ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [494] -- It's Always Silly Season Now

[ Posted Friday, July 27th, 2018 – 15:44 PDT ]

The beginning of August, in any normal political year, is when we would usually devote at least one column to trying to predict what the upcoming "silly season" will bring. August may be the dog days for most folks, but in politics it is usually the silliest season of the year. Congress scarpers off to enjoy a month-long vacation, which leaves a vacuum of political news in Washington, which leaves political reporters and commenters desperate for an angle to write about -- any angle at all. This normally leads to focusing on some extraordinarily silly subject matter (to the exclusion of all else), for weeks on end -- hence the season's unofficial name. But these are not normal times, of course, and part of the abnormality that Donald Trump has ushered in is such a vast extension of the silly season that it can now be accurately said to have encompassed the entire calendar year. There is no more silly season anymore, in other words, because it is now silly season all the time. Just check Trump's Twitter feed on any given day, if you require proof.

In 2010, the silly season brought us town hall rage and the rise of the Tea Party. These stories flourished because there was no other political news to push them off the front pages. These days, the Tea Party is a major force within Congress, and the president is loonier than any guy walking around in a three-cornered hat festooned with teabags. Silly has become the norm, in other words, and people who want to have serious political discussions in fully-formed sentences are the ones being looked askance at, for most of the year.

This has been, in a word, exhausting. For those of us who watch politics very closely, it is like trying to get a drink of water from a firehose. The sheer volume of silliness is so large and continuous that many important stories just get washed away rather than being examined as closely as they deserve. Partly, this is by design, because politicians would almost always prefer that some inane idiocy is the topic of the day rather than what they are really up to behind the scenes. Politicians in Trump's orbit have come to almost depend on his insanely-high levels of silliness, and the best of them have learned how to deflect important subjects by discussing the latest tweetstorm emanating from the White House. Reporters almost always take this bait, since the tweets are so outrageous and entertaining (in a slowing-down-for-a-car-wreck kind of way), and conflict always sells more newspapers.

The House of Representatives just departed the Nation's Capital for their extended play-in-the-sun August break, but before they did so the Tea Partiers were threatening to force a vote on impeaching Rod Rosenstein. A sillier windmill to tilt at could not be imagined, but there was method to their madness -- the whole exercise was designed to give Trump political cover to just fire Rosenstein outright, so he could then install someone who would fire Bob Mueller. Paul Ryan and the Republican House leadership pulled some strings behind the scenes to at least delay this effort until after the break, however.

Over in the Senate, Mitch McConnell is keeping his house in session throughout most of August, for purely political reasons. It's not like they're going to get anything of import done in the next three or four weeks, but keeping them all in Washington means that incumbents will have that much less time to hit the campaign trail. Since there are 10 incumbent Democratic senators running for re-election in states that Trump won, this is supposed to give their Republican challengers a clear field back in the home state during August. This may bear fruit and it may backfire -- it remains to be seen. But please, Mitch, spare us all the sanctimonious moosepoop about how you're all sacrificing "to do the people's business," because that's not why you're doing it at all. In fact, it's downright silly to even make this claim.

At the White House, the silly season began early as Donald Trump -- seemingly for the first time ever -- seems actually to be listening to some people advising him to abruptly change course. For him, this is not normal behavior, so in a Bizarro World kind of way, Trump is being silly by not being silly. His shameful performance in Helsinki while standing next to his Russian handler brought near-universal scorn and derision from the media, from Democrats, and even from most of his own party. Trump tried to counter this with: "I've been tougher on Russia than any president ever," which the ghosts of J.F.K. and Ronald Reagan (just to name two of the most obvious) would surely have laughed at. Trump tried to correct himself ("wouldn't" versus "would") after the press conference, which nobody with a brain believed, but then this week the White House abruptly announced that the second planned meeting with Vladimir Putin wouldn't (note: not "would") take place right before the upcoming midterm elections that Putin continues to target online. Reports are that Putin himself balked at the proposed White House visit, showing that he's got more political sense than Trump does. Why on Earth would Trump want to revisit how weak he is on Russia right before people vote, after all?

Trump also gave up on his not-so-brilliant plan to shut the government down right before the election in a temper tantrum over the lack of money for his border wall, which also would have been a huge boost to all Democrats running for office. Again, someone politically wiser than Trump is obviously having some sort of influence over the president, because he seemed rather enamored of the idea previously. Trump also backed down from the next escalation of his trade war, making a surprise announcement (that, true to form, was devoid of any actual concrete deals or promises) after meeting with a European Union leader. Essentially, the E.U. has promised to hold talks with the same stated goal that they had when they held similar talks with the Obama administration. But just a few days ago, Trump was eagerly looking forward to slapping huge tariffs on European cars, which even U.S. auto manufacturers opposed -- the very businesses such a tariff is supposed to be designed to help.

The biggest walkback of the week for Trump, though, was his announcement that he will now be using $12 billion of taxpayer money to bail out the people who voted for him -- who are also the ones hardest hit by his trade war. In other words, we're now all literally paying for Trump's mistakes -- by giving massive welfare checks to farmers, rather than allowing them the free access to world markets they had previously enjoyed. If Democrats had done such a thing, the ideological howls from Republicans would be cacophonous, but seeing as how it's Trump, low-key grumbling was all that was heard from that quarter.

We are now a little over 100 days away from the midterm elections, and all the signs continue to look quite rosy for Democrats. Trump's job approval ratings are still well below 50 percent (where they've been for his entire term), and have even slipped below 40 percent in key battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin. That's usually a big danger signal, heading into the midterm season. The "generic vote" polling continues to show a large gap towards Democrats -- when asked by pollsters whether they'd vote for a generic Democrat for Congress versus a generic Republican, the Democrats are outpacing Republicans by anywhere from six points to a lead of double digits. Experts predict they'll need around an eight-point lead to take back the House in November. A whopping 42 Republican House members are not even running for re-election, and open races are always easier for challengers to win. Democratic voter enthusiasm is still through the roof, and suburban women continue to show an overwhelming tilt towards Democrats. All of this adds up to great news for Democrats' chances of taking back the House, and picking up at least a few governors' seats to boot.

There will be one rather large story to fill the August airwaves, as Paul Manafort is about to face the first of two federal trials against him. So we can expect a whole lot of breathless courtroom reporting over the new few weeks. This may or may not lead to revelations about Trump, but likely not, since the case against Manafort is pretty straightforward and involves dodgy banking practices more than politics. Even so, it'll be fun to watch Trump's reaction to each day's revelations. Add to that the continuing legal problems Trump faces from Michael Cohen, Bob Mueller, Stormy Daniels, and the case moving forward charging Trump with illegally ignoring the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution (which could lead to the release of at least some of his business records), and a lively legal time should be had for all as we watch Rudy Giuliani twist himself into ever-more-pretzel-like knots in an effort to explain away inconvenient idiocy from his client.

