ChrisWeigant.com

What Is Mitch McConnell Up To?

[ Posted Wednesday, July 12th, 2017 – 17:10 PDT ]

What happens in the Senate in the next month could be pivotal for Republicans. They'll either chalk up some legislative victories or they won't, but either way it could be the moment that defines the political parameters of the 2018 midterm election cycle. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to realize this, as he's already (gasp!) said he's cutting the Senate's August recess by a full two weeks -- meaning senators will only have three weeks to play in the sun this year, rather than the usual five. Snarkiness aside, though, you have to wonder what Mitch is really up to with this move. What mischief can a Republican Senate get up to, with an additional two weeks to cook things up?

At this point, both rumors and spin are flying fast and thick, so it's hard to get a real picture of the possible outcomes. McConnell, as of this writing, is going to release two draft bills tomorrow -- the newly rewritten "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill, and Ted Cruz's "let's send the entire insurance industry into a death spiral" amendment. McConnell has promised both will be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, probably sometime early next week. Then McConnell will bring the two up for a vote by the end of the week. If his scheduling promises are kept, this will give the Senate an additional three weeks of work before their big summer break. If McConnell's prediction gets delayed, then a vote may not even happen by the time they all leave in mid-August.

There's reason for such skepticism, of course. McConnell hasn't kept many scheduling promises to date on the healthcare bill. This week's drafts were initially supposed to come out on Monday, for instance, and we were supposed to see C.B.O. numbers by the end of the week. That already slipped, obviously. If it slips again, it will likely push the vote to the last week in July. If it slips more than two weeks, then the entire time before vacation will be consumed by the healthcare debate, whether a vote is actually taken or not.

The speculation and rumors, at this point, are exactly the same as they were before the first draft of the Senate bill was even released to the public. McConnell, it was said, is sick and tired of dealing with an issue that seems to be going nowhere, because he is acutely aware that the more a monstrous contentious debate consumes the schedule, the less time there will be for everything else. So people are saying the same thing now they were saying back then: "McConnell will hold firm on voting up or down next week, because even if the bill fails it will still mean he can move on to all the other business they've been shirking in the meantime." It also is a useful goad during all the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting currently taking place: "We are going to vote on this. You can be on the record repealing Obamacare, or saving Obamacare -- and then you'll have to explain that to your voters next year."

A big loss on healthcare would cement the impression that the GOP is the gang who couldn't shoot straight. They've got the House, the Senate, the White House -- and they can't even agree among themselves how to move forward. Donald Trump will be the first modern president not to get a single big legislative win before the August break of his first year in office. There will be plenty of blame to go around, and the Republican Party will enter a phase of finger-pointing within their own party, much to the delight of Democrats everywhere.

But McConnell knows that suffering such a legislative loss is best done quickly. The longer Senate Republicans bog down on the issue, the closer the election season gets. And nothing else gets done. The longer it drags on, the more this becomes true. So McConnell truly might be at his rope's end, and he might force the vote next week even knowing full well he's going to lose it. At least then he'll be able to move on.

Assume McConnell gets his way, whether the healthcare bill passes or not. Either way, he puts the issue to rest by the end of next week. What will he use the remaining three weeks to do? The best outcome for Democrats would be for the bill to fail to pass, and then moderate Republicans work together with Democrats for a fix-it bill for Obamacare that shores up the marketplace and does not repeal anything. Efforts to reach such an agreement are already reportedly underway, although it's probably too heavy a lift to expect the process could be completed by mid-August. They'd have to move incredibly fast, although if they managed to pull it off, then the Senate could adjourn knowing they won't have to deal with healthcare again for the foreseeable future.

