ChrisWeigant.com

How About A Non-Silly Season?

[ Posted Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 00:19 PDT ]

It is now August. The dog days of summer. In politics, this period is traditionally known as the "silly season." It's called that for a reason. With Congress gone from Washington all month, usually coupled with a presidential vacation, there is just not a lot of news for political commentators to comment upon. So they usually latch on to some incredibly silly story and then proceed to beat it into the ground. With nobody else around to make news, this soon turns into a vortex of silliness, with everyone trying to outdo each other pontificating on the seriousness of what, at heart, is pure balderdash.

This year, perhaps (just perhaps, mind you) we'll get some Bizarro World counterpart and experience a "non-silly season" instead. I wouldn't go as far as predicting a "serious season," since after all this is the world of political punditry, where shiny, shiny objects are always a lot more fun to chase after than digging into policy proposals. So I'm keeping my expectations low, even as I do optimistically hope for a pause in what has been six solid months of silliness (and worse) emanating like swamp gas from Washington.

Perhaps Congress will hold some town halls, and substantive issues will be discussed. Perhaps John Kelly can institute some sanity in the West Wing while Trump's off golfing for two weeks. Perhaps the inane presidential tweets will slow to a trickle.

Yeah, I know. Probably too much to ask for. But at this point, the craziest thing out of Washington would be a lack of craziness for a week or two.

 

Program Note: I'm going to try to post at least a few original articles this week, even though I will be attending the Netroots Nation conference. As you can tell from the above effort, these may not be fully-fleshed columns, but rather more like random thoughts hastily jotted down. I can't promise a new column every day, even at this reduced rate, but I will try to make the effort to post as much as possible during the week. I thank everyone in advance for putting up with such sub-par work, and can at least promise that regular columns will reappear starting next Monday. Oh, and anyone else attending Netroots who would like to get together at some point during the week, the best way to reach me would be via Twitter.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

205 Comments on “How About A Non-Silly Season?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't think I have ever seen a Monday commentary this early!! :D

    WOOT!!! :D

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Your description on silly season seems to be on the mark.
    But how exactly is it different from the rest of the year?
    What is the excuse for the media latching on to incredibly silly stories and beating them into the ground the other 11 months?
    And if One Demand is a silly story not worthy of discussion the rest of the year, why is it not even a silly story worth mentioning during silly season even once?

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Did you see comment 2 from _"Congress Unifies Against Trump" where I asked about the guest column I sent you to have available for situations just like this ?
    If you did not receive it, no longer have it or would like me to update it (replacing Voucher Vendetta with the new name One Demand) please let me know and I will send it again, ready to go.
    You could probably read through it in about 10 minutes.
    It doesn't have to be silly season due to a lack of news. There is plenty of real news that is not covered during the rest of year while the media pretends what they are covering actually is real news.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your description on silly season seems to be on the mark.
    But how exactly is it different from the rest of the year?
    What is the excuse for the media latching on to incredibly silly stories and beating them into the ground the other 11 months?

    I know, right??

    I mean, remember the hysteria over 'cofeve'??? The hysteria that President Trump got 2 scoops of ice cream!!??

    How can that NOT be considered silly??

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    remember the hysteria over 'cofeve'?

    No, but I remember the amusement over 'cofeve'.

    Compared to the shitstorm that greeted the Clintons when they took office in 1992, and continued through his presidency, and the 'Wall of No' that greeted Obama in 2008, Trump's actually had a fairly easy time of his first days in office, save for the embarrassing inability of his party to move legislation, and y'know his own tendency to undermine himself every time he gets alone with his twitter or in the the company of Russians.

    Yep, I already hear you howling - how has Trump had it better than Obama?

    Here's how: while Trump still enjoys unqualified support from his base and party, thanks to fights and controversies incurred while passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the budget, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act, The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, Credit CARD Act, The Cairo Speech, The "Cash-for-Clunkers bill", and many nominations, including the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotamayor, Obama was taking fire from all sides, and he hadn't yet even begun to work on his healthcare plan.

    Some on the left had dropped away as early as January, when he authorized his first drone strikes in Pakistan, others were disappointed by TARP, and called it a "bailout" of miscreant bankers. Sotamayor had been called 'too conservative', and a plan to close Guantanamo had already stalled, and would vex him for the rest of his presidency. And he hadn't yet even begun to work on his healthcare plan.

    Unbeknownst to Obama at that point, Republican leaders had met on inauguration day and agreed to oppose everything that Obama sent to Congress, regardless of its merits. McConnell had been following that plan throughout, even to the point of withdrawing Republican bills that Obama supported.

    And how did the press react to all this? They criticized TARP as if it were 'the satanic verses', they gave copious amounts of airtime to aggrieved auto dealers, bankers, and developers, who found themselves suddenly owning wildlife estuaries. The Ultra Rich even got in the game, complaining that they were being 'cast as the villain' in the aftermath of the financial crisis, while black leaders complained about being ignored. Obama was cast as a radical on the cover of liberal New Yorker magazine, giving fist-bumps to Michelle, and the errant arrest of Obama's friend Henry Gates for trying to 'break into' his own home had devolved into his having to host a 'beer summit' in the Rose Garden. Oh, and conservative critics, including Trump, had already started to question his US citizenship. And he hadn't yet even begun to work on his healthcare plan.

    On this exact date in 2009, Obama was preparing to meet the leaders of Mexico and Canada, dubbed The North American Leaders' Summit, to discuss a raft of issues including an H1N1 pandemic that had migrated to this hemisphere.

    By comparison, Trump has just begun a vacation, which he claims isn't a vacation (said Steve Benen of MSNBC: "There’s no real point in getting into a semantics debate, but when a 71-year-old man gets away from the office for more than two weeks, goes to a resort, watches TV, and plays golf, it certainly looks like a vacation.").

    Trump will still be working: just one golf game more, and he will have lapped the number of games Obama had played to this point. Winning!

    So spare the crocodile tears about the 'unfair' way that Trump has been treated so far: on this date in 2009, Trump was about to throw serious money into an effort to prove that Obama was a secret Kenyan.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but I remember the amusement over 'cofeve'.

    Apparently, ya'all are easily amused.. :D

    Compared to the shitstorm that greeted the Clintons when they took office in 1992, and continued through his presidency, and the 'Wall of No' that greeted Obama in 2008,

    And how much ya'all whined and complained and bitched and moaned???

    But I don't remember talks of impeachment and KILLING of the President right after his election..

    I don't remember Republicans actively hunting and SHOOTING Democrats after their elections..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face reality, Balthy..

    You simply do NOT have the facts on your side when you claim that what is happening now is comparable than what happened under Odumbo or Clinton...

    Your Democrats are attacking and trying to KILL Republicans and Trump supporters..

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Your award winning good ol boy Gov Jerry Brown just backed the idea of the Democratic party using their limited financial resources to support "Pro-Life" candidates... joining Representative Lujan from the DCCC.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-gov-says-abortion-rights-shouldnt-be-a-litmus-test-for-democrats_us_59887027e4b041356ec11759?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    Apparently legislating away a woman's control over her own body should be an ideology welcomed in the party's big tent.

    And JB wants to focus on issues of the "common man that make America great". (like fracking, drill baby drill, stopping Single Payer, and lobbyists running the party apparently)

    Two cringe-worthy word choices in one sentence on top of his assault on 51% of the population.

    What a great leader he is.

    A

    PS- I think it's worth repeating, Pro Choice includes the right to choose life, so this isn't about the personal views of candidates, but rather supporting those willing to enact government policy to limit the choices of women.
    So much for your hoped for non-silly season.

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Your Democrats are attacking and trying to KILL Republicans and Trump supporters..

    False and libelous bullshit. I'm sure you have plenty of cites about that from right wing internet rags, but I assure you that there's no effort to wipe out Trump supporters. I'd know: my friends get invited to all of the secret meetings.

    You've been reading too much wingnut commentary, my friend, by authors like Kurt Schlichter, who's currently pushing a book about an armed Right Wing uprising. Sclichter article on the Townhall website states: ".. we’re going to have to fight another kind of war to preserve our liberty and our Constitution. And that would be really, really bad. Mostly for them."

    If it is true as you say that Democrats haven't fully accepted the fact that they lost the election, then it's equally true that Trump supporters can't get their heads around the fact that they now control the entire government. You won, get over it. Stop crying to mommy every time the press calls Trump a bad name.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    False and libelous bullshit.
    I'm sure you have plenty of cites about that from right wing internet rags,
    <

    How about a Left Wing rag??

    Emerging portrait of shooting suspect James T. Hodgkinson: Anti-Trump rhetoric on social media, repeat visits to YMCA near Virginia ballfield
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/law-enforcement-officials-identify-shooter-at-congressional-ballgame-as-illinois-man/2017/06/14/ba6439f4-510f-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.ddd372141a83

    If it is true as you say that Democrats haven't fully accepted the fact that they lost the election, then it's equally true that Trump supporters can't get their heads around the fact that they now control the entire government. You won, get over it.

    Yes.. WE WON...

    And ya'all are trying to nullify that win...

    And if ya'all succeed...

    Ya'all will reap what you sow...

    It's THAT simple...

  11. [11] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Someone ate an extra bowl of Wheaties today!!!

    Great posts! Excellent break down of Obama's first year and how Trump's problems are almost all self inflicted wounds.

    -Russ

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    ".. we’re going to have to fight another kind of war to preserve our liberty and our Constitution. And that would be really, really bad. Mostly for them."

    Yea... That's the way things are shaping up..

    And remember.. It was you Democrats who fired the first shots...

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I'm with Al on this one! What the HELL was Jerry Brown thinking when he said that!

    Will the Democratic Party also accept candidates that are anti-gay or skinheads as well...to be more inclusive of ALL Americans???

    I'm anti-abortion, personally. By that, I mean that I don't think abortion should be a political issue nor do I think any male should have a say in whether a woman can have an abortion. If the government can force you to have a baby, what is to stop them from forcing you to not have children? What is to prevent the government from saying smokers don't get to have treatment for any breathing ailments they encounter (you do the crime, you pay the time!)? Once we allow the government to decide what medical conditions we are forced to live with without medical options to treat them, we are truly looking at death panels!

    Maybe it's time to broaden the fight and go beyond the abortion issue with the argument that the government should not be the decider on what medical options a person chooses. Flip the "pro-lifers" by claiming that if they get their way, we will all be forced into prolonging life as long as the machines can keep our bodies going. Make them explain how they really aren't "pro-life" as much as they are "pro-birth"!

    Bottom line: It's time to take a page from the Right's battle strategy and use the fear of the absurd against them!

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Emerging portrait of shooting suspect James T. Hodgkinson:

    So one wingnut has you talking revolution? You need a country-western Lennon:

    "Y'all say ya wanna revolution? Well hell, ya gotta count me out..."

    I'm sure Obama got more death threats than Reeces has pieces, but he was BRAVE, even though his Secret Service detail put him in elevators with armed contractors. What? Trump didn't realize that that, too is part of the job description? Lincoln was waxed by a famous actor. You never know..

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [11] Thanks, Russ! Glad someone else read it!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    So one wingnut has you talking revolution? You need a country-western Lennon:

    No.. One DEMOCRAT moron tried to KILL Republicans..

    And MANY DEMOCRATS cheered him on....

    THAT's what you don't get...

    I'm sure Obama got more death threats than Reeces has pieces,

    And how many times was he shot?? Or shot at??

    Zero..

    So, it's NO equivalency...

    Trump didn't realize that that, too is part of the job description? Lincoln was waxed by a famous actor. You never know..

    And THAT is what many of ya'all are hoping and praying for..

    Thank you for proving my point..

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    THAT is what many of ya'all are hoping and praying for..

    No it's NOT, and that's what you don't get. We have children, for chrissake. What we want is for Trump to miraculously grow a brain, to show that he knows for one second what he's talking about.

    We keep hoping for the best, and ya'll keep shoving the worst up our asses.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I have to agree with Balthasar that no one here is hoping or praying for Trump or his supporters to be killed.
    Please show a little compassion and stop shoving the worst up the asses of the Democrats. There is very little room available for you when it is already stuffed full of the crap they accept from the Big Money Democrats.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with Balthasar that no one here is hoping or praying for Trump or his supporters to be killed.

    I will agree that most here don't hope for that..

    But it's undeniable that there are a few here who DO and when they spout such violent crap they are rarely, if ever, corrected or condemned...

    Please show a little compassion and stop shoving the worst up the asses of the Democrats.

    I will be happy to do so if others here by word and deed quit making it like Trump and his supporters are the worst of humanity...

    The problem here is that everyone here demands respect and deference and tolerance..

    But only a very VERY few are willing to SHOW respect and deference and tolerance..

    As I have said and no one can refute..

    I simply play the game by ya'all's (NEN) established rules...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    We keep hoping for the best, and ya'll keep shoving the worst up our asses.

    That's because ya'all DENY that ya'all HAVE the worst and try and claim that ALL of the worst is on the side of people ya'all politically disagree with..

    If ya'all acknowledge the worst, I won't have to keep reminding ya'all of it...

    It's not rocket science..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    James Hodgkison was the quintessential Democrat.. His activities and his leanings were identical to every run of the mill Democrat, including practically every Weigantian...

    He felt as strongly of his political leanings as ya'all do of yours..

    Are there *ANY* facts or evidence, prior to his rampage against Republicans that he was ANYTHING but a run o the mill Left Winger activist, no different than any most of ya'all...

    ANY evidence at all???

    No, there is not...

    So, when ya'all claim that Hodgkison is not representative of the Left Wing in general or Democrats in particular.... You have NO facts to back it up...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    AFTER THE COUP, WHAT THEN?
    Pat Buchanan: 'If Trump is brought down, American democracy will be seen as a fraud'

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/after-the-coup-what-then/

    PARTY UBER ALLES

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/7/bakers-refused-make-pro-trump-birthday-cake-9-year/

    And the condemnation from the Left Wingery against these bakers??

    {{chhiirrrrrppppppp}} {{ccchhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}}

    Thereby once again proving beyond ANY doubt..

    The Left doesn't care about discrimination as long as it's the Left that is discriminating and it's the Right people who are being discriminated against...

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I'm anti-abortion, personally. By that, I mean that I don't think abortion should be a political issue nor do I think any male should have a say in whether a woman can have an abortion.

    Well, wasn't Governor Brown agreeing with what you wrote here?

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Brown told NBC’s Chuck Todd that a Democratic candidate’s views on abortion should not be used as a “litmus test.” Instead, the litmus test should be the candidate’s intellect and how they treat “the common man.”

    That doesn't sound the same to me. I don't see how telling someone that they must give birth to a child they do not want is considered treating the common man well! I understand wanting to include more people into the party, but a party that stands for nothing isn't going to last very long. Smart, nice candidates aren't going to win elections if they stand only for the "common man", as the common man is more complex than that!