Of course, during August there may be some other silly story that everyone fixates on -- the political media is so used to the phenomenon that they may chart the usual silly season course. But these days, it will be hard to even notice the difference. Trump's unceasing silliness on his Twitter feed means that no matter how silly any competing story is, it will have to struggle hard to break through the towering ramparts of silliness surrounding the White House on a daily basis.

In other words: This is the new normal, and it's awfully silly.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're in such a good mood that we're just going to go ahead and give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez again, for generally (and quite effectively) causing rightwingers to absolutely freak out. Every time her name comes up in the news, heads explode over on Fox News. And that, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.

Ocasio-Cortez isn't just causing angst on the right, she's also shaking things up within her own party as well. And this is months before she even gets elected, and a full six months before she'll be sworn into the House of Representatives. That's a pretty impressive impact, in the short time she's been on the national political stage. Plus the fact that she's only 28 years old and has already shown up politicians two and even three times her age.

Some are predicting that she's a shooting star, who will quickly fade into the background. We hope not, because so far her star is shining pretty brightly. When she travels to other parts of the country to stump for Democratic candidates, the national media follows right along with her -- whether she's appearing with Bernie Sanders or not. That is an enormous amount of exposure for someone who is still only technically just a candidate for Congress.

So far, she shows no signs of slowing down or muting what she has to say. She is settling in to her new role as a leading voice of her generation. Hilariously, a rightwing media persona traveled to her rally in Kansas and admitted that the message sounded pretty good, because it included things like the rights of children to an education and healthcare. This rightwing media type was shocked at her own reaction to such "radical" ideas, but then came to her senses afterwards so she could... um... continue to fight to deny children healthcare and an education? Ocasio-Cortez has that effect on people, which is why she's so good at what she's doing.

Personally, we hope this rising star continues to climb and becomes a regular go-to guest on political shows on television to champion a truly progressive agenda. Unlike many such guests from the Democratic side, Ocasio-Cortez oozes youth and vitality and charisma. Those are good traits to have for any politician, it goes without saying.

So just on general "made more rightwing heads explode than anyone else this week" grounds, we're going to have to give Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award once again.

[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is still just a candidate, and our blanket policy is not to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to look it up yourself if you'd like to congratulate her and let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We're also in such a good mood this week that we're going to keep the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week on the shelf for another week (two weeks, really, see below...).

No Democrat did anything monumentally disappointing this week that we can remember, although we fully admit that we might have missed someone. As always, if you believe a MDDOTW award is truly warranted, let me know down in the comments.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 494 (7/27/18)

As we stated last week, there will be no Friday Talking Points column next week, as we are on the brink of flying away to attend the yearly Netroots Nation conference of left-minded folks. Our bags are packed, the house-sitter (and cat-sitter) is knocking on the door, and we're ready to go!

We've attended at least six of these Netroots gatherings over the past decade or so, but we're anticipating record levels of energy and enthusiasm this time around. With 100 days until the midterms, everyone is going to be focused on exactly the same goal -- denying control of Congress to the Republicans by generating a huge blue wave election.

Of course, since this year's confab will be in New Orleans, a good time is expected for all. Progressives are becoming more and more important to the Democratic Party, and this is a one-stop shopping opportunity for all sorts of Democratic wannabes. We'd be willing to bet that at least five (possibly more) of the people we hear give speeches and seminars next week will wind up running for president in 2020. Courting the progressive vote has never been as important for these politicians as now, so it'll be interesting to hear what they all have to say.

We'll do our best to report back here in these pages, but the whole conference is such a whirlwind that we cannot commit to any sort of schedule of regular postings. Watch the @ChrisWeigant Twitter feed for announcements that new columns are up, that's our best advice. And regular FTP columns will resume in two Fridays' time, never fear.

With that out of the way, let's get to this week's talking points, shall we?

 

1
   Trump bribes his own voters

This is the easiest silliness from Trump to shoot down, this week.

"Donald Trump fully believed that other countries would not engage in a trade war with the United States. He was wrong. Now that a core part of his own base is hurting as a direct result, Trump is going to pay them bribes right before the midterms in a desperate effort to get them to continue to vote for Republicans. The outrageous part is that he's going to use taxpayer dollars to do so. Trump broke the agricultural markets, and how he's using our money to bail out the farmers. Farmers don't actually want welfare payments -- instead, they want to freely sell their produce to the world. But the damage Trump is doing is a lot more far-reaching than just one election cycle. The markets these farmers have built up over decades are now disappearing as other countries find different sources for their food. These markets aren't going to magically come back even if Trump manages to find a way out of his insane trade war. How many years is Trump going to have to shell out bribes to farmers to compensate them for their losses? It just boggles the mind, really."

 

2
   Foreign countries bribe Trump

What with all the silliness, this story was barely even noticed.

"A federal judge just ruled this week that the case against Trump's businesses which claims Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution can indeed move forward. Trump's hotels and golf courses and other businesses -- which he refused to fully divest from when he became president -- are getting piles of money from foreign governments. This is in direct violation of what the Founding Fathers laid out, which is what the case claims. The discovery phase of this trial will certainly be interesting to watch, as it will involve Trump producing business documents and records showing precisely how much money he's made from foreign governments. The Constitution has this clause for a reason -- our president and our government is not supposed to be for sale to foreign nations. No other president in history has so blatantly ignored this basic tenet of American democracy, and now Trump will have to defend his indefensible actions in court. Maybe we'll even finally get to see his tax returns, who knows?"

 

3
   Lord, there are tapes

James Comey's prayer came true this week.

"Speaking of financial improprieties and Trump, he's got to be sweating a bit upon hearing the news that his private fixer Michael Cohen did indeed make tapes of Trump, and that furthermore the F.B.I. now has at least a dozen of these tapes, perhaps even more. Cohen and his lawyers seem to be either already cooperating with the prosecution or on the brink of doing so, which also must worry Trump more than a little bit. Add to this the announcement that the Trump organization's chief financial officer has been subpoenaed to testify, and Trump could be in a world of legal hurt. These guys know where every body is buried, and which skeletons reside in which gold-plated closets. If they start singing, there's no end to what could be revealed. And, mind you, all of this is not even a part of Bob Mueller's investigation. Or Paul Manafort's first trial, which is scheduled to begin within days."

 

4
   Like father, like daughter

Too, too funny.