Barring unexpected bipartisanship breaking out, McConnell's got a pretty full slate of other things on his agenda, some with built-in deadlines, some without. The two big looming deadlines are the debt ceiling and the annual federal budget. The debt ceiling is going to be hit at some point within the next few months. Congress has to raise it. The Treasury has already told Congress to do this before they leave for the August break, so this may be the biggest item on the "Must Do" list for McConnell. If he could clear the decks on the debt ceiling, then the Senate would have the whole month of September to get their budget together (which is theoretically due by the first of October). Passing a debt ceiling hike is never popular with the Republican base, however, so it remains to be seen whether McConnell really wants this fight right before the big break or not.

There are other big Republican agenda items without deadlines to work on, although the concept of a bipartisan effort on infrastructure spending is probably no longer one of them (nobody's brought this idea up for months). But McConnell could use this miniature special session in the Senate to quickly hustle through what Republicans call "tax reform" and Democrats call "another deficit-exploding tax break for the one percent." At one point, the GOP tax reform effort was going to be "revenue-neutral," meaning the money the federal government takes in after the change would be exactly the same as if the change never happened. This would have meant lowering some taxes while raising (or creating) others. Republicans have been balking at the second part of that equation, however. Instead, they will quite likely focus only on what they all can agree upon -- big tax cuts for the wealthiest, and perhaps a few scraps for everyone else.

It actually wouldn't be all that hard to get Republicans to rally behind a tax cut (it never is, after all). We'd be back to the era of "deficits don't matter," in other words, from that side of the aisle. And, like McConnell sees the healthcare vote, the less actual debate on the subject the better (for them, politically).

Mitch McConnell, at this point, will only admit that he'll use the extra time he's just created on the Senate calendar for "moving on the nominations" that must be confirmed, and for other minor matters. But I do have to wonder whether he's got a real "Plan B" in his back pocket. Jam through the healthcare bill and watch it fail, but then pivot quickly to tax reform and hold a vote before the August break on a massive tax cut that Republicans are sure to love. If this second vote is successful, GOP senators will be able to use it to deflect any criticism over the healthcare failure. "Yeah, but we moved right along to tax cuts, which we then passed!" will be their standard line of deflection over the break, in other words.

This is less risky than it might appear. Since the Senate will have moved first, the House will have to draft their own tax-cutting bill. It will almost surely be different than whatever passes the Senate, meaning there will be ample time to fix anything they got wrong in their haste. The Senate passing their version of a bill won't end the debate, not by a long shot. But it would conveniently give Republican senators a talking point that their counterparts in the House won't have: "You say Congress isn't doing much, but we just passed a big tax break!"

Perhaps this is what Mitch McConnell is up to. It would be a brilliant political maneuver, I have to admit. By this time next month, will everyone have largely forgotten about healthcare and be loudly arguing about how big to make the tax cuts? It would certainly change the subject in a major way for the reduced Senate August break, that's for sure.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

47 Comments on “What Is Mitch McConnell Up To?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps this is what Mitch McConnell is up to. It would be a brilliant political maneuver, I have to admit.>/I>

    Okay, so here's what I don't get and I'm hoping someone will explain it to me ... like I'm a six-year-old.

    Is there anything that McConnell has been "up to" since January 20, 2009 until today that can be said to be good for the country?

    If so, then how so?

    And, if not, then how can anything remotely to do with McConnell be brilliant?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sheeeeeeeeeee -it.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps this is what Mitch McConnell is up to. It would be a brilliant political maneuver, I have to admit.

    Okay, so here's what I don't get and I'm hoping someone will explain it to me ... like I'm a six-year-old.

    Is there anything that McConnell has been "up to" since January 20, 2009 until today that can be said to be good for the country?

    If so, then how so?

    And, if not, then how can anything remotely to do with McConnell be brilliant?

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't know CW. If healthcare is disintegrating as the Republicans have been insisting for the last 7 years and their only accomplishment is a tax break for the super wealthy, I'm not sure 45 himself won't undermine them in a populist move (remember "mean") to deflect attention from Russia. If he can't have a foreign war, why not a civil war - 45 vs. Koch?