  26. [26] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From Friday's comments

    Do you HONESTLY believe that if the NeverTrumpers force President Trump from office over some piddley real-estate shenanigan from decades ago that those supporters are going to sit idly by and say, "Eh... OK, no biggie..." ????

    If you define money laundering for the Russian mafia as "some piddly real-estate shenanigan", then you'd lack the ethical integrity to criticize anyone here. That hasn't been found to be the case, but it is a very real possibility

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    It appears to me that you are reading quite a lot into what Brown actual said that he didn't actually say or even intimate.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't see how telling someone that they must give birth to a child they do not want is considered treating the common man well!

    Brown said nothing of the sort!

    Amazing that you would have heard it!

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...a party that stands for nothing isn't going to last very long. Smart, nice candidates aren't going to win elections if they stand only for the "common man", as the common man is more complex than that!

    Brown didn't say or intimate that, either!

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Let me try to say it a different way (because I don't think I did a good job responding to you after re-reading it), I can agree with Brown if we are talking about supporting a candidate that doesn't claim to have a position on abortion, one way or the other. If it isn't something they hold a firm belief regarding, then I can agree with that. But I cannot see the party wanting to support someone who is clearly against giving women the say over their own bodies. You don't have to be "pro-choice", but you cannot be "anti-choice".

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Brown told NBC’s Chuck Todd that a Democratic candidate’s views on abortion should not be used as a “litmus test.” Instead, the litmus test should be the candidate’s intellect and how they treat “the common man.”

    Yes, Brown did say that!

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But I cannot see the party wanting to support someone who is clearly against giving women the say over their own bodies. You don't have to be "pro-choice", but you cannot be "anti-choice".

    I am sure that the governor would agree with you on that.

  33. [33] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Brown did say that a Democratic candidate’s views on abortion should not be used as a “litmus test.” Instead, the litmus test should be the candidate’s intellect and how they treat “the common man.”

    I don't see how telling someone that they must give birth to a child they do not want is considered treating the common man well!

    Brown said nothing of the sort!

    No, I said that.

    But if a person is anti-choice, then how would you view their treatment of the common man?

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I just don't see why the Democratic Party is getting itself unnecessarily jammed up by having this discussion. I think they are trying to be too generic in their appeal to draw in new voters.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Democratic party isn't having this discussion. We are. :)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But if a person is anti-choice, then how would you view their treatment of the common man?

    I would frown upon such a person, as would Governor Brown.

    I think you are still attributing words and thoughts to Brown when there is no basis for such attribution.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What Brown was really talking about was a little thing called "up-wing" leadership.

    And, that is something that all of us, regardless of party affiliation, need more of.

    Brown exudes up-wing leadership and has done so throughout his long and illustrious career as a public servant.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think they are trying to be too generic in their appeal to draw in new voters.

    What should be the priorities in the Democratic platform for 2020 and how should that message be communicated to voters?

    This is the discussion I would love to have!

  39. [39] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    32

    Now you are making assumptions when JB didn't say anything of the sort.

    Dems have long embraced voters and candidates who are personally pro-life but who wouldn't legislate away a woman's right to choose.

    Jerry Brown is clearly advocating a change from the current party policy.

    A

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dems have long embraced voters and candidates who are personally pro-life but who wouldn't legislate away a woman's right to choose.

    Exactly.

    Jerry Brown is clearly advocating a change from the current party policy.

    I don't understand how you get there.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Just curious.
    Are you saying that a candidate or party's position on just one issue would make you not support that candidate or party based on just that one issue no matter where they stood on other issues?

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Depends on the one issue. I tend to think that someone who has wonderful ideas on cutting our carbon footprint but is also for rounding up and exterminating all believers of Islam should not be allowed in office and would question the integrity of any party that would endorse such a person.

    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but Ted Cruz was introduced and accepted the endorsement of a pastor who had just finished giving a sermon in which he proclaimed that God wanted gays to be exterminated if they refused to turn from their sinful lives! Cruz praised the pastor and thanked him for his support. Now Cruz didn't come right out and say he agreed with the pastor's message, but he did not separate himself from it either! That one issue killed any chance of Cruz and the GOP getting my support!

    I want an elected official that uses good judgement. Someone who denies global warming or is against vaccinations, for example, isn't someone that I think can be trusted to use good judgement.

    It is not wise to draw the proverbial line in the sand and blindly stick to it no matter what. If we refuse to address each situation on its own merits, our well-meaning stance can end up doing more harm than the good we believed it would do.

    I can support a candidate that isn't necessarily in favor of the positions that I hold dear, but I won't support a candidate who is opposed to those positions.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I'm going into the abyss.

    There seem to be too many fundamentalists dictating the abortion discussion in this country and the people in the middle, as I'm probably going to demonstrate, just keep their heads down because there is no "winning" in this argument.

    Firstly I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Abortion is the balance point between two lives and basically comes down to the point where you decide life starts. There was on old British Tishri comedy sketch of a mother with a young kid visiting her doctor and asking about an abortion. The doctor asks how many months sine conception and looked at the kid and said, "well he turned three last week, so about 45".

    While this might seem ridiculous, it is the mirror opposite of another point made by a Texas legislator who introduced a bill outlawing male "spilling of the seed".

    So the question is: at what point does a fetus become a human? There are documented cases of forced abortions in China of women who were pregnant with their illegal second child at nine months.

    Roe vs. Wade picked the best estimate of viability outside the womb as the point. I have no answers, but this seems as good as any, except of course that medical science is continually improving and so moving the point of viability. Instituting a litmus test isn't the right answer either.

    I'm putting on my figurative body armor as I press enter on this one.

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [41]

    The total impact cost, when used in this manner, can backfire as an argument. The same argument can be made for all foods as well, i.e. foods make us overweight and we don't count the medical impact "subsidies" of all the chocolate we produce.

    Teasing out the impact costs of one part of our economy is fraught with complexity and allows the fossil fuel industry and its apologists to argue about angels on pinheads instead of solid scientific conclusions.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Well, we still need food and probably will for the foreseeable future.

    The key word there being future ...

    The point here is that the five trillion dollars in subsidies globally per year is being wasted on a commodity of the past at the expense of clean energy of the future.

    Surely the Democrats can formulate a positive message around this, no?

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, of course, we aren't talking about ignoring the solid scientific aspects of this issue.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    The point here is that the five trillion dollars in subsidies globally per year is being wasted on a commodity of the past at the expense of clean energy of the future.

    Surely the Democrats can formulate a positive message around this, no?

    I'd say we stick to the simple message: CO2 levels are rising, changing the climate. The documented evidence is there to see. Every choice has costs associated with it. Green energy is a low cost option today that works, even without hidden externalities.

    A focus on improving the cost per watt for green energy plus energy efficiency is the low cost path today, as well as saving 3-5x more in the future.

    As a society we like to talk about lofty future goals and actions, but the best way to get action is to point to the present and say: this is cheaper, and this is better, and this is safer.

    The "Cheaper, better, safer" message is what really gets the people who are going to lose out (i.e. those with a lot of dirt energy assets and profits) upset. The more upset they get, the more you know you are hitting the right target.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    If you define money laundering for the Russian mafia as "some piddly real-estate shenanigan",

    As opposed to turning over a large portion of our uranium stockpile to the Russian mob as NOT-45 did as SecState??

    That hasn't been found to be the case, but it is a very real possibility

    No, it's not...

    You just HOPE that it is..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I cannot see the party wanting to support someone who is clearly against giving women the say over their own bodies. You don't have to be "pro-choice", but you cannot be "anti-choice"

    We have a license plate program here in FL where the license plate says CHOOSE LIFE.. It's ostensibly an ANTI-ABORTION plate, but it always cracks me up that, in essence, it's a PRO CHOICE plate... :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that sounds like an extreme example, but Ted Cruz was introduced and accepted the endorsement of a pastor who had just finished giving a sermon in which he proclaimed that God wanted gays to be exterminated if they refused to turn from their sinful lives! Cruz praised the pastor and thanked him for his support. Now Cruz didn't come right out and say he agreed with the pastor's message, but he did not separate himself from it either! That one issue killed any chance of Cruz and the GOP getting my support!

    But you supported Obama even though HE supported Reverend Wright for decades and only disavowed Wright for politically correct reasons..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd say we stick to the simple message: CO2 levels are rising, changing the climate.

    CO2 levels are rising at a very very VERY fast rate..

    Yet the temperature is not rising much at all and has to be tweaked into rising...

    Why is that??

    Why is CO2 rising rapidly yet, statistically speaking, there is no significant rise in temps??

    Green energy is a low cost option today that works, even without hidden externalities.

    If it works, then why isn't it massively deployed??

    Because it DOESN'T work on the scale that fossil fuels work...

    But imagine how much CLOSER we would be to MAKING it work if the moronic and hysterical Global Warming fanatics took all the hundreds of billions of dollars they paid to lobbyists and lawyers to TALK about Global Warming and put that into actually DEPLOYING green energy...

    Imagine that, eh??

    Your global warming is a con... It has absolutely NO BENEFIT other than making rich people richer...

    As a society we like to talk about lofty future goals and actions, but the best way to get action is to point to the present and say: this is cheaper, and this is better, and this is safer.

    And when green energy IS better and cheaper, then it will be deployed...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, try to think about this logically and rationally...

    If you are offered a system FOR FREE where you can get free electricity to run your entire household as you do now and NEVER have to pay another electric bill??

    I mean, com'on...

    NO amount of campaigning by fossil fuel interests is going to overcome THAT!!

    Why don't the Democrats push THAT kind of program?? Free Solar Power Installs For All!!

    *I* would vote Democrat for that..

    But Democrats WON'T do that because it doesn't make the rich richer... There is no MONEY in it, so Democrats won't do it..

    So, please.. Spare me the drivel about how Democrats are in it to save the planet...

    Democrats are in it for the money.. Period...

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democrats are in it for the money.. Period...

    If the Democrats gave away free power all we'd hear from y'all is that they are the party of "buying votes with free stuff". As usual, you don't have an argument just two ways you want to beat up on the Democrats - heads or tails they lose in your view - a totally partisan approach.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the Democrats gave away free power all we'd hear from y'all is that they are the party of "buying votes with free stuff".

    So???

    If it helps "SAVE THE PLANET", can't the Democrat Party handle some insults???

    What's more important??

    Planetary Destruction??

    Or the Democrat Party's fragile egos???

    The fact is, if the Democrat Party pushed for SOLAR PANELS IN EVERY HOME, they would not only win elections, they would SAVE THE FRAKIN' PLANET!!

    How can they NOT go for that!??

    Because it doesn't make the rich richer...

    Which is ALL that the Party is concerned about..

    I can't believe I am getting flak for this idea..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    CO2 levels are rising at a very very VERY fast rate..

    Yet the temperature is not rising much at all and has to be tweaked into rising...

    Why is that??

    Why is CO2 rising rapidly yet, statistically speaking, there is no significant rise in temps??

    Just in case you missed that.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is, if the Democrat Party pushed for SOLAR PANELS IN EVERY HOME, they would not only win elections, they would SAVE THE FRAKIN' PLANET!!

    How can they NOT go for that!??

    Because it doesn't make the rich richer...

    Which is ALL that the Party is concerned about..

    I can't believe I am getting flak for this idea..

    It's likely that it's a combination of factors..

    Democrats *KNOW* that the technology is not ready for wide-area deployment...

    And there is no money in it to actually meet the needs of the American people and "save the planet"....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's two scientific FACTS that no one here can address and it usually stops the conversation..

    FACT #1 It's ya'all's claim that CO2 levels is what causes global warming. Yet CO2 levels have risen 400% in the last decades and there is no appreciable warming.. As a matter of fact, the **ONLY** warming that ya'all can point to comes almost exclusively from "tweaking" and "adjusting" the data to fit the pet quasi-religious theory...

    FACT #2 Ice core samples show that *EVERY TIME* there is a spike in global warming, it ***PRECEDES*** CO2 levels spiking.. In other words, the high temps come first and THEN the CO2 levels rise.. Which makes sense if one discards a hysterical quasi-religious political agenda and employs common sense.. Increased warming levels foster plant growth which, in turn, increases CO2 concentrations..

    These 2 scientific FACTS nearly blows away the human caused global warming theory...

    And they are great conversation stoppers.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By George, I think you've got it, Neil! :)

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Miami-Dade complied with Trump to change its ‘sanctuary’ status. It worked..

    Shortly after President Donald Trump took office promising an immigration crackdown, Gimenez reversed a 2013 county policy and ordered Miami-Dade jails to begin honoring requests by immigration officers to extend the detentions of people in local custody who are also being sought for possible deportation.

    Miami-Dade is the only large jurisdiction known to have made that kind of change, which the County Commission endorsed in February. As a result, it has been assumed Miami-Dade would be shielded from any loss of federal funds the Trump administration engineered as part of a broader effort to punish communities not cooperating on immigration detentions.
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article165837497.html

    President Trump...

    Making America Great Again :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    “May you die in pain.”
    -California Democrat

    Tell me again how tolerant and respectful and peace-loving Democrats are???

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the Democrats gave away free power all we'd hear from y'all is that they are the party of "buying votes with free stuff". As usual, you don't have an argument just two ways you want to beat up on the Democrats - heads or tails they lose in your view - a totally partisan approach.

    Would you like to take a shot at addressing the merits of my idea....???

    Rather than taking a cheap shot at my motivations??

    No????

    Didna think so.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, President Trump Is Making America Great Again

    The stock market continues to break records.

    The job market is heating up.

    Wages are rising.

    Businesses are investing more in the U.S.

    Our foreign positioning has improved.

    Trade policy and trade agreements are improving.

    Americans are safer and more secure.

    America is fostering innovative new technologies.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/yes-president-trump-is-making-america-great-again/

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's two scientific FACTS that no one here can address and it usually stops the conversation..

    Actually, there is a 3rd scientific fact as well.

    Not a SINGLE model or prediction supporting the Human Caused Global Warming theory has EVER been accurate or has come to pass...

    Usually, when THAT happens, *REAL* scientists adjust the theory to fit the data...

    But that's not what is happening here..

    The FACTS clearly show that the Global Warming religion "scientists" adjust the data to fit the theory...

    " Doctor... Venkman. We believe that the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You, however, seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"
    -Dean Jaegar, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    But the kids love us!!! :D

  65. [65] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As opposed to turning over a large portion of our uranium stockpile to the Russian mob as NOT-45 did as SecState??

    Money laundering is a crime. The sale of uranium was legal. Clinton did not profit from the sale. Trump did profit off the sale of condos that he sold for well over the asking price. The uranium sale had to be approved and was overseen by seven different governing agencies. You probably already know that this argument you are presenting is utter bullshat, but at least you aren't just making things up.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton did not profit from the sale.