"I see Ivanka Trump is following in her daddy's footsteps, as her business empire goes down in flames. Ivanka shamelessly traded on her famous last name to sell clothing manufactured in China to rubes in America, but it seems nobody's buying the con any more. So her business becomes yet another item on the long, long list of Trump businesses that have spectacularly failed. Perhaps Ivanka can fly to Trump Casino on a Trump Airline plane to eat a Trump Steak and drink Trump Water to get over her loss? Oh, wait! No she can't, because all those went bankrupt or otherwise failed. Maybe she got her business 'smarts' from her father, or maybe she learned them at Trump University? Whichever, she's now proven that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, that's for sure. Think of all those poor Chinese children who just lost their jobs sewing Ivanka Trump's clothing line!"

 

5
   Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?

Another amusing walkback from Trump happened this week.

"The White House and the Republican leaders of Congress let it be known this week that they had agreed not to shut the government down in October because Trump will not be getting his border wall money yet again. Trump is supposed to be some sort of grand dealmaker, and this will be the second yearly budget that passes a Republican Congress without any money for Trump's precious wall. He can't even cut a deal with his own party! That, as Trump would put it, is just 'Sad!' Of course, if you believed Trump while he was campaigning, Congress was never even supposed to play a part in all this, since as we all know Mexico was going to gladly pay for Trump's border wall. What ever happened to that campaign promise?"

 

6
   Even Putin knew what a bad idea it was

This one's also pretty hilarious.

"Donald Trump, under the delusion that his meeting with Vladimir Putin was a smashing political success, decided to double down and invite his buddy Vlad to the White House -- right before the midterm election happened. The White House had to sheepishly back off the idea this week, after Putin reportedly turned the invitation down. Even Putin could see what a horrendous political mistake Trump was about to make! The image of a United States president parroting Russian lies while standing next to the man responsible for attacking our elections was bad enough months before the election, so who in their right mind could have possibly thought it'd be a good idea to repeat the experience mere days before the voters weigh in? Oh, that's right -- Donald Trump thought it'd be a good idea. Well, that says a lot, doesn't it?"

 

7
   Trump, or your lyin' eyes?

Sometimes Trump makes it too easy....

"Donald Trump tried to emulate Big Brother the other day, when at a political rally he instructed the crowd: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening.' This was immediately compared to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, particularly the quote: 'The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.' Others pointed out the similarity to the classic Marx Brothers quip: 'Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?' Whether 'Marxist' (so to speak) or Orwellian, all agreed that this was the first time Trump actually admitted that he lives deep within his own personal reality. I mean, who are you going to believe? Trump, or what is in plain sight to all? I'd suggest the media start asking that question to all the farmers now hurting because the man they voted for is now completely ruining their prospects for the future."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

304 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [494] -- It's Always Silly Season Now”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW - Skeletons singing in gold plated closets. Is this a Disney attraction? An update of the Haunted Mansion....or maybe Pirates?

    I think the Putin visit thing is back on again....or as Trump would phrase it not not on. At least until he declares "it was never on - fake news!"

    I'm glad you have a new cat. Long live the cat. Has he/she been granted any titles? Have a great trip, maybe we will see you on YouTube!

  2. [2] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Great summary of what was obviously another colossal disaster for Trump last week. The right-wing, no doubt, think that artificially inflated economic rates off-set this disaster, but Trump's naked bribe to soybean farmers pretty much tells the story...even Trump (arguably the most failed businessman alive) conceded his trade policy is a spectacular clanger. Now American taxpayers can add subsidies to the list of things they were promised someone else was going to be arm-twisted into paying for, along with a wall and tax cuts for the wealthy. The sixty or so thousand people in battleground states that represent the "majority of Americans" whose vote put this train-wreck on the rails are now reaping what they have sewn with government kickbacks. Laughable.

    Giuliani... Lol. That name, now a synonym for sliding allegiance, couldn't be a better full-throat for Trump's ongoing assault on common sense. "when is friend not a friend...when his friend is Trump." Laughable, more.

    Ivanka Trump... Lol. That's all I have on that silly cow... LOL.

    Manafort... Lol. When this silly bugger hits the fan, Trump's days are numbered. There's a reason he was picked to run with his petard first...he's the connective tissue that introduces Trump's illegal business practices into evidence for all to see. Both he and Trump have dealt with the same shady ruskie bellends over the years. It will no doubt be proven that Manafort wasn't just picked randomly to head the Trump campaign, but actually placed there by the mutual handlers of both he and Trump.

    As I said last week, the Manafraud court case will see a pile of revelation for American consumption, details hitherto only digested by people willing to look to foreign news sources for investigative reporting...

    LL&P

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...people who want to have serious political discussions in fully formed sentences are the ones being looked at askance..."

    "The sheer volume of silliness is so large and continuous that many important stories just get washed away rather than be examined as closely as they deserve."

    Tell me aboot it.

    As for the MDDOTW award:

    (sung to 'It Had to be You')
    It has to be you
    It has to be you
    Spreading bullshit of blue
    We have only a choice between only two.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Has any liberal group started selling a fundraising candy called "Emolumints" yet?

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    They could be spearmint flavored candies shaped like all of Trump's businesses (golf courses, hotels, etc.).

  6. [6] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [5]

    Or hammer and sickle shaped sour candy...The DNC need something to counteract the ill-begotten NRA ruskie funds forever flowing into RNC coffers! Or is that mega-revelation of no concern to American patriots?

    Gone are the days when the right-wing mistrusted all Russian intention, now they openly cavort with them and openly thank them for their intrusion. Reagan is spinning in his grave, not because he can't make up his mind between heaven and hell, but because Trump and his political trollops have blurred line between the two.

    LL&P

  7. [7] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Canuck

    At the end of WWII, Russia (the Soviet Union) was a totalitarian country bent on domination of all their neighbors. Reagan's attitude toward them was totally informed by those facts, and totally justified.

    While still well short of a model of democracy, they are nothing close to a threat to world peace. They may meddle in the affairs of neighbors where they feel justified in doing so, but probably less than we ourselves do. They may reveal to Americans that the Democrat Party is itself totally un democratic, but the whole world knows we also meddle in other country's elections.

    I'm betting that Reagan is not only NOT "spinning in his grave", I'm thinking that he's entitled to a major part of the credit for the fact that things are a helluva lot better than they were 50 yrs ago, and no rational person could deny that.

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C.R. [7]: While still well short of a model of democracy, they are nothing close to a threat to world peace. They may meddle in the affairs of neighbors where they feel justified in doing so, but probably less than we ourselves do.

    I have to admit to some exasperation when I hear folks from both the right and the left try to draw parallels between recent Russian behavior (Georgia, Ukraine) and US international behavior, which in recent years has been meticulously coordinated through international governmental organizations, such as NATO.