    I see few options for McConnell, and I'm searching for the World's smallest violin in anticipation.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I get it ... McConnell is just a big joke.

    So is Congress, so are the D's and R's and so, it goes, is the idea of America?

    Now I understand the decline of America and what it means to have that speeded up!

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    A big loss on healthcare would cement the impression that the GOP is the gang who couldn't shoot straight. They've got the House, the Senate, the White House -- and they can't even agree among themselves how to move forward.

    Which is EXACTLY where the Dumbocrats were when they were scrambling to get TrainWreckCare into existence..

    Ultimately, the Dumbocrats succeeded and cemented their status as the Minority Party in perpetuity...

    Will history repeat itself??

    Stay tuned.. :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    I get it ... McConnell is just a big joke.

    So is Congress, so are the D's and R's and so, it goes, is the idea of America?

    Which is why it's so great that we have President Trump in office..

    As ya'all point out gleefully, the Rs hate President Trump almost as much as the Ds do...

    "You're neither fish nor fowl. You're what happened when the donkey snuck into the horse barn"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Is there anything that McConnell has been "up to" since January 20, 2009 until today that can be said to be good for the country?

    He's going in the OPPOSITE direction that Obama and the Democrats were going..

    BY DEFINITION, that is "good for the country"..

    Stock market is up and going higher.. Consumer confidence is up..

    Americans are PROUD to be Americans again, after 8 years of being ashamed to be American...

    So, yea.. What's happening is pretty good for this country..

    It would be a LOT better if the Dumbocrats and the moron Republicans would get with the American people and support President Trump..

    But politicians have to play their games.. :(

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    a majority of the electorate actually prefers the democratic platform to the republican one, they just don't trust democrats to go to the mat for the ideals they claim to support. after so many years of "splitting the baby," there's a credibility gap.

    Which is exactly what I have been saying for over a decade.

    The Democrats have GREAT ideas.. They have they most awesomest policies....... IN THEORY....

    But when the rubber hits the road, when reality comes up and smacks the Democrats on the arse, the Democrats find out that their pet theories simply DO NOT WORK in real life...

    The latest foray by Califonia into the realm of Single Payer is a perfect example..

    "Hay guys!!! Wouldn't it be JUST AWESOME if we instituted a SINGLE PAYER plan!!!! How frakin' awesome would THAT be!!!??"
    -California Government

    "How are you going to PAY for it??"
    -Californians

    "..... Oh.... Well... er..... uh.... Well, we didn't think of that... Guess we'll kill it..."
    -California Government

    Like I have always said..

    GREAT... in theory...

    LOUSY... in reality...

    And what's so hilarious is that it HAPPENS EVERY TIME!!!

    The Democrats try the same thing over and over hoping for a different result..

    The very definition of insanity...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    SHIA LABEOUF
    TAUNTS WHITE COP
    YOUR WIFE PREFERS BLACK 'D***'

    http://www.tmz.com/2017/07/12/shia-labeouf-arrest-racist-black-dick/

    Anti-Trumpers... :^/

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    which as liz says is "anti-enlightenment / ignores basic fundamental truths and evidence-based assertions."

    Except for the "enlightenment" felgercarb, Liz's assertion is dead on ballz accurate...

    The Right DOES ignore "truths" because "truths" are subjective and is completely based on ideology..

    For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is a 5 yr old boy can choose to be a 5 yr old girl..

    For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is blond hair blue eyed girl can be a black woman..

    For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is that a man can put on a dress and be allowed to use the girls bathroom..

    Those are "basic truths" of the Left Wingery..

    Of course, the FACT is that a 5 yr old boy will ALWAYS be a male..

    Of course, the FACT is that blonde hair blue eyed white girl will ALWAYS be white..

    Of course, the FACT is that a man putting on a dress doesn't make it permissible to invade a woman's bathroom..

    So, yes.. THAT is one of the more pronounced differences between the Dumbocrats and the GOP..