    Bullshit...

    The uranium sale had to be approved and was overseen by seven different governing agencies.

    And ALL of them deferred to NOT-45...

    You probably already know that this argument you are presenting is utter bullshat,

    It's a LOT less bullshat than YOUR argument because THIS really happened..

    YOUR argument is nothing but wishful thinking.. :D

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fact #1: CO2 levels have risen 400% in the last decades and there is no appreciable warming

    Not a fact.

    1970: CO2 levels are ~330ppm
    2015: CO2 levels are ~400ppm

    For Pete's sake Michale, do some really basic research.

    Fact #2: Again not a fact. You are talking about ice ages caused by Milankovitch cycles, i.e. a period where CO2 was not the driving factor. Learn about Milankovitch cycles and how we are in a cooling phase yet temperatures are rising. Currently CO2 is the driving factor, not variations in orbit or Sun activity.

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would you like to take a shot at addressing the merits of my idea....???

    Rather than taking a cheap shot at my motivations??

    No????

    Didna think so.. :D

    I don't need to. Look at Norway where they are giving huge discounts on electric vehicles and lo and behold Norway is leading Europe in electric and hybrid sales.

    Also, you can get free solar already in California - you basically rent out your roof space and a company puts their panels up and gives you a break on your electricity.

    Also three years ago when I put my panels up the total cost was $30,000, but I got a $10,000 rebate. The panels are saving me about $2,300/year for a payback period of under 9 years.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't know if this will post well, but here are my electricity numbers that I used to model the solar decision and track the progress.

    PG&E Comparison (Dec-Nov)
    Year Raw Adjusted Inflation
    2000 $1,969 $2,859 45.2%
    2001 $2,492 $3,500 40.4%
    2002 $2,243 $3,064 36.6%
    2003 $2,484 $3,340 34.4%
    2004 $2,322 $3,053 31.5%
    2005 $2,623 $3,358 28.0%
    2006 $2,940 $3,640 23.8%
    2007 $2,967 $3,559 19.9%
    2008 $2,915 $3,400 16.6%
    2009 $2,969 $3,334 12.3%
    2010 $3,259 $3,672 12.7%
    2011 $3,699 $4,101 10.9%
    2012 $3,905 $4,207 7.7%
    2013 $3,639 $3,841 5.5%
    2014 $1,502 $1,562 4.0%
    2015 $1,635 $1,673 2.4%
    2016 $1,358 $1,388 2.2%

    $3,831 5 year average
    $(2,269) Savings over 5 year average
    $(2,158)
    $(2,443)
    $1,541 Post panel average
    $2,290 Post panel annual savings
    $20,000 Cost of panels
    8.73 Years payback

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry for the unsightly data.

    Basically I've got my annual PG&E charges from 2000 to 2016 and have adjusted them for inflation to calculate a 5 year pre-panel average of #3,831.

    Mu post panel average for the last three years is $1,541, so I'm saving about $2,290/year in today's dollars.

    The net cost was $20,000 leading to a 8.73 year payback.

    I'm not adding in the cost of money, but if I did it would be 3% (my line of credit interest rate with my Federal and State tax discount calculated in) changing the payback period to about 10-11 years. After that I'm saving about $1,500/month clear.

    Since I'll probably stay in my house for 8-10 more years and hope to see a slightly increased valuation because of the panels, this is a long term decision that will net me about $10,000 to $20,000.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact #2: Again not a fact. You are talking about ice ages caused by Milankovitch cycles, i.e. a period where CO2 was not the driving factor.

    OH.. I see.. CO2 wasn't the driving factor back then (although Crazy Sex Poodle's first movie said it was) but NOW it's a factor.. :D

    Gotcha {wink wink}

    Fact #1: CO2 levels have risen 400% in the last decades and there is no appreciable warming

    My bust.. it was 24% @ 400PPM...

    Doesn't change the validity of the claim...

    I don't need to. Look at Norway where they are giving huge discounts on electric vehicles and lo and behold Norway is leading Europe in electric and hybrid sales.

    If we were talking about vehicles AND Norway, you would have a point..

    Ya know the rest..

    Also, you can get free solar already in California - you basically rent out your roof space and a company puts their panels up and gives you a break on your electricity.

    So someone ELSE can make money off of your roof...

    Like I said.. It's ALL about the money...

    Also three years ago when I put my panels up the total cost was $30,000, but I got a $10,000 rebate. The panels are saving me about $2,300/year for a payback period of under 9 years.

    So why not give you the panels for free???

    If the goal is saving the planet and not making money, then they SHOULD be free, right??

    They are NOT free because the goal is making money, not saving the planet..

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since I'll probably stay in my house for 8-10 more years and hope to see a slightly increased valuation because of the panels, this is a long term decision that will net me about $10,000 to $20,000.

    So, saving the planet is only possible if you are rich and/or have a good credit rating...

    I guess if yer poor or middle-class saving the planet is NOT the priority... :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's the goal here??

    Saving the planet or making money???

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where is the harm in taking the hundreds of billions of dollars that go towards TALKING about global warming and putting that money towards actually SOLVING the alleged problem???

    If saving the planet is the goal, then there simply CANNOT be a logical or rational argument against what I am proposing..

    Which simply proves that the goal is *NOT* saving the planet.. The goal is making money..

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    40

    "I don't understand how you get there."

    JB's own words as provided in the link.

    A

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, saving the planet is only possible if you are rich and/or have a good credit rating...

    I guess if yer poor or middle-class saving the planet is NOT the priority... :D

    My point is that the best way to move to clean energy sources is to make them the best economic choice.

    Also the monthly payment at 3% over 10 years for a $20,000 loan is $196. Since you will be saving $125/month on your electricity bill, the net cost is $71/month, and at the end of 10 years you have paid off your solar panels (most have at least a 10 year warranty, and are expected to be functional for 20+ years).

    Tell me most Americans can't afford $70/month to invest in their own future savings.

    Plus, in the three years since I got my panels the efficiency has gone up and the cost per panel has dropped, so the numbers should be even more compelling now.

    I expect a sharp acceleration in adoption when the numbers above deliver a net $0 monthly cost with a payback in 7 years. This will only require panels that cost about 30% less per watt than the ones I have.

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    So why not give you the panels for free???

    If the goal is saving the planet and not making money, then they SHOULD be free, right??

    They are NOT free because the goal is making money, not saving the planet..

    You can get free solar panels. Basically a company installs the panels and you pay them for the electricity instead of your electric company - and obviously you make sure you are going to pay less than you are already paying.

    Look around, the deals are there unless your state government politicians have been bought by the local electricity company and they are stopping you.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell me most Americans can't afford $70/month to invest in their own future savings.

    You sound like one of those Cell Phone Plans commercials that tout ONLY $40 A MONTH!!!! only to see a bill in the $300 a month range :D

    Also the monthly payment at 3% over 10 years for a $20,000 loan is $196.

    How many Americans can qualify for a $20,000 loan??

    MY point is that, if the goal is saving the planet there is absolutely **NO REASON** not to take all the hundreds of billions of dollars used to TALK about global warming and actually put that money to use in FIXING the alleged problem!!??

    It's interesting but I am facing a similar issue here at my shop..

    I have a customer who has given me a nice 60" LED SMART TV in trade for fixing his LG 50" DVR TV.. I can make $500 off the 60" TV...

    I have 2 choices... I can charge the customer $150 for the part and give him the labor for free in trade for his 60".. Which I have to put $$$ into to repair it..

    OR.. I can eat the cost of the part myself knowing I'll make it back plus much more when I sell the 60"

    Now... If my goal is SOLELY making money, then the choice is clear.. Charge the customer for the part and make MORE money..

    But... If my goal is just to help people, then I eat the cost of the part... So I STILL make money, just not as much. But I also help out a guy....

    Of course, I choose the latter option, because my goal is NOT to make money...

    With the Democrat Party's choice, they are PROVING that the goal of saving the planet is SECONDARY to the goal of making money.....

    Crazed Sex Poodle Al Gore has also proved that beyond any doubt as well..

    The point is no matter HOW "cheap" ya make solar power there will STILL be people who can't afford it..

    Make it free???

    Then EVERY household is signing up and kiss fossil fuel electricity generation good bye..

    or at the very least, it's use is cut way way way way BACK...

    And, isn't that the goal??? Get everyone on Solar power and cut fossil fuel use way WAY back???

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Which simply proves that the goal is *NOT* saving the planet.. The goal is making money..

    Poor logic. Try again, this time take the huge Republican bias off your thinking and that might help make rational decisions.

    I didn't install solar panels to save the planet. I did so to save money.

    For the same reason I just bought a ICE car that gets about 40 mpg - it is cheaper over the next 10 years in total cost than a hybrid or an electric and, once you count in the CO2 used to generate electricity, is basically a very close option from an environmental perspective.

    I ride my bike to save money, get fit, and it helps the environment at the same time.

    List out your priorities. Mine are health, family, money, environmental impact, and happiness. I try to maximize all of these when I make major decisions (my wife LOVES her new tiny car - a Honda Fit - she can park it in a sixpence and she goes to the gas station about once per month).

    You are right that a good credit rating opens a lot of doors, but you don't need to be rich to get one, just live within your means, have a moderate amount of luck, and work hard.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look around, the deals are there unless your state government politicians have been bought by the local electricity company and they are stopping you.

    Yea, I have signed up for at least a dozen of those so-called "Free" programs..

    Their idea of "Free" is putting up $10,000 and then reaping the benefits in 10 or 20 years..

    Their goal is making money, NOT saving the planet..

    If saving the planet is secondary behind making money, I guess it can't be all that dire of an emergency, can it??

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35300/

    Now THERE is an interesting debate to have... :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't install solar panels to save the planet. I did so to save money.

    EXACTLY....

    ANd that's EXACTLY the way Democrats think on this particular issue..

    They scream and yell hysterically about saving the planet and then it's "but seriously, let's see how much money we can make off this thing.."

    If global warming is TRULY the huge planetary emergency that Democrats like to claim it is, then it makes sense that addressing it should be the TOP priority.... Not secondary after making sure it's "cost effective"...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way...

    If planetary destruction is imminent, is a cost/benefit analysis ANY kind of priority???

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put still another way..

    If you have a city population of 20 million souls that have been poisoned......

    Do you stop to consider a cost/benefit analysis of getting them the cure??

    Or do you give it away freely and enthusiastically and worry about the economics afterwards???

    I know what MY choice would be..

    Apparently, the Democrat Party feels differently about it..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poor logic. Try again, this time take the huge Republican bias off your thinking and that might help make rational decisions.

    Neil, you know me. I am a simple knuckle-dragging ground pounder who doesn't know economic theory from a hole in the ground..

    But I DO have an abundance of common sense...

    And if the fate of the ENTIRE planet is in danger if "imminent destruction" then common sense dictates that cost/benefit analysisus (analysisii?? analysium???) should be the LAST thing on the priority list..

    Am I wrong??

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only OTHER conclusion is that global warming is not the imminent planetary destruction threat that the Left likes to make it out to be...

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Am I wrong??

    Yep.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Am I wrong??

    Yep.

    Any FACTS to support your claim that it makes PERFECT sense to worry about cost/benefit analysis when the destruction of the planet is at hand...

    But you DO sound like the quintessential Dumbocrat.. :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that makes you feel any better.. :D

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if you have 20 million souls in need of a life-saving cure, your NUMBER ONE PRIORITY is not getting the cure to them for free, but rather doing a cost/benefit analysis...

    No wonder you people can't win elections... :^/

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    And if the fate of the ENTIRE planet is in danger if "imminent destruction" then common sense dictates that cost/benefit analysisus (analysisii?? analysium???) should be the LAST thing on the priority list..

    Am I wrong??

    I think you are reading this incorrectly. The science points to a correlation between increased CO2 levels and global temperatures. The models predict that an increase in global temperatures will have some extrapolation effects (i.e. if the Sahara gets warmer and less rainfall it will expand and reduce productive agricultural land, etc.). The models also know that "run-away" or exponential effects are possible (we have had periods of "snowball earth" and "temperate poles" (and I don't mean nice people from Warsaw ;) in the planet's history.

    Continually increasing the CO2 levels is a massive and potentially dangerous experiment. If we can save money and not continue this experiment everybody wins except the people who own fossil fuel assets and live off fossil fuel profits. They know this (better than just about everybody else - their scientists figured this out before everybody else for the most part), and they know they need to buy our politicians (of cal creeds) to hang on to their gravy train as long as they can. They do have kids and grand kids, but the ability of humans to deceive themselves when their wealth is on the line is legendary.

    I can never understand why people who are not profiting from fossil fuels directly choose to absorb the pretzel logic and obvious falsehoods of the climate deniers when ultimately they have no dog in the fight and can only either stay the same or lose from the denial.

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It doesn't matter, Michale. Every other country, save for two - even the oil-rich gulf countries - signed onto the Paris Accord, and to the assumptions underlying it. Climate change deniers are speaking to a diminishing base of believers, like communists and Sean Hannity.

    Y'see, to a lot of us, it doesn't matter if the science is or isn't perfect. The idea that our water should be clean and our air should be breathable isn't ideology, it's common sense.

    Republicans have, for years now, been arguing in favor of Pollution. There's no other way to explain guys like Pruitt, who doesn't just disagree with climate scientists, but also thinks that standards for dumping toxic waste, and spillage and nuclear materials are just too high. If it's messy and toxic, and near a water system, Pruitt's for it.

    That's madness. Take climate change out of the picture and it's still madness.

    Because, over to our left is this thing called 'clean energy'. We've progressed to the point that we can meet our energy needs without having to clog our air with greasy dirt. Vegas has gone solar big time. Some areas of Kansas are running on wind power. Germany is now getting half of its energy from solar, and they hardly ever see the sun.

    So yer boys are behind the pack, yelling for everyone to slow down. What's a little DNA damaging polyflorocarbon when oil company profits are at stake, eh? Hey wait, where's everyone going?

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I think you are reading this incorrectly.

    So, the planet is NOT in imminent threat of destruction?

    I can never understand why people who are not profiting from fossil fuels directly choose to absorb the pretzel logic and obvious falsehoods of the climate deniers

    No one denies climate...

    No one even denies that climate is changing...

    All my point has ever been is that when one takes into account *ALL* the science, rather than just the science that supports the ideology, then the question is FAR from settled...

    Ya'all have not offered a scintilla of fact to dispute this point...

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    The reason why people buy the climate deniers bullshit is the same reason Republicans were against something when Obama proposed it and for it when Trump proposes it. An even better example would be Obamacare that was a Republican idea supported by Republicans before it was adopted by Obama and then the Republicans opposed it.
    Their dog is their team and if the other team is for it they must be loyal to their team and oppose it. And if it doesn't fit into their ideology then it can't be right because they couldn't possibly be mistaken in their ideology. And if they were mistaken in their ideology they would have to actually think about complex issues rather than just fit everything into their neat little ideological boxes that make it easy to rationalize not thinking.
    Another good example of this dynamic would be all the people that continue to support Big Money Democrats.