    Granted, one has to draw sharp contrasts between the way that Democratic administrations and Republican administrations (especially the current one) have viewed the American role in the world, and to put a finer point on it, it was the Bush administration that decided to blow off the UN and unilaterally drag our allies into a 'pre-emptive' strike against Iraq.

    Obama brought US policy back to a multilateral posture, and the GOP derided that policy as 'leading from behind', so we know who among us are supporters of aggressive US behavior, and who isn't.

    They may reveal to Americans that the Democrat Party is itself totally un democratic, but the whole world knows we also meddle in other country's elections.

    You need to check your premises, because that's a Russian talking point. Over the last 75 years we've generally supported democratic pluralism and the extension of human rights to oppressed populations. This has occasionally included speaking out when, for instance, Putin shuts down the free press in his country and jails or kills his opponents. You're damned tootin' that we 'meddle' to the extent that we shine a spotlight on that sort of behavior.

    This is precisely why Putin has a preference for an American leader like Trump, who is not only anti-NATO, but also buys-in to the nationalist unilateralist model of international relations, which plays directly into Putin's hand. In this, Putin not only wants to lead from behind, but from within.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Massive Northern California fire gets even bigger
    https://apnews.com/b609fb38cbb24be4b83fee915a428470/Massive-Northern-California-fire-gets-even-bigger

    If only California officials worried less about liberal snowflakes and illegal immigrant criminals and more about their citizens... :^/

  10. [10] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Michale, once again, not everything can be attributed to irresponsible lefties. Comments like yours (in [9]) can only be effective if the claim is robust and can't immediately be batted right back. Here's what I mean. From your link:


    Nationally, 89 active large fires have consumed nearly 930,000 acres (376,000 hectares) in 14 states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

    So, CA, OR and WA. Those three states are controlled by Democrats. Of the remaining 11 western states referenced in this quote, how many of them do you think are NOT controlled by Republicans? Either your political attribution is logically flawed, or Republicans are just as bad as Democrats at fighting fires.

    That logic flows directly from reading the link, which I had to do because there might have been some commentary in support of your comment regarding political mismanagement of the response . There was not.

    Just pure trolling, and not very good trolling. I'll show ya some good trolling, taking yours a template:

    If only more Republicans legislatures had crawled far enough out of the butts of Big Energy this century, and given any thought to their kid's and grandkid's futures, there might have been a slim chance to avert the now-unleashed catastrophe of Man-made Abrupt Climate Change.

  11. [11] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [9] "If only California officials worried less about liberal snowflakes and illegal immigrant criminals and more about their citizens... :^/"

    Trust Michale to say something completely asinine during a natural disaster. Were he remotely tethered to the real world, he'd notice that global warming's specific result on that part of the US is drought, excessive heat and wildfires. As it remains, Michale can't see past his ideological blinders.

    Politicizing natural disasters is thin ice for Republicans, given they made a pig's ear of hurricanes Katrina and Maria. (Handing out kitchen towel to people devastated by a hurricane is just plain stupid.)

    [7] "At the end of WWII, Russia (the Soviet Union) was a totalitarian country bent on domination of all their neighbors(sic)"...Not quite. The USSR was, for all intent and purposes, a dictatorship under Stalin. A prime example of a contemporary totalitarian government would be the Nazi regime under Hitler. At war's end Reagan was a democrat eking out a crust in Hollywood and was twice elected to head the actors guild, a group scrutinized by conservative politicians as being communist in nature. In all likelihood, Reagan's view of the USSR probably wasn't formulated until '64, when he officially joined the Republican party.

    As for Russia being characterized as 'well short of being a model democracy' you are right,however, the Russia of today is closer in practice to the post ww2 USSR regime than they ever were during Reagan's time in office. During Reagan's time as president the Soviet System was ruled centrally by the politburo as a group, with a 'chairman' from which their power was directed. Today's Russia is an autocracy disguised as a democracy, both on paper and in reality, Putin has no equal.
    It's rank amateurish global politics if you think Russia under Putin is a more docile creature than when it was under the Soviets...Putin has systematically plundered Russia with his brazen kleptocracy of the last two decades, thus making him the most dangerous man on the planet and subject to paranoia...The Soviet system didn't allow for one man to have a bad day and launch 3000 ICBM's...I fail to see that, in any contingency, that the world is safer today than 30 years ago. In more ways worth counting, as a species, we are closest to a razor's edge now than at any time in history, and that includes the Cuban Missile experience! To my mind, our present predicament is Trump's only redeeming quality...at least Putin can relax his ego for a couple of years and not get too itchy that the US is quietly fomenting his ouster.

    LL&P

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    we normally laugh at Treasonous Trump's incompetence, however not keeping good records when taking children from their parents is leading to a disgusting, completely avoidable crisis.

    I no longer want to hear about "family friendly" conservatives, or any other "family" name or slogan put out, particularly by evangelicals.

    All we need from anybody associated with this evil stupidity is an apology - and it should start at the top.

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [7] & Michale's vision for America:

    Only be as evil as Putin, not more than him.

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Five people dead including two firefighters in California blaze.

    Some people are happy because California voted for Democratic leadership and these people claim it must somehow be the California electorate's fault.

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Leaning

    Re the evil "Big Energy" companies causing global warming.

    Remember, it is NOT the extraction of fossil fuels that puts CO2 into the atmosphere, it is the BURNING THEREOF!!

    How about it, are you burning any???

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember, it is NOT the extraction of fossil fuels that puts CO2 into the atmosphere, it is the BURNING THEREOF!!

    So, your argument is that energy companies are guilt free because they just make carbon based energy available, and are completely surprised when people use them?

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    You're partly right (the "guilt-free" part). I doubt however that they are "surprised". After all, they cannot coerce us to buy their products, so they could reasonably conclude from the extent of our patronage that they are enriching our lives.

    Leaning hasn't responded, but how about it, are you burning their products? And if you are, how do you reconcile that with claiming that THEY are causing 'global warming'?

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    When we were poisoning the environment with leaded petrol did you condemn people who were trying to get unleaded petrol because they were still using gasoline?

    Would you go back to leaded gasoline if given the chance?

  19. [19] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [17] There's a difference between a carbon footprint and a carbon boot-print. Individuals can still suckle off a power grid and be striven to reduce their impact on the environment. One can recycle, use public transport, drive an electric car and avail themselves of 'off peak' power usage for laundry. It's too simplistic to argue that because we belong to society that we are all fossil fuel gluttons and wastrels. Resurrecting an appalling polluter like coal for votes and plundering national parks for oil in a global glut...that defies all logic. The sad thing is, it's transient politics, once the process starts, big business won't care about the who's and the why's...it's the nadir of Trump and his collaborators, history will excoriate the entire GOP.

    LL&P

  20. [20] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    No and no.