    Dumbocrats see the world as they WISH it to be and act accordingly...

    As far as "evidenced based assertions", Liz is correct again...

    The Dumbocrats DO adhere to "evidenced based assertions".... But *ONLY* the evidence that supports their ideology... They IGNORE any evidence that doesn't fit their ideology...

    This is very easy prove...

    In your mind, is there ANY discrepancy between the Dumbocrat Party platform and factual unfiltered science??

    Any discrepancy at all??

    No, there is not...

    Now, think about that..

    What are the ODDS that real factual unfiltered natural science would be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY in lockstep with a political ideology??

    The odds that REAL NATURAL SCIENCE would be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY one with a Party ideology is mind-bogglingly astronomical to the point of impossibility..

    Given this FACT, there are one of two possible conclusions..

    Either the Dumbocrat Party platform bends their platform to be in lockstep with the science..

    Or the Dumbocrat Party platform bends their "science" to be in lockstep with the Dumbocrat Party platform...

    Now, of the two, the FACTS clearly show that, for the Dumbocrats, the latter conclusion is the fact-based conclusion..

    So, to sum up..

    Liz is dead on ballz accurate..

    The Democrats ARE truth based..

    THEIR truth....

    The Democrats DO use evidence-based assertions..

    But ONLY the evidence that supports those assertions..

    "So say we all"
    -Battlestar Galactica

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not good enough, Michale.

    Until you can tell me PRECISELY what McConnell has done since January 20, 2009 that can be said to be good for America, you can't be taken very seriously.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Until you can tell me PRECISELY what McConnell has done since January 20, 2009 that can be said to be good for America,

    I am not here to defend McConnell...

    you can't be taken very seriously.

    Anyone who says that President Trump is NOT good for America can't be taken seriously either.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then you shouldn't have said anything about McConnell. You should have just ignored my question about him.

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Then you shouldn't have said anything about McConnell. You should have just ignored my question about him.

    Touche' :D

    But, maybe even in SPITE of McConnell, this country is definitely heading in the right direction now...

    The facts that support this conclusion are everywhere... :D

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you watching Trump in Paris?

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's in Paris??? :D

    Naw, I have to catch up on some stuff, now that I have rejoined civilization.....

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes! You will find this most piece about his first trip to France very interesting ...
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40593515

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Very interesting...

    Apparently, President Trump is not the world pariah that the Left would have us believe.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Right. He has found a kindred spirit in Macron.

    Of course, he practically dislocated Mme. Macron's shoulder when he shook her hand. :)

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, he practically dislocated Mme. Macron's shoulder when he shook her hand. :)

    Subtlety is not one of President Trump's virtues.. :D

    "Patience is not one of my virtues.. Actually, I don't have any virtues but if I did, I am fairly certain patience would not be one of them.."
    -Crowley, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've noticed. :)

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Either the Democratic Party platform bends their platform to be in lockstep with the science..

    Or the Democratic Party platform bends their "science" to be in lockstep with the Democratic Party platform.

    This is the problem that happens when one major party is composed almost entirely of guys who dropped out of high school, business majors, and home-schooled religious fanatics: science and art take a big hit when they're in power. I suppose that we should be grateful that Republicans acknowledge that there is such a thing as 'science' at all. I suppose DARPA only survives because it's described to them as "better guns", and medical research survives because it is described as "better babies".

    In my opinion, the Republican party should be represented not by the noble Elephant, one of the only other animals of the earth that knows and practices love, but rather by one of the dinosaurs from the "Ark Encounter", a gigantic state-funded monument to ignorance and superstition in Kentucky.

    These dinosaurs would bring us back to our brutish roots, to the pre-civilized world of 'might makes right' and 'to the victor go the spoils' and other such nonsense. In their world, government is unnecessary as long as there is a strong man in charge, invoking the gods to follow his warriors into battle.