  95. [95] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz

    Are you going to explain how ending the "litmus test for abortion rights" isn't plain English for Dems embracing candidates who will vote for legislation to end the legal right to an abortion, and/or vote to confirm judges who will do so?

    Does "abortion rights" mean something different in Canada?

    The term has only been used in one way in our country.

    A

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the planet is NOT in imminent threat of destruction?

    Would you agree that those on the Left who scream hysterically about the imminent destruction of the planet are NOT doing your cause any favors by being so inaccurately hysterical??

  97. [97] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    94

    I'm sure that is one reason, but financial interests do sway many as neil pointed out, not to mention that susceptibility to misinformation, ignorance and plain old stupidity are factors in many cases... or the combination of some or all five reasons.

    A

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    96

    No.

    It is necessary to take action now, as ending the still increasing levels of pollution, AND decreasing them from current levels are both processes that will take years.

    The longer it takes, the higher the risk and the cost.

    Climate scientists are actually cautious with the terms they use, and condemn those who present the threat as looming so near in the future that there is no point in acting to prevent it.

    A

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if they were mistaken in their ideology they would have to actually think about complex issues rather than just fit everything into their neat little ideological boxes that make it easy to rationalize not thinking.

    Which also describes Democrats perfectly..

    So the *ONLY* logical position is to NOT be party to EITHER Party....

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Climate scientists are actually cautious with the terms they use, and condemn those who present the threat as looming so near in the future that there is no point in acting to prevent it.

    Yes, a very few do actually do that..

    But the vast majority wallow in hysterical fear mongering and are not slapped down by rank and file Left Wingers, as they should be...

    If that WERE to happen, if rank and file Left Wingers, including Weigantians, WOULD slap down those moron fear-monger'ers, I wouldn't have to post so much about the subject...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, SOMEONE has to put those jerks in their place....

    Since no one wants to step up... Might as well be me... :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump...

    U.S. Job Openings Surge to Record in Sign of Robust Labor Demand
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/job-openings-in-u-s-surged-to-record-6-16-million-in-june

    Making America Great Again... :D

    Admit to reality...

    President Trump is doing a LOT better job than ya'all thought possible... :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's OK.. You can admit it..

    I promise not to throw it back in your face... :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/08/scientists-call-out-new-york-times-for-incorrect-claim-about-climate-report.html

    Once again, the NY GRIME has egg on it's face, pushing "fake" news from a "suppressed" report that was "leaked"... :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Are in Deep Trouble

    Losing the governor of West Virginia to a party switch is just the latest sign.

    With Justice, the number of Republican governors is up to 34, the highest in history. The number of states where the GOP has control of the governorship and the state legislature is up to 26, including Nebraska where the legislature, while unicameral and officially non-partisan, is dominated by registered Republicans. By comparison there are just six states – California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii and Connecticut – where the Democrats are in charge (and the clock is running on a few of those).

    There are lots of reasons the partisan division has become so lopsided in favor of the GOP. The Democrats and their friends in the government departments of elite universities and on the editorial desk at the New York Times will say it's because the legislative district maps are drawn unfairly, because the votes of non-whites are suppressed in the South and in rural areas, and just about any other excuse they can think of to suggest the Republicans are cheating. In truth, the voters just aren't buying any more what the Democrats have to sell.
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-08-07/jim-justices-party-switch-is-the-latest-sign-the-democrats-are-in-trouble

    Yeerp... That's it in a nutshell..

    Patriotic Americans are simply not buying what the Democrats are selling..

    Whether they call it a New Deal, Big Government, A Great Society or a Better Deal..

    It's the same old schtick wrapped up a new label.. But it's still the same old tired crap that Americans have bought into in the past only to be scammed and conned and disappointed...

    Thar's a new sheriff in town... And patriotic Americans love 'im!!

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats, from FDR to Bill Clinton, were the party of the working man. They are that no longer, despite what their new "Better Deal" plan may say. They're undergoing an intergenerational change as the aggrieved and the aggravated take over. The power within the party now rests with the Wall Street crowd who cheerfully export jobs overseas, the millennials who whine about an inability to pay back student loans no one forced them to borrow, women who look at child-bearing principally as a bad career move, and people who are being asked to surrender their freedom of choice and their vote in exchange for a promise to be taken care of from the cradle to the grave.

    So dead on ballz accurate, it's scary....

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The power within the party now rests with the Wall Street crowd who cheerfully export jobs overseas,

    And Trump merchandise is made where? In Oz? A Republican who accuses Democrats of catering to "the Wall Street crowd" is blowing Cuban cigar smoke up your ass. Ask any of the several billionaires in Trump's cabinet.

    the millennials who whine about an inability to pay back student loans no one forced them to borrow,

    Well, if they didn't go to school, they'd be dumb, and susceptible to Republican argument, so I guess the GOP is against affordable education for a reason.

    women who look at child-bearing principally as a bad career move,

    Barefoot and pregnant, that's what they outa be.

    and people who are being asked to surrender their freedom of choice and their vote in exchange for a promise to be taken care of from the cradle to the grave.

    No, better to fixate on pre-cradle humans, and ensure that undesirables make it to the grave sooner. When the 'choice' is between food or medicine, it doesn't feel much like 'freedom'.
    When the option in the voting booth is between 'coverage' and 'die quickly', the choice is easy.

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    For those that accept the danger to the climate:
    Real Time 431
    Bill Maher: In order to fix climate we have to fix our democracy first.
    (Al Gore seemed to agree.)
    Then, after a short discussion of the electoral college:
    Al Gore: ...more importantly than that we have to get the Big Money out of politics. The lobbyists and and the fat cat contributors hacked our democracy before Putin hacked our democracy. And we need to defend it and put the people back in control. And we can do that.

    You can't get the Big Money out of politics unless you get it out from BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. It's time for all the Big Money Democrat deniers to accept the evidence that supporting Big Money Democrats is not the way to go.

    In the movie The Cradle Will Rock two capitalists are discussing the impending union strike. It's been a while since I saw the movie so this is not a direct quote.
    CAP 1: What are we going to do, the union is threatening to strike?
    CAP 2: You have to find a way to give them one dollar while taking two.

    That is what you get from the Big Money Democrats, they give you one while taking two. And by the you figure out they've taken two it's several years later and now their telling you this time they will not give you one and take two. (By the time you figure they are telling you the truth it is several years later and you find out they gave you one and took 2.50 .)
    But hey, they are still offering you a Better Deal than the Republicans that will just take (Maybe as much as 3 or 4!) and give you nothing. What other choice do you have anyway?

    "Your car is even uglier than I am"
    -Mackenzie Phillips
    American Graffiti

    But even if you are facing the right direction, if you are taking one step forward and two steps back you are still going the wrong way.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barefoot and pregnant, that's what they outa be.

    And if a woman CHOOSES to be, that is her right..

    She should be able to without being attacked and denigrated by your moronic Dumbocrats..

    THAT's the point you don't get..

    And THAT'S why ya'all continue to lose election after election after election...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    For those that accept the danger to the climate:
    Real Time 431
    Bill Maher: In order to fix climate we have to fix our democracy first.
    (Al Gore seemed to agree.)

    Tell me... How do you expect to control the climate???

    After you explain that, then explain how you expect to control the orbit of the planet...

    Or it's rotation...

    :D

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar [92],

    It doesn't matter, Michale. Every other country, save for two - even the oil-rich gulf countries - signed onto the Paris Accord, and to the assumptions underlying it.

    I think it is important to look at the two other countries (Syria and Nicaragua) and the reasons that they chose not to sign the Paris Accord.

    Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war. There is no reason for any country to sign on to this accord unless it has a stable government that can commit to the goals stated. They aren't in a position to really make long term goals about their carbon footprint when they are just trying to survive day to day.

    Nicaragua is the other nation that chose not to sign. I believe the reason that they chose not to sign was that they did not feel the Paris Accord did enough to fight climate change! It's not that they deny climate change is real, they have no doubt that it is a real threat; they just want everyone to do more to combat it!

    That makes us the only country in the entire world with a leader that denies climate change is real! Think about how stupid that makes us look. Trump: Making America a Giant Asshat!

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if they didn't go to school, they'd be dumb, and susceptible to Republican argument,

    As opposed to GOING to school and being dumb and susceptible to the Dumbocrat argument which consists of destroy, attack and kill anything or anyone you disagree with...

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not that they deny climate change is real,

    NO ONE denies that climate change is real..

    NO.... ONE....

    Anyone who TRIES to make that argument is a moron that is clueless about reality...

    That makes us the only country in the entire world with a leader that denies climate change is real!

    "You can't fix stoopid"
    -Ron White

    Or... if you prefer...

    "Here's your sign..."
    -Bill Engvall

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    As opposed to GOING to school and being dumb and susceptible to the Dumbocrat argument which consists of destroy, attack and kill anything or anyone you disagree with...

    Apparently James Hodgkison learned that lesson very well...

  115. [115] 
    altohone wrote:

    100

    You are either referring to some on the fringe, or to people (who are not scientists) trying to raise money or make money selling doom and gloom books.
    As I understand it, right wing sites have taken to promoting such types in order to feed their agenda and straw man arguments.

    New York magazine recently featured an article which included quotes from one such character and he was in fact condemned by the scientific community.

    And I think it's fairly certain they'd get the same treatment here if CW quoted them or gave them a guest column. But he doesn't, and the folks here have no obligation to respond to random quacks out in the ether... and I'd bet that like me, few here read let alone follow any links you provide to climate denier articles.

    You also may be confused by the word imminent.
    You may believe it means next year or something, but affecting this generation, or by 2100 is usually how it is framed, and scientists consider that imminent on a geological time scale.

    A

  116. [116] 
    altohone wrote:

    106

    Bill Clinton?
    Ha.
    NAFTA selling, New Deal attacking neoliberal.

    Whoever you're quoting is ignorant or purposefully perpetuating a myth.

    A

  117. [117] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [115] You are either referring to some on the fringe...

    For reasons which go back to my days flying across the North Atlantic, I have had an interest in the Arctic. The "fringe scientists" are mainly those who observe and measure arctic amplification (search terms). Changes in and around the Arctic Ocean are happening very rapidly at this point.

    These include Americans, Danes, Norwegians, and Russians. They're rejected by institutionally harbored academic science because their work is empirical, and they make public their beliefs about the flaws in current climate models. They claim those flaws result in the models quite generally predicting situations with horizons far longer than will be, and are being, observed. These situations include melted permafrost, methane release, and an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

    Interestingly, the same opinion is held by, among others who are not fringe-anything, including such invested parties as the Chief of Naval Operations in 2014. He commissioned Task Force Climate Change, and wrote in the Executive Summary of its Report (here http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/2014/02/USN-Arctic-Roadmap-2014.pdf ):

    Today, the observed changes in the Arctic Region climate and the reduced extent of summer sea ice reveal the potential for the Arctic Ocean to [attract] infrastructure development and commercial investment, resource exploitation, fishing, and tourism.

    Over the last four years, Task Force Climate Change, in consultation and collaboration with the broader governmental and private scientific communities, has concluded that ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean are changing more rapidly than first anticipated.

    The militaries of Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the USA are having to accept the reality because they border the Bering and Fram Straits into the Arctic Ocean, and all of them are talking about joint protection and patrol of the ice free channels, which should appear within one or two years. That, according to the Navy and also lots of "fringe" scientists you can listen to or read on the net.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are either referring to some on the fringe, or to people (who are not scientists) trying to raise money or make money selling doom and gloom books.

    No, I am referring to facts..

    New York magazine recently featured an article which included quotes from one such character and he was in fact condemned by the scientific community.

    Yes.. That's one example... But I can point to DOZENS of garbage articles that were actually supported by the so-called "scientists"...

    And I think it's fairly certain they'd get the same treatment here if CW quoted them or gave them a guest column.

    I have posted DOZENS of articles of gloom and doom by hysterical global warming "scientists"...

    All were fully supported by Weigantians...

    You also may be confused by the word imminent.

    No, I am fairly confident of my definition of "imminent"...

    You may believe it means next year or something, but affecting this generation, or by 2100 is usually how it is framed, and scientists consider that imminent on a geological time scale.

    So, you believe that the planet is going to be destroyed in 83 years if we don't give trillions of dollars to the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson, et al...

    Yea... THAT's logical.. :^/

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Exactly....

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what I find so hilarious about the global warming fanatics absolute faith in their "science" is that REAL science has a history of being quite fickle...

    There is, of course, the oldie but goodie how "scientists" swore up and down that the earth was flat...

    Remember when "scientists" swore on a stack of bibles that smoking was actually GOOD for you...

    Saccharine.. Caused cancer.. Didn't cause cancer.. Caused cancer...

    Cell phones.. Perfectly safe... Then caused ear cancer.. Then perfectly safe again..

    High fiber diet.. "Scientists" claimed that a high fiber diet significantly reduced the chances of colon cancer.. Oops.. 20 years later, such a claim is not scientifically supported..

    In the past, the "scientific consensus" was that life began at conception... We know now that no such consensus exists..

    And the list goes on and on of "scientific consensus" that turned out to be dead on ballz wrong...

    So, even if there IS a scientific consensus about human caused global warming.... which there isn't... so what??

    It's not as if scientists haven't been MASSIVELY wrong in the past, eh??

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    68

    Also, you can get free solar already in California - you basically rent out your roof space and a company puts their panels up and gives you a break on your electricity.

    Got to love it... California leading the nation in energy issues. Isn't it California with regulations regarding roofs with solar reflectance? *looking for link*

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-400-2012-003/CEC-400-2012-003-BR.pdf

    Texas has no such rules/regulations, but I voluntarily chose a roof with SR when I replaced the roof on my Texas property... one good hail storm that finally finished off that 20-year-old roof. My insurance company didn't bat an eye and paid for the SR roof I selected. I was told it might result in up to 20% savings, which turned out to be way off the mark. Making no other changes whatsoever with the exception of the "cool roof," it actually slashed my energy bill by 1/3... pretty darned awesome.

    I then got industrious and decided to replace every single light bulb -- and I mean all of them -- with LEDs, and that simple change along with my SR roof produced about an overall 40% reduction in electricity costs. I won't bore with details, but I made a few other inexpensive changes, and I have cut my electricity bill smooth in half... it feels like getting "free electricity" because the cost to make all these changes was fairly minimal.

    Also three years ago when I put my panels up the total cost was $30,000, but I got a $10,000 rebate. The panels are saving me about $2,300/year for a payback period of under 9 years.