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS: Then why are you asking people who are trying to reduce the World's carbon footprint if they have a carbon footprint of their own?

  22. [22] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [15] How about it, are you burning any???

    Mr. Stucki, I wish I could have replied earlier to this. It's a very important question, and deserves a detailed answer. Unfortunately I had to go expend a lot of energy needlessly, but I wanted to reply before going to bed.

    Damn right I'm burning it. Show me something else that puts over 100 thousand BTU in a gallon jug and I'll burn that instead. In that, I'm not different than those who need to put it in grain combines in the middle of nowhere or those who need to put it in armored personnel carriers operating where there aren't any charging stations.

    And yes, I'm responsible for more than my fair share of the 100 million barrels burned every day on behalf of 7.6 billion people. That's particularly true, as it is for all Americans, if I take into account my share of such things such as the diesel fuel it takes for the average food item I eat to travel 1500 miles to my plate. It's moreover true if I add in my share of the fuel burn if I were to travel 1500 miles to eat in a restaurant.

    I'll accept responsibility for my complicity with global industrial civilization and with the needs of the United States. I don't have the time or energy to embrace any greenwashing solutions dreamed up by techno-utopians for an unsolvable situation, and thereby receive balm for my guilt. Neither am I eager for a debate of whether demand follows supply or the other way around.

    In any case, I don't think we need to care who is burning it, or why, for us to agree that putting many, many new parts per million CO2 into the atmosphere and ocean over the last 150 years has to, and will continue to, change their chemistry. The effect of those chemical changes and reactions are overall increases in atmospheric heat and ocean acidity. That's physics; it ain't politics nor economics.

    For the first time since our species began to learn how to better use a big brain and two opposable thumbs to eat well, we are collectively in a predicament which will actually be exacerbated by growth and expansion.

    This will require tough decisions made by tough men and women, particularly those who understand the needs for national security in energy and food.

    I would vote for someone who truly put America first in those twin pillars of need. My problem with President Trump is that he has, for some reason, gotten himself subservient to the leader of a country that has a GDP smaller than that of either California or Texas.

    Add to that the fact that Russia, even if totally under the control of Putin, has proven reserves of only 80 billion barrels of oil. Worse, most of that oil is deep under ocean that will continue to be filled with crushing ice half the year, or is under ground that's now going to be impassibly marshy half the year, and will continue to be uninhabitable due to darkness and cold the other half.

    Beyond that, the volatility of weather induced by the accelerating loss of the Arctic's ice makes Russia's food growing regions ground zero for weather-based crop failures. Their food regions are no longer secure, far less so than are Kansas or Texas or, for as long as the ground water holds out, California.

    Putin knows all of that. He knows that Russia needs the United States far more than the US need Russia. That, I believe, is why he tried to take over the Republican party broadly. That, I believe, is what Trump blundered into, from his trifecta of character flaws, ignorance, and avarice. He, I believe, is not acting to advance the existential security interests of the United States.

    Whether I consume products refined from oil or not has no impact whatsoever on those security interests at this point. The only thing that I can do to act as a private citizen to advance those security interests is to drive to the precinct house in November and vote against Republicans running for congressional office. Whether I go in a monster truck or on a horse drawn buggy doesn't matter any more.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I just love it when I actually get a rational response. :D

    It's so rare in Weigantia as of late..

    Either your political attribution is logically flawed, or Republicans are just as bad as Democrats at fighting fires.

    It's not the fighting fires that is the point. It's the incompetent allocation of assets and resources.

    It's simply undeniable that money spent on protecting snowflakes and illegal immigrant criminals (Yea, I know.. redundant) cannot be spent on protecting Californians...

    This is an undeniable fact..

    And, if you are trying to convince me that Republicans are no better than Democrats?? Dood, I wrote the BOOK on that concept!! :D

    Just pure trolling, and not very good trolling.

    And yet, it got one of my favorite commenters (for clear, concise, non partisan comments) to comment..

    "Mission accomplished..
    -Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

    there might have been a slim chance to avert the now-unleashed catastrophe of Man-made Abrupt Climate Change.

    Eh, decent trolling.. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the man made climate change con is passe' and nearly defunct as a real issue.... But I will give you an extra point for the "Abrupt" addition.. That was decent.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just pure trolling, and not very good trolling.

    No???

    It generated the last 13 of 23 comments..

    Not good trolling my ass!! :D

    "A buck ninety my ass!"
    -Ralphie, THE EQUALIZER

    :D

    And I wouldn't call it a "troll" per se because of the negative connotations of the term.. A "troll" is simply putting out comments in order to garner a response.. In that, CW puts out a "troll" every day..

    In my case, in THIS type of comment, I read something that just chaps my ass and I want to vent...

    Much healthier than keeping it all bottled up inside, wouldn't ya say?? :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now for a little musical interlude.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9myjIOatDA

    without the music. :D

    We saw these guys on our last cruise.. Total acapella.. It was phenomenal..

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the man made climate change con is passe' and nearly defunct as a real issue..

    Ah, I see your problem. You seem to believe that reason functions through some sort of 'rubbing' process. I can understand somewhat how you might have arrived at this erroneous belief, as when I was younger, I did a fair amount of thinking with an organ that became larger, if not smarter, when rubbed. It was my experience that conclusions reached in this manner were not generally to be trusted, and often led to otherwise avoidable mistakes.

    On matters of scientific importance, however, I generally look to consensus for guidance, and on the issue of climate change I find that 98% of the scientific community and all of the world's nations (except, oddly, the US, Nicaragua and Syria) have signed onto declarations that not only is climate change real, but driven by the actions of mankind.

    And how many brain cells does that represent? Gajillions, at least, many presumably un-rubbed.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find that 98% of the scientific community and all of the world's nations (except, oddly, the US, Nicaragua and Syria) have signed onto declarations that not only is climate change real, but driven by the actions of mankind.

    Which would be great (and relevant) if science, REAL science, were a popularity contest..

    But, sad for you, science is NOT a popularity contest, so your bullshit stat is completely and utterly irrelevant..

    Remember, practically the entire population of the planet thought the world was flat...

    And practically the entirety of the scientific community USED to extol the virtues and health benefits of smoking..

    Popularity does not a fact make.. And if you have to market your "science" to make it popular, it ain't science

    But you keep believing that the Humans-Cause-Global-Warming con is relevant today.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    have signed onto declarations that not only is climate change real,

    Of course climate change is real..

    DUH....

    Only a MORON would think that people are denying that the climate is changing..

    but driven by the actions of mankind.

    Yea, cuz humans have the technology to drive climate.. :D It's a little box right next to the bigger box that controls the orbit of the planet and THAT is next to a REALLY big box that controls the output of the sun...