    In their world, economics is replaced by voodoo economics: wacky ideas like trickle down theory, which postulate that society would best be served by a return to Feudalism.

    And yes, in this world boys would be boys and girls would be girls and this would be enforced at the point of a gun, because freedom's just another word for not having a gun pointed at you by a social monitor.

    And it gets much worse and very much darker when the subject of ethnicity arises. Suffice to say that the dinosaur would almost certainly have to be white.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    In other words, you are not going to address the point whatsoever..

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [24]: Thank you! Thank you! I love it when a good theologian gets on a real roll, and this one did it: "Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key."

    Yes. Exactly. Bookmarked for future re-read.

    M [25]: Liz got my point. The problem is, is that so many folks that you've been listening to believe that science is malleable, that all of those numbers and facts can be somehow bent to the will of Democrats, else the results would conform better to Republican (or conservative, or libertarian) doctrine. Hence their focus on belief, which they view not only as an agent of change in society, but also in the physical world. But few are content to change society simply by praying for it.

    The truth is, science is science, and fact is fact, and, although you can obscure it (even for centuries) through sophistry, it remains immutable: innate properties and mathematics do not change, even when heavily prayed at.

    Unfortunately, as a friend of mine says constantly, 'truth has a liberal bias', and the science just keeps yielding different results than those Republicans would like to see. The answer isn't to deny reality, but rather to discuss ways to use that knowledge to improve life for everyone.

    But who am I kidding? While I dream, the President wants to turn the profession of international diplomacy into a version of Rollerball.

  27. [27] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    After the repeal of some taxes, right on page 2 of todays discussion draft:


    (B) AMENDMENTS TO PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT —

    Wait. What? Amendments? What about repeal?

    All the themes which put the hounds into full bay are still there, plus some bones for Cruz and fat for the other wing.

    McCain says he has a list of things from his Governor he has to get from the store , and won't vote for it until he can pick those up.

    I wouldn't bet on the mtp passing unless leadership just wants it have a vote on Senators' records and move on.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love it when a good theologian gets on a real roll, and this one did it: "Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key." Yes. Exactly.

    Well, Balthasar, not ever having been very religious, I had to look up a few words as I read this piece. And, then I thought "Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church."

    If Pope Francis wants to be effective in spreading his message to "break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church", especially in parts of the US where the need for this message is so great, then he might suggest that his messengers write more clearly and concisely, in language that is readily understood by the people to whom the message should be directed and that more succinctly contradicts the only message they seem to be hearing.

    This was a very well written piece but, I have to wonder how relevant or persuasive it can possibly be with the people it purports to be directed toward.

    It just doesn't strike me as an effective communique that has any chance at all of reaching the people it needs to reach nor of neutralizing the simple arguments made by the other side.

  29. [29] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: 28:

    Today on Morning Joe, the NYT Nairobi bureau chief described how Islam had held together the historical rival clans in Somolia.

    He went on to blame US policies for destroying that, but my point is that it can be fraught to disrupt the "organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church."

    As far as the original quote goes: yowza!

    Just so happens that I have a clippable version of the great ending to Woody Allen's Mr. Big. Think of this as a slightly overweight equivalent to michale's movie quotes.

    The Private Eye has had to shoot naked girlfriend/murderer in self defense, and in her dying breath asks him how he could have done that. Quote:


    The manifestation of the universe as a complex idea unto itself as opposed to being in or outside the true Being of itself is inherently a conceptual nothingness or Nothingness in relation to any abstract form of existing or to exist or having existed in perpetuity and not subject to laws of physicality or motion or ideas relating to non-matter or the lack of objective Being or subjective otherness.

    He ends by reflecting that even though it was a subtle concept, he thought she understood it before she died.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    M [25]: Liz got my point. The problem is, is that so many folks that you've been listening to believe that science is malleable, that all of those numbers and facts can be somehow bent to the will of Democrats,

    And yet, the ENTIRE amount of warming from Human Caused Global Warming is SOLELY and COMPLETELY from the "malleable" ADJUSTMENTS and TWEAKS made by your Dumbocrat scientists.