    Wow... Now that is bloody awesome! :)

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    69

    I don't know if this will post well, but here are my electricity numbers that I used to model the solar decision and track the progress.

    It posted fine, and... dang... that is simply awesome, Neil. I am duly impressed. :)

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    79

    Poor logic. Try again, this time take the huge Republican bias off your thinking and that might help make rational decisions.

    Add to that the fact that tiny minds generally think of issues in terms of black and white, either this or that, one or the other, and can't generally fathom the concept that almost everything is not simply a choice between two things. It would serve them well to take a breath, stretch the boundaries of their little brains and imagine a world where things aren't overly simplified... it's easy if you try... because we're living in it.

    Picture a world where the company selling a solar product employs people who work for a living provided by selling their skill to the solar product company in exchange for a paycheck for the sale and installation of said product... and bonus... a lot of these guys are veterans. Win-win. The solar product company's profits pay local, state, and federal taxes, employees, etc. Win-win. The guy who buys the solar product is... let's say... Neil. Neil's priority is saving himself money, but regardless of his stated priority, Neil will be helping to save the planet (all kinds of ways) whether it's his priority or not. Win-win-win. Neil helps to employ veterans, save the planet in all kinds of ways, and save himself money... doesn't even matter what his primary motivation is.

    Now multiply Neil x 100.
    Now multiply Neil x 1,000.
    Now multiply Neil x 100,000.
    Now multiply Neil x 1,000,000.

    I didn't install solar panels to save the planet. I did so to save money.

    It matters not your motivation; as you know, you're helping to do that regardless. For those who for whatever reason aren't interested in saving the planet, maybe saving money and doing their part to help gainfully employ veterans would be their motivator, but they'll still be helping to improve air quality, etc.

    https://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/solar-ready-vets

    For the same reason I just bought a ICE car that gets about 40 mpg - it is cheaper over the next 10 years in total cost than a hybrid or an electric and, once you count in the CO2 used to generate electricity, is basically a very close option from an environmental perspective.

    And maybe next time you go to replace or add a vehicle to your household, technology might have evolved to the point where it will be more cost effective to purchase a 100% EV and make your own fuel off the roof of your home. *sigh*

    I ride my bike to save money, get fit, and it helps the environment at the same time.

    Yes... exactly! I'll bet you also take some beautiful scenic routes on your bike and enjoy our beautiful country too... some well-deserved R&R. It's not an "either this or that" proposition like simple minds want to insist is the case... it's all of the above and not limited thereto.

    Thanks for all your posts about this subject, Neil; they were extremely helpful and much appreciated. :)

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs committee, said Trump’s latest comments “undermined American credibility by drawing an absurd red line.”

    And if ANYONE would know about drawing "absurd red lines" it would be a Dumbocrat!! :D

    Of course, THIS Dumbocrat didn't give a carp about 'absurd red lines' and American credibility when his buddy Odumbo was doing it..

    So, why should Engel think HE has any credibility???

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Add to that the fact that tiny minds generally think of issues in terms of black and white,

    No.. Tiny minds just believe whatever their Party tells them to believe..

    So, I guess you are another one who would let 20 millions souls die while you worked out the cost/benefit analysis of giving away life-saving drugs for free...

    Like I said.. It's no wonder your Dumbocrats can't win elections..

    Picture a world where the company selling a solar product employs people who work for a living provided by selling their skill to the solar product company in exchange for a paycheck for the sale and installation of said product... and bonus... a lot of these guys are veterans. Win-win. The solar product company's profits pay local, state, and federal taxes, employees, etc. Win-win. The guy who buys the solar product is... let's say... Neil. Neil's priority is saving himself money, but regardless of his stated priority, Neil will be helping to save the planet (all kinds of ways) whether it's his priority or not. Win-win-win. Neil helps to employ veterans, save the planet in all kinds of ways, and save himself money... doesn't even matter what his primary motivation is.

    Now multiply Neil x 100.
    Now multiply Neil x 1,000.
    Now multiply Neil x 100,000.
    Now multiply Neil x 1,000,000.

    And yet... It's NOT happening that way??

    Why is that??

    Because the technology isn't ready for deployment..

    All of ya'all's obfuscations ignore the salient point..

    IF the planet is in imminent danger of destruction, the *ONLY* course of action that makes ANY kind of logical sense is to give this stuff away for free in a valiant attempt to stave off said imminent planetary destruction..

    The fact that ya'all don't support this plan PROVES that ya'all don't REALLY believe that the planet is in any imminent danger of being destroyed..

    Or ya'all just like saying the opposite of what I say... :D

    Thanks for all your posts about this subject, Neil; they were extremely helpful and much appreciated. :)

    Jeesus....

    Make sure you clean up all that brown stuff off your nose and wipe yer mouth... :D

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny...

    All of ya'all's scientific beliefs completely and utterly line up with ya'all's (NEN) Party and ideological beliefs..

    The odds of that happening are astronomical..

    Ergo, the ONLY logical conclusion is that ya'all's Party zealotry determines ya'all's scientific beliefs...

    Of course, NEN... :D

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    All of ya'all's scientific beliefs completely and utterly line up with ya'all's (NEN) Party and ideological beliefs..

    No, it is simpler than that. My understanding of reality is based on conclusions that follow from the scientific process, and so I don't need to believe anything. Many other people have the same understanding because of the same process.

    Currently the Republican Party has lost its marbles, so they collect all sorts of interpretations of reality, few of which agree.

    There is an old observation that if civilization restarted from scratch the science books would be the same as ours but the Bibles would all be different.

    Until the Republican Party accepts scientific reality again, they have lost my vote. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a realist, and in our current two Party system where third parties have no feasible route to power, the Democrats are the only choice.

    Here are four beliefs that will ensure you cannot win a Republican primary at the moment:

    1) Climate change is real and it is caused primarily by human activity.

    2) Human beings evolved from simpler life forms, and the same evolutionary process shapes all living systems.

    3) Abortion is a complex issue because it involves two legitimate liberty interests in conflict with one another.

    4) Race still skews economic outcomes in the United States.

    To read where the above four came from I recommend this article:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/07/20/why-republicans-cannot-replace-the-aca-or-accomplish-anything-else/#78eca1142776

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, it is simpler than that. My understanding of reality is based on conclusions that follow from the scientific process,

    And your "scientific process" completely lines up with your political ideology..

    What are the odds that THAT would happen??

    Climate change is real and it is caused primarily by human activity.

    And what caused Climate Change when humans weren't around??

    Explain the explosion of CO2 but temps aren't rising..

    You STILL haven't addressed that..

    ) Race still skews economic outcomes in the United States.

    Yea, that's the claim.. But no facts to back it up that can't be explained by other criteria...

    Inadvertently, you prove my point..

    Your scientific beliefs are COMPLETELY in line with your political beliefs...

    And, the facts clearly show that if there is EVER a conflict, you adjust your scientific beliefs to match your political beliefs..

    Your belief in human caused global warming is a perfect example...

    It's the same thing as adjusting the data to fit the theory..

    REAL science does just the opposite...

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale I've been explaining reality to you for too long for me to expect you to accept what the scientific process says when you don't like the results. Other people may enjoy the attached article however as it articulates clearly what is happening to the Republican Party and was written by an ex-GOP precinct Committeeman who can't accept what the Party of rationality has become.

  130. [130] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    "Until the Republican Party accepts scientific reality again, they have lost my vote. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Realist, and in our current two party system where third parties have no feasible route to power, the Democrats are the only choice."

    Please apply your realist approach to comment 108 that clearly demonstrates that supporting Big Money Democrats is NOT realistic.
    If you will not vote for Republicans because they won't accept scientific reality then you should also be able to not vote for Democrats that DO accept Big Money contributions.

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don H.:

    As I said, I'm a realist. There is too much money in politics, and if you read some of my earlier comments (e.g. [91] above) you know that I understand that.

    I admire your vision and persistence on this, and do support you, but I don't see your approach as having a realistic chance of success, sadly for both of us and the country as a whole.

    I give money to the politicians I vote for and I don't ask for anything in return. The amounts are well within the $2,700 limit. I give at the local and national level for each politician, so they are basically a rounding error in their total fundraising efforts, but at least I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

    If everybody gave only $10 to each of their congressperson candidate, senatorial candidate, and presidential candidate when they voted the need for big money would evaporate.

    Even better, if everybody made their voting decisions based on a minimum of basic research instead of their "gut" and the ads they watched on TV, money in politics would be meaningless - any residual amounts would be under extreme scrutiny because instead of going to "fund raising accounts" we would know that they are for corruption.

    So we can have:

    One Demand: only vote for politicians who don't accept big money (e.g. more than $1,000 per validated source)

    Money-Where-Your-Mouth-Is: Everybody donates at least $10 to everybody they vote for

    Enlightened Voting: People take politics seriously, even if only for one week every two years.

    All three require an apathetic public to become minimally engaged, and this is where my "realism" kicks in. Sadly the biggest flaw in the machine are the damn humans.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Michale I've been explaining reality to you for too long for me to expect you to accept what the scientific process says when you don't like the results.

    That's just the problem.. You aren't explaining the "scientific process".. You are explain YOUR justification for ignoring the REAL science that doesn't conform to your ideology..

    The REAL scientific process is to adjust a theory to fit the data..

    FACTS prove beyond any doubt that you Democrats adjust your data to fit your theory...

    How can you even CONSIDER that to be a valid "scientific process"??

    Other people may enjoy the attached article however as it articulates clearly what is happening to the Republican Party and was written by an ex-GOP precinct Committeeman who can't accept what the Party of rationality has become.

    Other people here enjoy the attached article because it says EXACTLY what they want to hear...

    That is all..

  133. [133] 
    Paula wrote:
  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Science and reality aren't really your thing.

    No worries ;)

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Concussion Expert Says Letting Kids Play Football Should Be Considered Child Abuse

    BOSTON (CBS) — The doctor who discovered CTE believes that letting anyone under 18 years old play football should be considered child abuse.

    Dr. Bennet Omalu, a neuropathologist and expert in the study of the effects of concussions, recently reacted to the study that found 110 of 111 former NFL players who had their brains donated suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). He said that letting children play football is the definition of “child abuse,” and doesn’t believe there is any way to make the sport safer.
    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/08/08/concussion-expert-football-child-abuse-cte-nfl/

    This is why Dumbocrats are morons...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Science and reality aren't really your thing.

    No worries ;)

    On the contrary, science and reality are my ONLY things..

    It's ya'all who have a problem with it because you ignore the fact that your so-called "scientists" have to adjust and tweak the data to come out with the politically proper "solution"..

    Virtually *ALL* of the warming that you point to COMES from the tweaks and adjustments...

    When those politically correct tweaks and adjustments are discarded, global temps plummet...

    This is documented fact...

    Facts clearly show who has the problem with REAL science and who does not :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/doj-finds-no-conflicts-of-interest-in-muellers-disclosures.html

    Unlike Blotus and his criminal family and cronies.

    NY MAG....

    'Nuff said..

    I can find something on Brietbart that says just the opposite..

    And it's JUST as reliable.. :D

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re: Dr. Bennet Omalu

    I've been wondering about this. The research found brain injuries in 110 of 111 professional players studied and 177 of the total 202 former players at all levels. This was of brains of deceased players donated by their families, so this was not a random study and conclusions should be taken as in need of a lot of further research.

    In my local soccer league "heading" the ball is now banned for under 12 year olds (I'm a volunteer referee and so I got instructions to call an infringement if a player under 12 headed the ball starting last year).

    We will see how this goes. I'm pretty sure a parent would be charged with child abuse if they regularly gave their kids whisky shots with every meal, however not so many years ago doctors in Scotland would "recommend" rubbing babies gums with a finger dipped in whisky to help with teething.

    I'm surprised you want all Republicans to inflict brain damage on their kids however Michale - but since y'all want them to stop going to University now I suppose your party is for dumbing down their kids so they will all be incapacitated enough to vote Republican in the future ;)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    We will see how this goes. I'm pretty sure a parent would be charged with child abuse if they regularly gave their kids whisky shots with every meal, however not so many years ago doctors in Scotland would "recommend" rubbing babies gums with a finger dipped in whisky to help with teething.

    Giving children whiskey shots has absolutely NO REDEEMING VALUE whatsoever...

    I am sure as a volunteer sports referee you recognize the value of team sports for a child's growth and maturity...

    Your comparison is apples and Eskimos...

    I just find it funny how Dumbocrats have absolutely NO PROBLEM with ripping fetuses out of women, but gasp like little wussies at the mere thought of organized children's sports...

  140. [140] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Thank you for addressing comment 108. While you made many good points, I must disagree that your realism kicks in at the point that all three of your scenarios require an apathetic public to be come minimally engaged.
    Of your three choices, all with admirable goals, only One Demand actually has a plan to achieve the goal.
    The chance for success of One Demand is AT LEAST as viable as continuing to vote for Big Money Democrats. Voting for Big Money Democrats has not worked for over thirty years whether they win or lose the elections.
    One Demand has not been tried yet. But the three main parts of it have been tried and been successful. The success of the three separate parts on their own certainly suggest putting them together and trying that is logical, pragmatic and a much better choice than continuing to support Big Money Democrats.
    1. The Tea Party has proven that taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries can be successful. But they were not successful in all of their first attempts. One Demand will also have limited success at first. It would not be realistic to expect anything else.
    2. Bernie has proven that a small contribution candidate can raise competitive amounts of money. Even though Bernie's campaign was not a true small contribution campaign, he did raise more money from small contributions (aggregate 200 dollars or less) even though he raised more from aggregate contributions over 200 dollars. (note: this 200 dollar limit was in article containing a part about Bernie's fundraising and is the author's limit. The 200 dollar limit of One Demand is a coincidence in this case.)
    Bernie has at least created the perception that small contribution campaigns can be competitive which is almost as important as reality in today's political climate.
    3. The Women's March and other internet campaigns have been successful in moving the public perceptions and accomplishing a goal in ways and time frames previously thought to be impossible. So there is a good possibility that One Demand can also meet it's goals- a goal shared by 80% of citizens and even a majority of Republican voters.
    The point is that it can't hurt to try One Demand. If it is not successful there will still be Big Money Democrats to vote for. But if it is successful then you will have a realist choice of small contribution Democrats, Republicans, third party or independent candidates instead of settling for the one step forward two steps back Big Money Democrats.
    Apparently this needs to be repeated:

    Even if you are facing the right direction, taking one step forward and two steps back is still going the wrong way.

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Facts clearly show who has the problem with REAL science and who does not :D

    Yup. The climate deniers are ignoring reality.

    Global average temperatures are going up. CO2 is the forcing factor as the other factors are either mostly steady or actually forcing a decrease.

    Let's look at your current argument: Anthropomorphic CO2 couldn't have caused prior warming because there were no humans then.