    :^D

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale is trotting out the right wing dogma he's been trained on when anthropogenic climate change comes up.

    The science is fairly simple and the facts are irrefutable, so we get word games and conspiracy theories.

    Ignore.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, dood..

    If you honestly believe that humans drive climate change then you are obviously on a completely different planet in the Pegasus galaxy and there is no hope of ever finding common ground...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The science is fairly simple and the facts are irrefutable, so we get word games and conspiracy theories.

    And yet, ya'all can't get yer little religion past the fringe/junk science phase.. :D

    Anyone who thinks that humans drive the changing of the planet's climate is delusional and in DESPERATE need of two brain cells to rub together..

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Leaning Your [22]

    You make a purely spectacular, absolutely wonderful, case of laying out the big picture of the "problem" (or at least the current situation) relative to the consumption of fossil fuels.

    In my opinion, you grossly overestimate the degree, the magnitude, the severity of the "problem". I can't speak for much of the world, but in my little piece of it, the single aspect of "global warming" I've seen in 80 yrs of growing tomatoes in my back yard is that nowadays, the first frost that deprives me of the delicious fruit arrives 2 - 3 weeks later than it did when I was a kid. Take my word for it, that does NOT upset me. In fact, if that actually IS "GLOBAL WARMING", then I LOVE global warming!

    Also, I think you are guilty of egregious non sequitur reasoning in concluding that your wonderful description of the "problem" (or at least the 'situation') somehow leads to the action of you "going to the precinct house and voting against Republicans." I see no connection whatsoever to that conclusion.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    In my opinion, you grossly overestimate the degree, the magnitude, the severity of the "problem".

    And THAT is exactly the problem I have with the hysterical fear mongering global warming fanatics..

    EVERY THING is a planet destroying catastrophe...

    It's easy to make the connection between religion and global warming fanatics..

    In religion, everything is "gods will"...

    For the global warming religion, everything is "global warming".. Too much rain?? That's caused by global warming... Too little rain?? That's caused by global warming... Very busy hurricane season?? Of course, global warming causes that.. Very light hurricane season?? Yes, global warming causes that.. Too much snow?? Global warming is to blame.. Too little snow?? Global warming is at fault..

    And so on and so on and so on..

    How can a reasonable rational person take these fanatics seriously when they spew total BS such as that???

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    "going to the precinct house and voting against Republicans."

    It is pretty simple. Most Republicans believe conspiracy theories ("China hoax") and not reality, so the first thing to do is get the blockers out of the way.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most Republicans believe conspiracy theories ("China hoax") and not reality, so the first thing to do is get the blockers out of the way.

    Yea.. Gotta make way for the Democrat conspiracy theorists.. :^/

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Come and take it’ – Meme warriors fight California plastic straws ban
    https://www.rt.com/usa/434483-california-plastic-straws-ban/

    Democrats :^/

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Watch this if you want to understand why people want to avoid plastic straws.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJmi_gwziy4

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Watch this if you want to understand why people want to avoid plastic straws.

    Yea.. That certainly justifies jail time to waiters who serve drinks with plastic straws.. :^/

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Remember, it is NOT the extraction of fossil fuels that puts CO2 into the atmosphere, it is the BURNING THEREOF!!"

    Bullshit CRS, u smug ignorant SOB. (Sorry Liz, but sometimes one must resort to plain speaking to clear the rhetorical treacle).

    EROEI = Energy Return on Energy Investment.

    EROEI= Gross Energy Yield / Energy Expended

    You must spend energy to extract and deliver energy. You must account for every step in the energy extraction and distribution process...from exploration to delivery. Every item (people and their tools included). Simply put, this is a process of defining a closed thermodynamic system. It is very hard to do...I know this because I've had to do this professionally. The deeper you delve into the process, the lower the EROEI goes before you approach an asymtote.

    I'm not going to bother with handing you a reference because you aren't interested in a legit discussion. Look it up, you lazy Troll. Read before you pontificate.

  40. [40] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    "You must spend energy to extract energy."

    Omygawd, SFB, I'da never GUESSED that oilfield workers drive to the wellsite in their gas-burning pickups! Or that the motor which drives the well-drilling bit probably runs on diesel fuel, etc. etc.

    Thank you, Captain Obvious, how would we ignorant folks ever get along without the perceptive insights of dumbass simpletons??

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Omygawd, SFB, I'da never GUESSED that oilfield workers drive to the wellsite in their gas-burning pickups! Or that the motor which drives the well-drilling bit probably runs on diesel fuel, etc. etc.

    Thank you, Captain Obvious, how would we ignorant folks ever get along without the perceptive insights of dumbass simpletons??

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D Well deserved mockery, I might add...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Sorry Liz, but sometimes one must resort to plain speaking to clear the rhetorical treacle).

    TRANSLATION:
    One must attack and vilify and denigrate those who don't toe my Party line..

    Figures...

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    I have found that it is best, though quite often difficult, to just ignore the asinine comments while enjoying the cogent discussion on the rare occasions that it occurs.

    It makes for fewer comments. Which, in this case, is a very good thing.

    If the thoughtful of us stick to that game plan, then, in time, this place could very well become all that is capable of being.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    With respect to climate change, Michale, an important point to remember and consider is the rate of climate change. To be more precise, we need to look at the change in the rate of climate change.

    Because, you are right to say that climate change has been happening here since the formation of our planet and up to the point of the beginning of the industrial revolution and beyond.

    But, if you take a close look at some of the indicators of climate change - for instance, the level of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere - you will see a rate of change over the last hundred years that is unprecedented, especially in its consequences for human habitation.

    We are living today - not all of us, of course, to the same degree - with the real and devastating impacts of climate change and we may have even lost the opportunity to do much about it. And, that is demoralizing. Because, we know what should have been done and we have largely failed to do it.

  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    Re "If you take a look at some of the indicators of climate change such as the level of (CO2) . . "

    Greenhouse gasses may well be a CAUSE of climate change (altho some disagree), but they are an "indicator" of the burning of fossil fuels, NOT an "indicator of climate change"!

    Re the "devastating effects" of climate change, pls read my [32] to find out how "devastated" I am at having to consume homegrown, vine-ripened tomatoes for an extra 3 wks each fall compared to 50 yrs ago!

  46. [46] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-43

    Well, I kept it brief.

    CRS pimped a lame argument based entirely upon a nontrivial falsehood. Now he is trying to walk it back a bit.

    CRS reveals himself to be a puffed-up and poorly informed ignoramus almost every time he scolds about matters of science or economics. His on line persona is that of a cranky old man unwilling to admit that knowledge has advanced since the 19th century.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There appears to be a strong link today between environmental degradation and Republicanism. There is certainly a link between a lack of respect for the environment and Trumpism.