    So, the FACTS clearly show that it's your Dumbocrat so-called "scientists" who think that "science" is "malleable"....

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    This was a very well written piece but, I have to wonder how relevant or persuasive it can possibly be with the people it purports to be directed toward.

    It's an academic piece, to be sure, directed, I suppose at the writer's fellow academics. There still exists a schism in the Vatican between those who intellectually follow Francis, and those who prefer the more literalist and traditional theology of Benedict, who still lives in the cottage out back. This writer is perhaps writing for those scholars, to make the point that Francis' philosophy is rooted in established church tradition, rather than being a radical departure from the norm. It is rather, says the writer, the more recent convergence of Catholic and evangelical fundamentalism that is the historic novelty, and a departure from the legitimate mission of the church.

    Unfortunately, his construction omits or glosses over the role that the Catholic Church played during the 20th century in American politics - particularly its role in promoting censorship, culminating in the Hayes Commission in Hollywood, which was described by one wag as an era of "Jews making movies about Catholic values for Protestant families". It's debated, for instance, whether the anti-abortion movement of today would exist if the heretofore little-discussed doctrine hadn't been a plot point of the 1963 film The Cardinal, based on the life of Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York (the Vatican advisor on that movie was Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI).

    Still, the writer of the piece you posted makes a very point that bears repeating: the philosophy being expounded by conservatives who have adopted the hybrid 'evangelistic Catholic' credo has little to do with traditional church doctrine, and even less to do with the teachings of Christ as understood by modern scholars of the church.

  32. [32] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    There's one thing that the whole absurd politically based Climate Change divide is good for: narratives.

    This morning, both on Rush and on the lowest AM station on the San Antonio dial was the narrative that Greenpeace colluded with the Russians.

    Thanks in large part to the tribal positions on environmental issues, the narrative is that the tree-hugging Left colluded, too, and it will stick.

    The real narrative should be that Russian state will inject disruptive influence where ever they can.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, the ENTIRE amount of warming from Human Caused Global Warming is SOLELY and COMPLETELY from the "malleable" ADJUSTMENTS and TWEAKS made by your Dumbocrat scientists.

    And that's the pro-polluter lie in a nutshell.
    Clue: Democrats don't have their 'own' scientists. Scientists worldwide didn't fake ice core samples, or change the historic record. Certainly, the chemistry of Climate science can't be faked.

    Right now, America stands ALONE as the world's sole denier of climate science, swayed by the enormous sums of money, fake science, and lobbying done by companies such as Exxon (who admitted burying studies they didn't like) and Koch Industries.

    Deny if you like - we're the ones who will find ourselves far behind the rest of the world in renewable energy resources if we keep this up.

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LM [32]: This morning, both on Rush and on the lowest AM station on the San Antonio dial was the narrative that Greenpeace colluded with the Russians.

    I'm not surprised. Their goal is to debase and misuse the word 'collude' until it means nothing.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sorry, that was for LB, not LM. It's actually a jump ball. heh.

  36. [36] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [34]:

    Which is one reason I think we'll see a wedge being driven in between "collusion" and "conspiracy".

    You have to conspire against something, and now, thanks to the Russian lawyer, it can be "election laws."

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "He's going in the OPPOSITE direction that Obama and the Democrats were going..

    BY DEFINITION, that is "good for the country".."

    EXCEPT for all the people who voted for Hillary Clinton instead, who were MORE numerous than those who voted for Trump, and see it as BAD for the country.

    "Stock market is up and going higher.. Consumer confidence is up.."

    BOTH of which were ALSO TRUE, under OBAMA.

    "Americans are PROUD to be Americans again, after 8 years of being ashamed to be American..."