    Let's use your house as an analogy. The temperature in your house is governed by (1) your HVAC, (2) the outside temperature and (3) the your windows (open or closed).

    We are going with a simple model here to make a point.

    One day the outside temperature is 70, the windows are open, but your HVAC is on full heating mode. Your house is at 90, and the forcing factor is the HVAC.

    You realize your mistake, and switch off the HVAC. However the temperature outside goes to 90 and so does your house. Now the forcing factor is the outside temperature because your windows are open.

    You close your windows and the next day the outside temperature drops back to 70, but the sun is blazing through your windows and the temperature goes up to 90.

    All three days the temperature was 90. Each day there was a different forcing factor.

    This is how things like sun activity (your HVAC), milankovitch cycles (outside temperature), and CO2 (closing your windows) can all cause global warming.

    Currently the sun activity is stable, we are an average distance from the sun (milankovitch cycles) but our CO2 levels are rising and we are experiencing warming.

    Science and reality.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm surprised you want all Republicans to inflict brain damage on their kids however Michale - but since y'all want them to stop going to University now I suppose your party is for dumbing down their kids so they will all be incapacitated enough to vote Republican in the future ;)

    As opposed to Dumbocrats who ONLY want good little drones that will do and think as they are told... ;D

    Present company excepted.....

    Of course.. :D

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Global average temperatures are going up.

    No they are not.. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1996..

    It was only when your so-called "scientists" started tweaking and adjusting the data to fit the theory, were ya'all able to claim that temps are going up..

    Virtually *ALL* of the warming you are claiming comes from the tweaks and adjustments..

    This is well documented as fact..

    Currently the sun activity is stable, we are an average distance from the sun (milankovitch cycles) but our CO2 levels are rising and we are experiencing warming.

    No, we are not..

    Science and reality.

    No.. Political correctness...

  144. [144] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Speaking from the perspective of someone that has refused to grow up, us children don't care if their is any redeeming value- we just want the whiskey! :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking from the perspective of someone that has refused to grow up, us children don't care if their is any redeeming value- we just want the whiskey! :D

    Touche' :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:
  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale

    I cannot believe you think whisky has no redeeming value. My Scottish soul is wounded ;)

    Come over to my house any January 25th when I have my Burns Supper and I promise to change your mind ;)

    I'll also change your mind about haggis, if that is also required.

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ah the old RSS feed nonsense Michale. The RSS feed uses the same raw data as the UAH feed but gets different results.

    Turns out they use different climate models to take the raw data and convert it to temperatures:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Roy Spencer has appeared on Rush Limbaugh and is regarded as a climate denier by most scientists yet even he thinks the RSS feed is incorrect.

    Inconvenient?

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    I cannot believe you think whisky has no redeeming value. My Scottish soul is wounded ;)

    Not for children.. :D

    Roy Spencer has appeared on Rush Limbaugh and is regarded as a climate denier by most scientists yet even he thinks the RSS feed is incorrect.

    So, can't argue the facts so argue the messenger. :D

    I could list a dozen different REAL scientists who prove the same thing...

    If I thought it would do any good..

    I would 'ave more luck convincing fanatical christians that there is no god.. :D

    I'll also change your mind about haggis, if that is also required.

    My favorite dish is haggis. Heart, lungs, liver. You shove that all in a sheep's stomach, than you boil it. That'll put some hair on your ass!
    -Max, ARMAGEDDON

    :D

  150. [150] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm - 138

    The American Association of Neurology released a preview of a study examining 40 retired NFL players ranging in age from 27 to 56 years. The majority had been out of the game for less than 5 years.

    High resolution MRI scans indicated neurological damage in 40% of the players. Longer careers were statistically associated with greater damage. Number of reported career concussions was not correlated with brain injury.

    Cognitive tests of executive function, memory, concentration, learning, and spatial and perceptual functions closely mirrored the MRI findings.

    Football is not going to be able to engineer it's way out of neurological hazard with better training and equipment. Accelerations are just too high. The game is going to have to change substantially or become marginalized like boxing.

    I don't think headers are in the same league, but soccer probably ought to ban them, at least for youngsters.

    About the whiskey on the gums. I was probably one of the last of those kids, in the early 1950's, at 2AM on advice to my mom from my pediatrician. Johnny Walker was in the liquor cabinet. I still like it well enough, but prefer single malts.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll also change your mind about haggis, if that is also required.

    Actually, it sounds yummy... :D

    Don't you think that secular humanism is yummy
    -Allison Gardner, BEDAZZLED

    :D

  152. [152] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What's it been....a week? Looks to me me like JF Kelly has lost control of the situation.
    The tweets are crazy again and I don't "believe "fire and fury" was vetted before release. The Wild Child is on a tear again. Somebody hide the football until he's had a nap.

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    Football is not going to be able to engineer it's way out of neurological hazard with better training and equipment. Accelerations are just too high. The game is going to have to change substantially or become marginalized like boxing.

    I don't think headers are in the same league, but soccer probably ought to ban them, at least for youngsters.

    High quality MRI scans and the like are very likely going to show that your head and brain are to be protected, especially during early years.

    I'm assuming that alcohol is going to start to be treated like tobacco soon - too late for me but probably future generations will treat it the same way that my generation treated heroin or cocaine - to be used with extreme caution if at all.

    BTW, a snippet overheard from one of my friends 27 year old daughters who works in SF talking about office work:

    "We all stand at our desks now - sitting is the new tobacco."

    Man I'm getting old - especially as I'm sitting with a glass of wine as I type ;)

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    What's it been....a week? Looks to me me like JF Kelly has lost control of the situation.

    Quite right - most of us expected that an adult couldn't control the whiny brat, and I assume most of us expected it to only take a week for the puerile clown to prove us right.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    The tweets are crazy again and I don't "believe "fire and fury" was vetted before release.

    Why not??

    It's obvious that ODUMBO's failed leadership didn't accomplish anything but accelerate NK's ascension to a bona fide nuclear power..

    Under Odumbo, they were predicting that it would take a decade for the little runt to have miniaturization and ICBM capability..

    Capabilities he has now...

    Score another one for Odumbo "leadership"....

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, a snippet overheard from one of my friends 27 year old daughters who works in SF talking about office work:

    "We all stand at our desks now - sitting is the new tobacco."

    Welcome to your new Democrat Party... :D

  157. [157] 
    altohone wrote:

    LB
    117

    I do not believe that the scientists you are referring to qualify among those saying that it's pointless to do anything about climate change because it's too late... the fringe to which I was referring.

    If the scientists to which you are referring are being sidelined or ignored, that is news to me and I would love a link, as that is not an effort I would join or support... which you seem to be saying I was unintentionally doing.

    There is widespread recognition that previous predictions for the arctic were too optimistic, and that what is being observed is occurring faster than climate models suggested.

    There is also a consensus that what was agreed in the Paris Accord is insufficient to address the problem.

    The BBC just had a disturbing article about greenhouse gas releases being reported well below actual releases.

    "Dodgy GHG data threatens Paris Accord"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

    There's also a story today on BBC about peat fires burning in Greenland to an extent never seen before.

    A

  158. [158] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "We all stand at our desks now."

    To paraphrase Lloyd Bridges in Airplane:
    Looks like I picked the wrong week to buy an office chair factory.

  159. [159] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I haven't read these yet, but I'll try to later tonight.

    Just wanted to let everyone know there's a new column up (a REAL column, even!).

    http://tinyurl.com/y7r8cyeq

    -CW

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    124

    And if ANYONE would know about drawing "absurd red lines" it would be a Dumbocrat!! :D

    Apparently Republicans can draw absurd red lines also, most recently the current president who criticized the prior president for doing so. If you've criticized the drawing of red lines, why in the hell are you criticizing Engel for doing exactly what you've done yourself on multiple occasions?

    Of course, THIS Dumbocrat didn't give a carp about 'absurd red lines' and American credibility when his buddy Odumbo was doing it..

    Prove it. Seriously... prove it.

    If your aim is to prove that somebody is a hypocrite for not criticizing someone who set a red line when he is on record criticizing somebody else who did, then I'd say that you and Representative Engel have a lot in common.

    So, why should Engel think HE has any credibility???

    So why do you think YOU have any credibility? Putting words in people's mouths and claiming they believe something they may or may not believe says exponentially more about you than it does anyone else.

    You really can't know everything that people think or believe, regardless of what they will or will not share in public or on the Internet. I have a neighbor with the most beautiful blue eyes I've ever seen; I can assure you that he'll never hear that from me, although I have admired his solar panels on more than one occasion. :)

  161. [161] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [157] If the scientists to which you are referring are being sidelined or ignored ... you seem to be saying I was unintentionally doing.

    I apologize if I snipped in a snippy way that gave that implication. With all due respect to michale, I don't really follow discussions about climate when deniers are in the mix.

    There are numerous scientists both in academics and government who have had their points of view surpressed. I'll give two names, one from each profession, and others who are putting out their work via one pseudonym.

    One is Guy McPhearson, who is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Arizona. He was among the first to assert that non-linear effects ("feedback loops") would destroy habitat to such a degree that industrial civilization will experience disruptions that will lead to death rates leading to human extinction during this century. Clearly, this is not a popular position. He currently lives in Belize.

    Another is Jason Box, a glaciologist, himself an ex- academic, who was principal author/editor from 2008-2012, of the Greenland section of NOAA's annual State of the Climate report. At that point, his predictions of sea level rise, on the basis of accelerations in Greenland's glacial melt and movement, became too dire. He now works for the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

    The third is the person or persons writing under the name Sam Carana. His/their blog is http://arctic-news.blogspot.com , although if you look at that blog's "About" page, that name appears at the end of a long list. I just now noticed that the first name in that list is former Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge.

    That list is a good place to look for scientists who dispute the linearity of the modeling and whose work was accordingly, regularly sidelined or maligned. Only now is that dispute being given mainstream consideration, because even casual empiricism is proving them far, far, too conservative, and even scientists have some sense of shame.

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    125

    No.. Tiny minds just believe whatever their Party tells them to believe..

    It's even worse than that. Really tiny minds believe a pathological lying con artist who spent the majority of his life belonging to another Party; he knew exactly where to go to find them and how to exploit them for his own enrichment. John Miller, John Barron, Trump U, Benedict Donald... a con by any other name... there's simply no one he won't exploit/throw under the bus in his relentless pursuit of his own interests.

    So, I guess you are another one who would let 20 millions souls die while you worked out the cost/benefit analysis of giving away life-saving drugs for free...

    So, I know you are one who would make up utter nonsense about someone in order to prove absolutely nothing beyond your propensity to fabricate. Interesting, though, to hear you whine now about the "cost/benefit analysis of giving away life-saving drugs for free" when you whine incessantly about government-subsidized health care. Drugs aren't "free"... many somebodies somewhere are providing the capital and manpower to produce, manufacture, distribute, and administer them to individuals... and someone somewhere is paying for them, and in this country it's generally United States consumers/taxpayers.

    Now I ask you: Which of us here in Weigantia are on record multiple times as favoring government-subsidized health care, which I can assure you includes "life-saving drugs," and which of us aren't? Of course, the majority of us here support single-payer health care and wouldn't give two shits about the "cost/benefit analysis blah, blah, blah" of providing "free" medical care to millions... and we're obviously already on record as opposing any efforts to take away "free" and subsidized health care from millions of Americans. Not that it's whatsoever a new development, but you don't seem to have thought that one through.

    Like I said.. It's no wonder your Dumbocrats can't win elections..

    So, you fabricate on a prolific basis, proving nothing beyond the fact your willingness to lie frequently. I'm not a Democrat. I've never belonged to a Party, and I never will.

    And yet... It's NOT happening that way??

    Yes, it actually is. The United States crossed one million households with solar energy in early 2016. Your ignorance regarding this issue doesn't change the facts.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panels-one-million-houses-2015-10

    Why is that??

    Because you seem woefully uninformed regarding a multitude of subjects that require nothing more than cracking a book or searching the Internet.

    Because the technology isn't ready for deployment..

    The technology is deployed on Neil's home, several of my neighbors homes, and soon to be deployed on my homes. It pays for itself over a relatively short period of time, particularly when government entities are offering rebates/credits to taxpayers/consumers who deploy them.

    All of ya'all's obfuscations ignore the salient point..

    IF the planet is in imminent danger of destruction, the *ONLY* course of action that makes ANY kind of logical sense is to give this stuff away for free in a valiant attempt to stave off said imminent planetary destruction..

    Say, you're whining a lot lately about getting things for "free." You seem blissfully unaware that somebody somewhere is paying for the manufacture, production, installation, etc., and do you realize that in the United States this generally ultimately means taxpayers?Are you willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize "free" solar panels and/or "free" life-saving drugs? I'm guessing not. So the compromise to those who would scream, "Why should I be forced to pay higher taxes for Neil's solar panels" is that the government will partially subsidize them. It's not indicative of their importance; it's indicative of compromise.

    Very little things in life are actually "free," although sunlight is actually one of them. If only they could produce photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight directly into electricity. Oh, wait!

    The fact that ya'all don't support this plan PROVES that ya'all don't REALLY believe that the planet is in any imminent danger of being destroyed..

    Who said we didn't support the plan? As Neil explained, he got a huge tax rebate of $10,000, and I would be willing to bet $1,000,000 that Neil would have accepted a $30,000 rebate that covered the entire cost, making them "free." I can assure you I will be installing solar panels and taking the huge tax credit/rebate/deduction in the near future, and I would gladly accept their entire cost.

    Make sure you clean up all that brown stuff off your nose and wipe yer mouth... :D

    Perhaps you just pulled your head out of your ass for the thousandth time, and you're explaining your ritual to the rest of us. :)

    I appreciated what Neil posted and the time it took him to explain it in such detail; leave it to you to turn a "thank you" into something sick. You should try it sometimes instead of your usual BS; it's one of those free things you keep whining about lately. :)

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I apologize if I snipped in a snippy way that gave that implication. With all due respect to michale, I don't really follow discussions about climate when deniers are in the mix.

    Who has denied that there is climate???

    Who has denied that the climate is changing??

    You are much MUCH too intelligent to use the Straw Man Tie To Holocaust argument...

    There are numerous scientists both in academics and government who have had their points of view surpressed.

    Why Yes. Yes there is...

    And you have to ask yourself WHY their views and points and science is being suppressed...

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    So, you fabricate on a prolific basis, proving nothing beyond the fact your willingness to lie frequently. I'm not a Democrat. I've never belonged to a Party, and I never will.

    Yes, that's your continued bullshit claim..

    Completely unsubstantiated..

    And, as a wise Weigantian pointed out..

    If you can't back up your claim with facts, you are a lying troll.. :D

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/09/new-york-times-guilty-of-large-screw-up-on-climate-change-story/

    The NY Grime guilty of massive fear-mongering and totally bullshit anti-Trumpism!!???