    Speaking of which, the president's son will soon be returning from Africa with a genuine lion's head and skin, I have heard from a most reliable source. Such behavior has been legalized bry the Trump administration.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Times publisher asks Trump to reconsider anti-media rhetoric
    https://apnews.com/2bbf5451248c46e49533ac6d54a115fb/Times-publisher-asks-Trump-to-reconsider-anti-media-rhetoric

    I think I can speak for President Trump and for the patriotic American people when I say..

    "President Trump will reconsider anti-media rhetoric when the hysterical MSM reconsider their anti-President Trump rhetoric.."

    The media is 92% hysterical anti-Trump bullshit..

    Let's face reality.. If a news organization is printing 92% negative about a person, they are NOT being fair..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, you are right to say that climate change has been happening here since the formation of our planet and up to the point of the beginning of the industrial revolution and beyond.<

    Thank you.. NO ONE here seems to be cognizant of that simple fact..

    But, if you take a close look at some of the indicators of climate change - for instance, the level of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere - you will see a rate of change over the last hundred years that is unprecedented, especially in its consequences for human habitation.

    And...??? So...????

    There is simply nothing that can be done about it, unless you want humans to return to the pre-industrial era...

    We can't put the genie back in the bottle..

    What chaps my ass are the hypocritical scumbags who preach that EVERYONE ELSE has to "tighten their belts" and give up their technology, and yet they jet set around the world in private jets and SUV convoys...

    If you get THOSE morons to "tighten their belts" and practice what they preach, THEN I'll believe there is a viable argument there..

    We are living today - not all of us, of course, to the same degree - with the real and devastating impacts of climate change and we may have even lost the opportunity to do much about it. And, that is demoralizing. Because, we know what should have been done and we have largely failed to do it.

    The same thing can be said about "god's will".. I mean, a christian can give you as plausible and logical and rational explanation for weather-based occurrences as a so-called Humans Cause Global Warming "scientist"...

    But it's funny.. Religious crackpots who predict the end of the world have as MUCH credibility as the Humans Cause Global Warming crackpots who predict catastrophe after catastrophe after catastrophe....

    There is as much scientific evidence that disproves the Humans Cause Global Warming theory as there is that supports it..

    But no one here will even continence such blasphemy...

    And so it goes and so it goes... :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    There appears to be a strong link today between environmental degradation and Republicanism.

    Yea???

    How clean is Detroit these days??

    How clean is Baltimore these days??

    :D

    Speaking of which, the president's son will soon be returning from Africa with a genuine lion's head and skin, I have heard from a most reliable source. Such behavior has been legalized bry the Trump administration.

    Awesome!!!! Lucky guy...

    I always regret back when I had a ton of money that I never took the family on an African safari hunt.. While 3 weeks at the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas for the family was nice... It wouldn't have compared to an Africa hunt... :D

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig Your [46]

    Yeah, about that "Walking it back a bit" thing, mind running it by me with a mite more specificity? I'm not much known for walking things back.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, about that "Walking it back a bit" thing, mind running it by me with a mite more specificity? I'm not much known for walking things back.

    I can help..

    Stig wants you to walk back things that doesn't support HIS hysterical Party slavery agenda...

    It's just not right that YOU, or anyone else for that matter, would have an opinion that calls into question the ONE and ONLY true path... You believe as HE wants you to believe or else...

    Hope that clarifies things for you...

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Regardless of our views on climate change, what should we who inhabit this planet be doing to ensure that we have a sustainable source of energy that does not further degrade our planet.

    I think there are lot of things that governments at all levels should be doing to (1) mitigate, to the extent that is possible, the destructive impacts of climate change and, (2) make the requisite transition "to a sustainable society safe from climate change and nuclear war".

    These are the big picture issues than most seem willing to ignore at their own peril.

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I can't believe that everyone's still discussing the same idiotic Michale assertions that I posted about just before I fell asleep hours ago.

    So there's your proof, CW, that we are indeed in the midst of a 'silly season'.

    Further proof is that Trump issued a tweet this morning intended to rally his base, and included another (empty) threat to shut down the government if he doesn't get his way.

    Has anyone else, I wonder, noticed that Trump, like Michale, has become completely predictable?

    Gone are the days when his outrageous views made it seem that he was playing fizzbin with the rest of us, because they deviated so far from the norm. Now that he's asserted leadership of the wingnut contingent, he's as locked into their pre-programmed responses as Michale.

    This isn't fizzbin, it's more like one of those Bored Games where your little car follows a predetermined path to a square marked 'midterms'. Every third or fourth square is a box marked "stroke the base".

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of our views on climate change, what should we who inhabit this planet be doing to ensure that we have a sustainable source of energy that does not further degrade our planet.

    I see no problem with striving for cold fusion or anti-matter power sources...

    We have a GREAT non-polluting source of abundant power right now.. But that violates a DIFFERENT Democrat Party agenda...

    *MY* problem, as usual, is the hypocrisy..

    I think there are lot of things that governments at all levels should be doing to (1) mitigate, to the extent that is possible, the destructive impacts of climate change

    And once we can do that without totally decimating our economies and once it's definite that we SHOULD do that, I will be all for it.

    But you first have to meet the upper most criteria..

    FIRST ABOVE ALL ELSE... DO NO HARM

    These are the big picture issues than most seem willing to ignore at their own peril.

    I agree.. It's all about pushing petty agendas...

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Michale, Democratic leadership has also failed in protecting the environment. But, Democratic leadership - as well as some Republican leadership over the years - has often implemented policies to safeguard the environment.

    Let's try to take politics out of any discussion about what policies - from the local to the global level - need to put forward if we are to make the necessary transition to a sustainable planet that is safer from climate change and nuclear war.

    Is it possible to have a discussion on the big picture issues without resorting to political tribalism? I hope that it can happen here.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't fizzbin, it's more like one of those Bored Games where your little car follows a predetermined path to a square marked 'midterms'. Every third or fourth square is a box marked "stroke the base".<

    If yer so bored, why do you hang on and comment on every word I say and every thing President Trump says and does??

    Such actions belies yer claim that it's "boring"... :D

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can't believe that everyone's still discussing the same idiotic Michale assertions that I posted about just before I fell asleep hours ago. So there's your proof, CW, that we are indeed in the midst of a 'silly season'.

    What will you contribute here to improve that situation?

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's try to take politics out of any discussion about what policies - from the local to the global level - need to put forward if we are to make the necessary transition to a sustainable planet that is safer from climate change and nuclear war.

    We CAN'T take politics out of the issue because the issue is BORNE of politics..

    The climate will do what the climate will do and there is NOTHING humans can do about it..

    If Yosemite decides to blow, NOTHING humans can do will prevent it..

