Carver Mead of Caltech on VLSI design methodology, she co-authored Introduction to VLSI Systems, a groundbreaking work that would soon become a standard textbook in chip design, used in over 100 universities by 1983. The book and early courses were the beginning of the Mead & Conway revolution in VLSI system design.
In 1978, Conway served as visiting associate professor of EECS at MIT, teaching a now famous VLSI design course based on a draft of the Mead–Conway text. The course validated the new design methods and textbook, and established the syllabus and instructor's guidebook used in later courses all around the world.
Among Conway's contributions were invention of dimensionless, scalable design rules that greatly simplified chip design and design tools, and invention of a new form of internet-based infrastructure for rapid-prototyping and short-run fabrication of large numbers of chip designs. The new infrastructure was institutionalized as the MOSIS system in 1981. Since then, MOSIS has fabricated more than 50,000 circuit designs for commercial firms, government agencies, and research and educational institutions around the world. Prominent VLSI researcher Charles Seitz commented that "MOSIS represented the first period since the pioneering work of Eckert and Mauchley on the ENIAC in the late 1940s that universities and small companies had access to state-of-the-art digital technology."
The research methods used to develop the Mead–Conway VLSI design methodology and the MOSIS prototype are documented in a 1981 Xerox report and the Euromicro Journal. The impact of the Mead–Conway work is described and time-lined in a number of historical overviews of computing. Conway and her colleagues have compiled an online archive of original papers that documents much of that work.
In the early 1980s, Conway left Xerox to join DARPA, where she was a key architect of the Defense Department's Strategic Computing Initiative, a research program studying high-performance computing, autonomous systems technology, and intelligent weapons technology.
Please Theresa, show us any sex ed curriculum that states, "well if you like guy things like the outdoors and mechanics and how things work..." well then you MUST HAVE a male brain and you must be male."
What sex ed classes do you imagine discuss "male brains" and tell females with them they "must be male?"
It seems like you were maybe hitting the bottle a little early last night and trying to kick up a little fight with your male brain here on Vigilance.
And BTW, how's your blog doing? Is it a bust and that's why you've come back to post on Vigilance again?
Of course being a good Catholic, it must take a lot of booze to support thrice married President Pussy Grabber who separates families seeking asylum, claiming there's no room at the inn.
FYI, MCPS Family Life curriculum includes section
"4.10.A.5.
Analyze factors that influence an individual’s decisions concerning sexual behavior."
Which includes
"4.10.A.5.a.
Investigate factors that contribute to sexual identity, including sexual orientation..."
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/health/high/grade10/familylife.aspx
Is the son you joke about shocking with news about pubic hair removal the same son you pulled out of MCPS because of a fifth grade video that taught about typical boys nocturnal emissions?
"4.5.C.1.d.
Explain the menstrual cycle and nocturnal emissions."
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/health/elementary/grade5/familylife.aspx
Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just spoke to @KanyeWest about his friend A$AP Rocky’s incarceration. I will be calling the very talented Prime Minister of Sweden to see what we can do about helping A$AP Rocky. So many people would like to see this quickly resolved!
4:01 PM - Jul 19, 2019
Justin Bieber✔
@justinbieber
I want my friend out.. I appreciate you trying to help him. But while your at it @realDonaldTrump can you also let those kids out of cages?
12:15 AM - Jul 20, 2019
and still no answer …
do you believe a salon operator should be forced to wax a penis and balls if they in general do not advertise that they service males ?
up in Canada, they have the HRC after these ladies that refuse.... and they are being forced to defend themselves to the tune of thousands of dollars in legal fees...
You don't care what anyone thinks here Theresa, and you think people believe you when you say crap like "I find this teaching of kids in highschool that "well if you like guy things like the outdoors and mechanics and how things work..." well then you MUST HAVE a male brain and you must be male."
And nobody cares where you wax your balls.
Post a Comment
<< Home