    Say it ain't so!!!! :D

    Just more facts that proves the claim that those who push the human caused global warming con are nothing but fanatical zealots..

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Teens allegedly stole ice cream cake from London, Ky. Dunkin' Donuts as part of social media prank

    According to the Associated Press, a news release says the cake was valued at $25-$30. Sheriff's spokesman Deputy Gilbert Acciardo says employees confronted the pair, but Messer used profane language to tell them it was now his cake. Acciardo says Messer asked if "We're really going to jail for this?" upon his arrest.
    http://www.wdrb.com/story/36097070/teens-allegedly-stole-ice-cream-cake-from-london-ky-dunkin-donuts-as-part-of-social-media-prank

    Like I said.. Welcome to your new Democrat Party.. :^/

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Active-duty troops sue Trump over his transgender ban
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article166341692.html

    Their Commander In Chief has issued them an order..

    If they can't obey orders, they have no right to serve in the US Military...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump....

    Are you tired of winning yet?
    In the long march to remaking American greatness, President Trump has certainly attracted plenty of scorn and ridicule from all the predictable and boring corners over all the predictable and boring nonissues.
    Russian roulette doesn’t really work without at least a single bullet. Without a bullet, the gun will never be found smoking. But — as ever among lazy leftists — ignorance of guns and how they work is celebrated as the highest virtue.
    Yet amid the cacophony from the swamp, a few uncorrupted observers are starting to notice something shocking to them.
    Despite all the Sturm und Drang from the crazy political press, President Trump is actually making real, concrete progress toward Making America Great Again. And, shocker of shockers, he appears to be that rare political actor who is determined to actually keep the promises he made to voters.
    In no area is there more winning going on right now than Mr. Trump’s promised crackdown on immigration, both legal and illegal.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/8/homeland-security-has-improved-under-trump/

    Making America Great Again...

    :D

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Rise of the Violent Left
    Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

    This is what ya'all don't get...

    THIS is what your Democrat Party has become...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-lies-behind-the-paris-climate-accord/article/2630915

    And THIS is the deal ya'all wanted the US to be a part of??

    Are ya'all daft!???

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news...

    Intolerant Democrats Devour Their Own
    The party’s left wing wants to purge anyone opposed to abortion or single-payer health.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/intolerant-democrats-devour-their-own-1502320565

    Howz that "Better Deal" carp workin' out for ya'all?? :D

    GOP has their problems, sure..

    But that doesn't mean it's buckets o' sunshine for the Dumbocrat Party...

    :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Don,

    It looks like a Political Party has taken your ONE DEMAND idea to heart...

    Over the first six months of 2017, the Republican National Committee pulled in $75 million—nearly twice as much money as the Democratic National Committee, which raised $38 million. The predicament isn’t simply that there is a funding gap between the parties; it’s what kind of money they attract. Republicans have quietly taken a decisive edge over Democrats when it comes to small-dollar fundraising.

    During that same six-month time span, the RNC raised $33 million in small contributions—money from people who donate $200 or less over an election cycle—while that same class of donors gave the DNC just $21 million.
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/10/the-democratic-partys-looming-fundraising-crisis-215474

    The problem for ya'all is that it's the wrong Party.. :D

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then came Donald Trump.

    In 2016, his campaign raised more than $281 million from grass-roots donors—an amount surpassed only by President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, which pulled in $329 million from small donations. But whereas donors who gave $200 or less comprised roughly 30 percent of the overall amount raised for Obama’s campaigns, small donors provided more than 53 percent of Trump’s campaign money, compared with just 21 percent for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s success here is even more impressive than it might seem at first glance: He didn’t start actively fundraising from grass-roots supporters until June 2016, giving him just five months to establish a small-dollar fundraising machine that went toe-to-toe with those that Obama, Clinton, and Sanders each took at least a year to build.

    Don, sounds to me like Donald Trump is your kinda candidate..

    Over half of his contributions are EXACTLY the kind of contributions you are looking for...

  174. [174] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Sorry, but they have only taken a half-hearted approach.
    In order to take One Demand to heart they must REFUSE to take the Big Money contributions.
    As for Trump, are those figures for the general election? Let's not forget he spent a lot of his own Big Money in the primaries.
    And as explained here before, the money is just the starting point.
    Even if Trump did meet the financing conditions the rest of what he stands for disqualifies him from getting my vote. If he were the only small contribution candidate on my ballot I would still cast a write in vote.

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but they have only taken a half-hearted approach.

    But A> a half-hearted approach is better than a NO-Hearted approach, eh?

    And 2> Their approach is better than the Dumbocrat approach.. :D

    And as explained here before, the money is just the starting point.

    But that's the beauty of the Trump approach.. It's NOT about the money.. It's about the support.. The entire article lays that out quite succinctly...

    Even if Trump did meet the financing conditions the rest of what he stands for disqualifies him from getting my vote. If he were the only small contribution candidate on my ballot I would still cast a write in vote.

    That would seem to dilute your efforts to get politicians onto the ONE DEMAND bandwagon...

    They have to be ONE with you on EVERY issue.....

  176. [176] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-

    "High quality MRI scans and the like are very likely going to show that your head and brain are to be protected, especially during early years."

    I think you are correct in your assumption, but youth sport participants have three factors protecting them:

    less weight
    less athleticism = lower accelerations
    greater brain plasticity = better brain resilience

    The fundamental problem facing modern pro football is that competitive teams are composed of massive sprinters who collide at full tilt over and over again.

    You don't see anything approaching this level of specialized athleticism in younger kids...although a few high school players seem to be on the cusp. As a parent I would worry most about mismatches...but as a parent you worry about pretty much everything.

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you are correct in your assumption, but youth sport participants have three factors protecting them:

    less weight
    less athleticism = lower accelerations
    greater brain plasticity = better brain resilience

    So, you would disagree with that moron who claims letting their children play football is tantamount to child abuse??

  178. [178] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    My personal vote has no greater bearing that any other person's personal vote on whether politicians will participate in One Demand.
    If the participants that would support Trump refuse to support him both with their contributions and votes unless he commits to run a small contribution campaign, he will meet their demand or lose their vote.
    It is the same for any other candidate.
    So they do NOT have to be one on every issue with me or all of the participants.
    As for the Republicans being better than the Democrats- so what?
    The not as bad argument doesn't work that way either.
    And your interpretation of the facts you presented is not the only interpretation.
    While it makes little difference who is worse, according to your facts the Republicans raised 75 million, 33 million in small contributions- less than half of the money they raised was from small contributions.
    The Democrats raised 38 million, 21 million in small contributions- More than half of the money raised from small contributions.
    In that interpretation Dems are still not as bad.

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    And your interpretation of the facts you presented is not the only interpretation.

    I am ALWAYS open to other interpretations. :D As long as they have FACTS to back them up.. :D

    In that interpretation Dems are still not as bad.

    Good point..

    So I guess you would agree with me that it's all about the spin.. :D

  180. [180] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE - the solar panel discussion:

    I'd love to go solar, but my covenant probably wouldn't approve it for aesthetic reasons and the best solar exposure is somewhat blocked anyway.

    But, I did replace my 20 YO HVAC system and the results are impressive. It's basically halved my electricity and gas bills. I figure payback in around 10 years.

    My cooling is regulated to relative humidity now, not temperature, which floats a bit within defined limits. This is far more comfortable than the old thermostatic regulation, even though my temperature in summer tends to peak at around 78 degrees F....setting a lower temperature limit feels a bit chilly. My old system had return air ducts that were too small. This is fairly common and significantly lowers system efficiency, so I modernized 'em.

    Spec-ing the new system revealed a code violation. My AC condenser was located too close to my gas line. Relays arc, so having them next to a gas line probably isn't a great idea. So I moved the condenser, which is a huge box compared to the old one, but much quieter. My neighbor likes this, it doesn't impact me much.

    I got a pretty good subsidy on all this: factory rebate, utility rebate, tax credit, lowered the cost by 10%. All gone now. The old system knew just when to die.

    Looked into more insulation: not cost effective.

    Looked into an infrared barrier for my attic space. This is a close call, cost savings in the summer, but solar load on my roof lowers my heating bill in winter. Cost neutral, but if my local climate zone goes more southern I'll reconsider.

    I replaced nearly all my lighting with LED 3 years ago. 2 exceptions - oven and refrigerator lights.
    Payback probably a decade, rebates and bulk buys on the internet really help. Payback 10 yrs, but far fewer ascensions on step ladders or mucking about with a pole in the great room (which is most of my house).

    Full disclosure: I drive a Prius. It's elegant, smooth and actually accelerates to highway speed very briskly...the electric motor acts like a turbo charger. Fill it up about every 3 weeks...9 gallons.

    I do miss my old Miata AKA "the useless car" according to wife. Yes, but you didn't drive it, you wore it. Pretty good commuter car and good gas mileage.

    Moral of story: energy efficiency depends at lot on where you live and what you've got...and some random fate.

  181. [181] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I agree it is all about the spin for those that are fooled by spin, but I am trying to appeal to those that are not by fooled by spin.
    It remains to be seen if there are enough citizens capable of rational thought.

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd love to go solar, but my covenant probably wouldn't approve it for aesthetic reasons and the best solar exposure is somewhat blocked anyway.

    So, apparently for your covenant, aesthetics takes priority over the destruction of the planet...

    Remind me again of the LOGIC of that???

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    It remains to be seen if there are enough citizens capable of rational thought.

    Judging from what I have seen...

    Not many.. :^/

  184. [184] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [163] - Who has denied that the climate is changing??

    Forgive me if I misunderstood your basic position. I was lead by my reading of your comments above, which included:


    [143] -
    There has been no statistically significant warming since 1996..

    [in repely to] "CO2 levels are rising and we are experiencing warming" No, we are not..

    [136] -
    When those politically correct tweaks and adjustments are discarded, global temps plummet...

    This is documented fact...

    [128] - And, the facts clearly show that if there is EVER a conflict, you adjust your scientific beliefs to match your political beliefs..
    Your belief in human caused global warming is a perfect example...

    [120] - So, even if there IS a scientific consensus about human caused global warming.... which there isn't... so what??

    Those sound to me like fairly standard denier positions.

    I try to stay out of the politicized argument. Climate denial uses the same methodology that tobacco companies did so successfully for so long: attack research as inconclusive or methodologically flawed, and when it becomes too difficult to deflect the public's understanding of the damage, deny any factually established link between those and the causative factor.

    I don't care what the political opponents of Big {Oil, Coal, Steel, etc.} are trying to impose on their targets. I don't care what the global average temperature is. I don't care what future "rise" in global average the nations of the world agree is the red-line target for limitations on emissions.

    What I care about is if there are ways to replace the lost reflectivity from the ice and snow now gone from the Arctic region, either by somehow helping to make it snow or by somehow inceasing reflectivity in the Arctic atmosphere.

    The reason is that is likely the only thing that can restore order to the jet streams. The world's typical, non-extreme, weather patterns literally hang on that order. If that doesn't happen, random occurrences of isolated, extreme weather will continue and accelerate.

    Here's an display of the northern hemi's jet streams. In the old days, jet streams circled the globe more or west-to-east, oscillating in so-called Rossby waves, which would produce predictable, forecast-able, weather. In the last five years, they have been fractured for longer and longer events, both winter and summer.

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-72.05,87.41,285/loc=-109.321,84.347

    Now the base state is chaotic, and what happens is jet stream eddies spin up storms, and the jet stream breaks away so suddenly that the storm then stays in place. "Cuttoff low" is the media term being used to explain to people why they got 4 months of rain in 4 hours.

    To the extent the jet stream becomes chaotic, weather will be unpredictably chaotic. That's something that, locally, can freeze crops, or starve them of water. That's something that allows Saharan heat to penetrate and remain in Europe, or equally likely, allows polar cold to penetrate Europe. Animal metabolism rates depend exponentially on ambient temperature, with a "hard" wet bulb threshold where a warm blooded creatures can't regulate body temperatures and the animal / person quickly dies.

    That's all I'm concerned with regarding conditions in the air and in the ocean. What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic.

  185. [185] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Leaning Blue-
    "What I care about is if there are ways to replace reflectivity ... of the arctic area."
    How about a few thousand two tiered plastic floating reflective devices about the size of football fields deployed around the arctic region and south pole? The bottom is black (doesn't break down when exposed to sunlight) and the top is raised up and is white to reflect sunlight and can be replaced when needed to keep it from breaking down and ending up in the ocean.
    Some could even have refrigeration devices powered by the motion of the ocean and solar panels to make the ocean water colder.
    This might as least slow down the melting and help protect the jetstreams some.
    This could buy us enough time to build some pipelines to carry seawater into deserts to create inland salt water lakes (and what evaporates may help some areas battered by drought) which combined with the slower melting could keep sea level rise down to a manageable amount. This would be cheaper than building seawalls around all the continents, which would only be built where the value of the real estate was enough to justify building the walls that will never be built big enough anyway.
    Of course, none of this is possible to accomplish (if it is physically possible to accomplish) until the Big Money is out of politics.
    The Big Money interests would much rather see the ice keep melting and exploit any economic opportunities that the melting creates.

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Forgive me if I misunderstood your basic position.

    You are forgiven. :D

    I have always maintained that the climate is indeed, changing..

    The lack of change I have noted is not climate..

    Those sound to me like fairly standard denier positions.

    That's because you have bought into the Left Wing smear campaign that tries to equate the Holocaust Denial with the acceptance of facts and reality vis a vis the planet's climate..

    What I care about is if there are ways to replace the lost reflectivity from the ice and snow now gone from the Arctic region, either by somehow helping to make it snow or by somehow inceasing reflectivity in the Arctic atmosphere.

    IF there was ice and snow gone..

    The facts clearly show that the loss of Arctic Ice is highly exxagerated...

    That's not denial. That is simply an acknowledgement of the facts.. The Arctic Ice Pack is the same thickness now that it was in 1940...

    That's all I'm concerned with regarding conditions in the air and in the ocean. What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic.

    Yea, I know.. I have seen THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW too.. :D

    But the simple fact is ALL of the predictions and models made and touted by the global warming religious fanatics have been WRONG...

    We have a bigger chance of having the planet destroyed by a giant asteroid than we do of having the planet destroyed by the changing of the climate...

    It is simply NOT within the realm of the technology of human kind to be able to control the climate of the planet...

    SIMPLY.... NOT.... POSSIBLE....

    Mother Nature will do what Mother Nature will do and humans are helpless to stop it..

    Call me a silly knuckle dragging ground pounder, but I just fail to see how making lobbyists and lawyers and Al Gore and Richard Branson richer is going to help change the climate of the planet...

    Spend all those untold trillions on something LOGICAL that would have an EFFECT and then I can see the logic of the position..