    AGAIN, EXCEPT for the Americans who are ashamed to have Trump as President, especially when they have to explain it to our friends and allies overseas how America has apparently collectively LOST ITS MIND.

  38. [38] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is a 5 yr old boy can choose to be a 5 yr old girl.."

    And your point is???? With modern hormone therapy and surgery, when they become an adult, this is routinely done all the time.

    "For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is blond hair blue eyed girl can be a black woman.."

    NEVER been TRUE. And no RATIONAL person ever said it was.

    "For the Dumbocrats, the "truth" is that a man can put on a dress and be allowed to use the girls bathroom.."

    ALSO, AGAIN, NEVER has been TRUE. This is nonsense fear mongering and pure ignorance, along with willful stupidity. True transsexuals are something else ENTIRELY. And many are physically indistinguishable post operation from women who were naturally born female.

    Really Michale, sometimes you are so blinded by your own ideology and so far off the deep end, it is truly mind boggling and awesome to behold, in a twisted fascination kind of way, "Just how crazy can this guy really be?"

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    And your point is????

    My point is that there is a REASON why children under 21 cannot drink, there is a REASON why children under 18 cannot vote and there is a REASON why children under 16 cannot drive..

    They are not OLD enough to be able to make mature decisions..

    With modern hormone therapy and surgery, when they become an adult, this is routinely done all the time.

    The fact that you think it's perfectly acceptable for a 5 year old to be able to CHOOSE their gender is EXACTLY my point about the Dumbocrat Party...

    NEVER been TRUE. And no RATIONAL person ever said it was.

    And yet how many of the Dumbocrat Party supported Rachel Dozeal??

    Really Michale, sometimes you are so blinded by your own ideology and so far off the deep end, it is truly mind boggling and awesome to behold, in a twisted fascination kind of way, "Just how crazy can this guy really be?"

    Says the guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable for a FIVE YEAR OLD to choose their gender... :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    And that's the pro-polluter lie in a nutshell.

    Yea??

    PROVE it.. PROVE that it's a lie..

    You can't because it's a stone cold fact...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    And that's the pro-polluter lie in a nutshell.

    EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

    A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

    “Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

    The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

    Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

    “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

    “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

    Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

    “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

    You see, Balthy... Unlike you, I can *CITE* to support my claims and conclusions..

    You never do...

    Now I have shown you mine.. Where is your cite that the above is a lie???

    Hmmmmmmm????

    Once again, yer wrong... :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    EXCEPT for all the people who voted for Hillary Clinton instead, who were MORE numerous than those who voted for Trump, and see it as BAD for the country.

    And yet, when the same election was held 6 months later, NOT-45 not only lost the EC vote, she *ALSO* lost the Vanity Vote..

    So, apparently, Americans had a change of heart on NOT-45 and President Trump..

    Facts...

    So sucky when they don't go yer way, eh? :D

    BOTH of which were ALSO TRUE, under OBAMA.

    Total and complete bullshit..

    AGAIN, EXCEPT for the Americans who are ashamed to have Trump as President, especially when they have to explain it to our friends and allies overseas how America has apparently collectively LOST ITS MIND.

    And yet, President Trump's forays in foreign policy trips have been wildly successful! :D

    Once again, you don't have ANY facts on your side.. You just have hysterical bullshit..

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    The Uninhabitable Earth
    Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

    This is why it's simply impossible for ANY rational person without a political agenda to take Global Warming hysterical zealots seriously..

    They have *NOTHING* but hysterical, baseless and factless fear mongering...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Yea, I figured that would shut ya'all up about it.. :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    And I was right.. AGAIN.. :D

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:


    In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

    As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

    The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

    Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

    While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.
    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

    That's *REAL* science, people....

    And it conclusively shows that Human Caused Global Warming is a POLITICAL issue...

    Not a science issue..

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    You see, I have real peer-reviewed science by REAL scientists...

    All ya'all have is hysterical Chicken Little fear-mongering...

    The Uninhabitable Earth
    Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]