    But spending those untold trillions on just TALKING about the problem!??

    Where is the logic in that???

    To sum up...

    I don't DENY that the religious-esque fanatics that make up the global warming groups MIGHT be right...

    But THEY deny that they COULD be wrong...

    So, who are the "deniers"?? Really.....

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call me a silly knuckle dragging ground pounder, but I just fail to see how making lobbyists and lawyers and Al Gore and Richard Branson richer is going to help change the climate of the planet...

    And let's not kid ourselves..

    That is *ALL* that the human caused global warming fanaticism has accomplished..

    Making the likes of Gore and Branson and lawyers and lobbyists richer...

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    The rivers pour in every year. But In January those rivers are frozen nearly to their bottoms, and the flow is reduced to a trickle. The Lena River has only 3% of its yearly flow in January. In August it really gets roaring and the water can rise 60 feet. To me this is amazing, but to the tough folk in Siberia it is all, “Ho Hum”.

    If you actually sit and watch the ice as a hobby it is a wonder and is fascinating. It really annoys me when some person who has never studied it comes in and makes an inane statement about there being no multi-year ice.

    I far prefer to talk with people who can offer a descent debate, and teach me something new.

    By the way, Gail, have you noticed the Layman’s Sunspot count is past 23 days of the sun being spotless? The “Quiet Sun” is likely behind any changing patterns, in my opinion.

    Take care, and Happy New Year!

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/arctic-sea-ice-5/

    There are a LOT bigger things than humankind that has REAL affect on the planet's climate..

    See that big orange thing in the sky during the day??

    That's the main one...

    It's only human arrogance that says humans can control the planet's climate....

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Big Money interests would much rather see the ice keep melting and exploit any economic opportunities that the melting creates.

    Like buying and selling CO2 credits.

    Get that!!?? Morons are buying and selling what people exhale!!!

    What's next?? Buying people's farts!!????

    The human caused global warming religion is nothing but a Scientologist-esque scam....

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    How about a few thousand two tiered plastic floating reflective devices about the size of football fields deployed around the arctic region and south pole? The bottom is black (doesn't break down when exposed to sunlight) and the top is raised up and is white to reflect sunlight and can be replaced when needed to keep it from breaking down and ending up in the ocean.
    Some could even have refrigeration devices powered by the motion of the ocean and solar panels to make the ocean water colder.
    This might as least slow down the melting and help protect the jetstreams some.

    And what happens when the new ice age that is being predicted by the sun's Maunder Minimum actually happens???

    All those scientists that worked to make the oceans colder.... "oooops... Our bust.. Sorry about that..."

    We don't know enough to know what we don't even know!!

    Do you HONESTLY think it's a good idea to start mucking things up, even if we COULD have any kind of effect???

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am kinda hoping for a good snowfall down here in FL during the next ice age!!! :D

  192. [192] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [188] - It's only human arrogance that says humans can control the planet's climate....

    At this point in time, I absolutely agree. When I wrote of artificially increasing diminished arctic albedo - so called geo- engineering - I used the word "somehow" because most schemes are still coming from techno- Utopians who dismiss the scale and the system's complexity.

    There was an original Star Trek where Scotty kept saying the ship didn't "feel right," and kept checking everything but nothing appeared wrong. It turned out that -I don't remember exactly - they were in a parallel universe or something.

    It is the same deal in the Arctic for the past few years for the old pros in the military, the sciences, and academics who have spent their lives in the region.

    Those folks don't care what the instruments do or do not say. I mentioned Jason Box above; his star dimmed at NOAA the day he emailed, standing and watching from the ice, the way in which a massive iceberg was calving: "Greenland is f*cked." He works for the Danish government now, and has been granted the right to buy property in Greenland.

    I'm not going to purse this issue any further.

    That said, I'd encourage you to click back to that nullschool link I posted before, every so often. Keep an eye on that gyre just west of the Pole. If that doesn't disappear soon, there won't be any multi-year ice left among the islands when the sun goes down in September.

    If that happens, my friend, a few months from now, when the citrus freezes or the shuffleboard courts close due to high temperatures, trust that I'll be the first to say I told you so.

  193. [193] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One final point, due to just now becoming aware of it.

    For any who are rightly suspicious of model-based or otherwise filtered time series, a well-known but controversial Canadian jet stream expert based at U. of Ottawa this week demonstrated why the popular "alarming" metric of Arctic ice - PIOMAS - must be being calculated with a model that is unquestionably flawed. Using dog-in-the-ring raw US Navy sounding data, he demonstrates that it is not possible that the now-equal published PIOMAS volumes for Aug. 8 2012 and 2017 can both be valid.

    I'm not going to post the YouTube video, but you can watch it by searching the token watch?v=bDKHoX0izGE His discussion of PIOMAS is at about 8:45 into the video. The rest of the 15 min video deals with how screwed up the jet streams are.

  194. [194] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    What happens if an mini ice age happens? We dismantle the floating devices. This why these are a better option than seeding the atmosphere with the silicate (don't remember the exact term) that comes out of volcanoes to cool the earth which could not be dismantled that I read somewhere was actually being considered.)
    If they actually did have an effect, these devices would not make the whole ocean colder, just around the poles.
    Should we muck things up? It depends on whether or not you believe we already have and whether we should try to fix what we have already mucked up.
    But if we do, it should be simple and controllable like the floating reflectors and not the possible Frankensteins like filling the atmosphere with the silicates.

  195. [195] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michael
    164

    Yes, that's your continued bullshit claim..

    Haven't you got that bass-ackwards? It's actually your "bullshit claim" that I am a Democrat.

    Completely unsubstantiated..

    Yes, your claim is "completely unsubstantiated."

    And, as a wise Weigantian pointed out..

    If you can't back up your claim with facts, you are a lying troll.. :D

    Well, okay then... by your own admission you're a "lying troll." You'll get no argument from me on that. :)

  196. [196] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    180

    I'd love to go solar, but my covenant probably wouldn't approve it for aesthetic reasons and the best solar exposure is somewhat blocked anyway.

    Tesla Solar: There is no aesthetic substitute. Check them out; they are simply awesome.

    https://www.tesla.com/solarroof

    Full disclosure: They're prettier glass tiles with a lifetime warranty but at approximately double the cost.

    I got a pretty good subsidy on all this: factory rebate, utility rebate, tax credit, lowered the cost by 10%. All gone now. The old system knew just when to die.

    Nice. You've got to love those multiple subsidies. I will avail myself of every single one of them and accept every single penny available. I've even acquired a most excellent storm shelter for which FEMA paid half the cost... so when the sirens blow, I am 10 feet underground and safe and sound.

    Moral of story: energy efficiency depends at lot on where you live and what you've got...and some random fate.

    Oh, yes. :)

  197. [197] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick - Tesla Solar

    If Apple made solar tiles they would look like that. Tough sell to the Architectural Board though: Discontinuity with the rest of the my roofline, and the adjacent units. My home is small and my electrical bill is really tiny - it's about what I pay for internet. The fridge is probably my biggest draw after the AC.

    I'm on Tesla's mailing list - checked out their sedan a couple of years ago. They offered me a 200 K red top' of the line for a 24 test! Very tempting, but I wasn't sure my insurance would cover this, logistics were messy - and it really wouldn't have been fair to take them up on a car I couldn't afford in a million years. When the price approaches Prius levels I may jump - especially if it's self driving...nobody will ever have an excuse to put me in a nursing home! Gotta plan ahead.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    What happens if an mini ice age happens? We dismantle the floating devices.

    So, basically, we close the barn door AFTER the horse has run off...

    Should we muck things up? It depends on whether or not you believe we already have and whether we should try to fix what we have already mucked up.

    But what if we don't have the knowledge?? Don't you see how dangerous that is??

    In the 70s, all the rage was Global Cooling. That was the big shiny and the planet was in danger of imminent destruction back then..

    Suppose scientists figured out a way to heat the planet to counter global cooling..

    Think of the MESS we would be in now??

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Haven't you got that bass-ackwards? It's actually your "bullshit claim" that I am a Democrat.

    Which prompted YOUR claim that you are not..

    You make a claim, you back it up.. That's the rules..

    MY claim is already backed up by your incessant, psychotic defense of the Dumbocrat Party and your complete inability to hold them accountable for ANYTHING, up to and including putting forth the MOST shittiest candidate in the history of candidacy...

    So, since YOU, my dear Veronica, cannot back up your claim that you are not a registered Democrat, that makes you the lying troll..

    Hay, I don't make the rules.. I just destroy your position by them.. :D

  200. [200] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    197

    If Apple made solar tiles they would look like that.

    With their fruit logo every 10th tile, no doubt.

    I'm on Tesla's mailing list - checked out their sedan a couple of years ago. They offered me a 200 K red top' of the line for a 24 test! Very tempting, but I wasn't sure my insurance would cover this, logistics were messy - and it really wouldn't have been fair to take them up on a car I couldn't afford in a million years. When the price approaches Prius levels I may jump - especially if it's self driving...nobody will ever have an excuse to put me in a nursing home! Gotta plan ahead.

    Heh. You are way braver than me because those self-driving cars occupy a spot very close to the top of my "opposite of and rhymes with bucket list." Having driven nearly every manner of land vehicle out there including an Abrams tank, my brain simply isn't wired to be able to trust a vehicle that would drive me; that is a feature I won't be needing.

    Speaking of the Tesla prices approaching Prius levels, the price of the Model 3 approaches loaded Prius range, and I'm looking at maybe getting one. My SO keeps telling me to go ahead and order it, and I keep not doing it. :)

  201. [201] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    199

    Which prompted YOUR claim that you are not..

    Same claim, same bullshit, same repetitious nonsensical tedium from you... the irrefutable proof of your inability to grasp a concept that's been covered ad nauseam and move past it; one can only conclude you enjoy appearing brainless.

    Texas voters do not register by Party and are allowed to vote in whatever primary we please, one or the other but not both. I've never belonged to either Party, and I've voted for candidates from multiple parties including D, R, I, and even Green Party once. Regardless of your utter nonsensical repetitive bullshit, I couldn't even belong to a Party in Texas if a chose to do so... which I most certainly would not.

    You make a claim, you back it up.. That's the rules..

    MY claim is already backed up by your incessant, psychotic defense of the Dumbocrat Party and your complete inability to hold them accountable for ANYTHING, up to and including putting forth the MOST shittiest candidate in the history of candidacy...

    More total bullshit on your part. I do not generally defend either Party. The majority of my posts here are against the Con Artist in Chief and posting regarding discussion of political issues. You generally hijack them, fail to discuss anything political, and whine incessantly about Party bigotry... as you do with anyone who doesn't bow down at the alter of Your Orange Worship, you simply label a poster a Democrat and bigot. While nearly everyone else is trying to discuss political issues, you're obsessively whining about political affiliation and your hatred of the Democratic Party.

    So, since YOU, my dear Veronica, cannot back up your claim that you are not a registered Democrat, that makes you the lying troll..

    There is no place on a Texas registration form to even choose a political Party because Texas voters have open primaries. No one can choose a Party even if they wished to do so, and *gag* please refrain from posting the utter nonsensical and completely delusional statement that anyone is your "dear."

    Hay, I don't make the rules.. I just destroy your position by them.. :D

    No you don't actually destroy anyone's position; you don't have to do that because rather than even discuss political issues, you simply spend your time obsessing about posters and Party affiliation/hypocrisy and labeling and dismissing anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of the cult of personality of Trump. You also insist that BLOTUS is NOT a Republican whilst simultaneously insisting that posters don't like him simply because he IS a Republican... talk about psychotic.

    The only thing you actually do destroy here is the flow of dialogue where posters who wish to discuss political issues are bombarded by a steady stream of your hate for the Democratic Party and love and worship for your Orange Idol. You post repetitively about you being "all ears" and quoting Ross Perot, and thanks to you and your repetitive bullshit, mindless drivel, and love and affection of the Orange Prick, I've come to associate you with "that giant sucking sound." :)

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    No you don't actually destroy anyone's position;

    The fact that you always come back to try and defend your destroyed position is proof positive that your position is, indeed, destroyed... :D

    You can't win, Veronica... :D

  203. [203] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    203

    The fact that you always come back to try and defend your destroyed position is proof positive that your position is, indeed, destroyed... :D

    You wouldn't know I came back unless you came back yourself. You lose. Your pathetic one-size-fits-all argument doesn't work with me. I'm still not a Democrat and couldn't be one even if I wanted to be because of statutes of the State of Texas. Your obsession with discussing commenters personally rather than discussing actual political issues is again and as always duly noted. :)

    You can't win, Veronica... :D

    It's not about winning, Michale. Posters are trying to discuss political issues while you hijack their comments and devolve nearly every discussion into the same whiny repetitive rant and obsession about them personally. I'm never going to like your Orange Worship because I have this thing against criminals and traitors to our country, but that still doesn't make me a Democrat. I know it's your go-to argument and if it weren't for that bullshit you've have nothing at all, but you should let it sink in that some people with no party affiliation and some Republicans don't worship at the alter of the cult of personality of Trump... and some of those traitors are going to jail. :)

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm still not a Democrat and couldn't be one even if I wanted to be because of statutes of the State of Texas.

    There are no Democrats in the State Of Texas!???

    BBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Now I KNOW you are full of shit.. :D

  205. [205] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    204

    There are no Democrats in the State Of Texas!???

    Do not quote me out of context and fabricate words I did not say. Obviously, I never said there are no Democrats in Texas since there are multitudes of candidates who are required to register by Party affiliation; however, voters are not recognized by Party affiliation in the State of Texas.

    Texas election law allows registered voters to vote in the primary of only one party in a given election, but as you may have noticed, the registration process does not require that you register as a member of a specific political party, as is the case in some other states. Consequently, you are not required to decide what party primary you will vote in until you arrive at the polls. Most voters, of course, don't put the decision off that long.

    https://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/part/0601.html

    There is no place on a Texas voter registration form for a voter to register by Party. While one is always free to self-identify as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, NPA, Socialist, Communist, or Nazi to their friends and/or fellow citizens, Texas does not recognize nor record said voter's Party affiliation, and as I have stated on multiple occasions, I do not belong to any Party and never will, and your repetitive drivel to the contrary is nothing but your typical labeling bullshit wherein you post lies about others in order to cram them into your descriptive boxes and dismiss them rather than discuss political issues. You can't win an argument if you've got no real argument, and your repetitive fabrication merely proves you'll lie.

    Now I KNOW you are full of shit.. :D

    And the group KNOWS you will lie, quote posters out of context, buy into the nuttiest right-wing conspiracy theory bullshit and lies of BLOTUS, insist the group is responsible and condones the violence of others, and repeat your bullshit on a regular basis as if each day is new and your repetitive spew hasn't been covered ad nauseam already. :)

Comments for this article are closed.