    If a giant asteroid wants to collide with the earth there is NOTHING humans can do to prevent it..

    If the sun wants to go supernova, there is NOTHING humans can do to prevent it..

    For me, personally, I don't expend any energy thinking about it..

    It's a Vulcan discipline called Kaiidth which roughly translates into MASTERY OF THE UNAVOIDABLE

    In succinct terms, whatever will be WILL be...

    Is it possible to have a discussion on the big picture issues without resorting to political tribalism? I hope that it can happen here.

    Yea, it would be nice...But as long as people put their political agendas above real science and calm objective reasoning..... It will never happen..

  60. [60] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm frequently appalled by the cavalier attitude some people have towards 'big game hunting'. Bunch of rich, bored, barely human nipple-dicks loitering around the savanna, armed to the teeth, waiting for something to get withing five hundred yards of their deck chair. The day might come when that waste of skin, Trump the lesser, might find himself hunted for sport...only no one will think to mount his head on the mantle, it'll go straight in the compost, where all withered heads of cabbage end up.

    I'd barely look up if Trump the lesser met with an unfortunate accident while in Africa...it's not as if he contributes in any measurable way to society. To be honest, I can't fathom why Trump the bigger hasn't had him lobotomized for cocking up the Trump Tower collusion meeting. He only had one job to do.

    LL&P

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, it would be nice...But as long as people put their political agendas above real science and calm objective reasoning..... It will never happen..

    Let me give you an example..

    Will *ANYONE* here admit that there is real, legitimate and factually accurate science that disputes the Humans Cause Global Warming theory?

    No, no one will...

    Because such a concession violates their Party ideology...

    A perfect example of ignoring reality because it's contrary to their Party/Ideological slavery...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm frequently appalled by the cavalier attitude some people have towards 'big game hunting'. Bunch of rich, bored, barely human nipple-dicks loitering around the savanna, armed to the teeth, waiting for something to get withing five hundred yards of their deck chair.

    Of course that's your bigoted idea and has really nothing to do with reality...

    I'd barely look up if Trump the lesser met with an unfortunate accident while in Africa...

    Of course... Anyone who doesn't toe your line, it's better off if they are killed, right?? :^/

    To be honest, I can't fathom why Trump the bigger hasn't had him lobotomized for cocking up the Trump Tower collusion meeting.

    Ahhhhh ideological slavery at it's finest...

    Look in the mirror to see who has been intellectually lobotomized...

  63. [63] 
    Aloysius McG wrote:

    Thank you all for morphing this discussion into one on climate change. It is, IMHO, the most important threat to humankind at present. Indeed the science is clear and the solution is obvious: Move the world as quickly as possible to a carbon neutral economy.

    The incredibly complex details of climate change science are constantly being revealed and illuminated by the cooperation of scientists in multiple disciplines and multiple countries.

    What is lacking is the political will to make and implement the necessary difficult decisions. The fossil fuel industry has known for at least half a century that use of their products causes the climate change we are observing. Greed and duplicity have marked their well-financed campaign of misinformation. Those who know fear that we are rapidly approaching or have already passed tipping points which will accelerate our progress to an uninhabitable planet. The sooner humans deploy meaningful antidotes such as a price on carbon, subsidies for the deployment of renewables, the removal of dark money from politics, and enhanced individual efforts to decrease one's personal carbon footprint, the better.

    The pervasiveness of resistance to change, political tribalism and an arrogantly ignorant administration and populace are significant obstacles to preserving even a marginally livable planet for our descendants.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is, IMHO, the most important threat to humankind at present.

    Relatively speaking, your alone in that opinion... :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    newly released international study reveals that the issue of climate change is not a priority for people in the United States and around the world.

    The surveys showed that when asked to rank priority worries, people were five times more likely to point to the economy over the environment. Additionally, when asked about climate change, people identified the issue as more of a national problem than a personal concern.

    In other words, Most people think Humans Cause Global Warming is a POLITICAL problem, not a problem to be personally concerned about..

    Global Warming has consistently DROPPED in importance in the minds of Americans..

    The con is winding down..

    To paraphrase Sheriff Brody of Amity...

    Yer gonna need a bigger fear-mongering concern..

    Better get used to it..

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Relatively speaking, your alone in that opinion.

    Relatively speaking, you couldn't be more incorrect on that point. As I pointed out earlier, every other country on the planet has signed onto a declaration that asserts exactly that.

    And the truth is, if you took all of the fossil fuel industry's lobbying money out of the mix, there wouldn't even be that many Republicans taking the opposing view.

    And the handful of scientists that claim to have evidence to the contrary would have to whore themselves out to a different industry.

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The surveys showed that when asked to rank priority worries, people were five times more likely to point to the economy over the environment.

    Duh.

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Look further down on that list and you'll find healthcare and education too, which righties really don't want to discuss, either right now.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If yer so bored, why do you hang on and comment on every word I say and every thing President Trump says and does?

    Because that's all there is to do until November, when we can vote to throw as many of his enablers out of office as possible.

    And that's just the dress rehearsal for the 2020 election, when we can finally send him packing back to his gilded dildo-shaped home in Manhattan. Then he's got some 'splainin' to do to Melania...

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    So, you think the outcomes of 2018/2020 will just happen without Democrats even so much as lifting a finger to make it happen.

    The act of voting, I should think, is what happens after all of the hard work by Democrats is done.

    Didn't the last presidential campaign make that quite clear?

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, you think the outcomes of 2018/2020 will just happen without Democrats even so much as lifting a finger to make it happen[?]

    Oh no, Liz. You're absolutely right, but no reason to bother Michale with the sausage-making.

    That's why I called it a 'dress rehearsal'. A lot of different party orgs and GOTV efforts will be getting watched very closely for effectiveness in this year's go-round, to be tweaked for the GE later.

    And of course the Democrats will have some party building to do in the aftermath, which should be much easier with all of the newly minted Democratic governors in office.

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    Some interesting polling on the issues by different groups of voters.

    http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Picture2.png

    The big 5 are:

    1. Healthcare
    2. The Economy
    3. Social Security
    4. Gun Policies
    5. Education

    Climate change is #15

    Healthcare is a good issue for the Democrats. The current economy is good for Republicans (see notes 1 & 2 below). Social Security is a third rail for both parties, except for vague promises to "protect it from XXX". Gun policies split the country. Education is a left leaning opportunity for the Democrats (the Republicans seem to be going anti-education at the moment, but I'll bet most try to get their kids into university).

    The Economy:

    Note 1: Kahneman and Tversky documented that people feel the pain of loss more than the joy of gain, i.e. people are more unhappy at losing $100 than gaining $100. Their work is very interesting. So if the economy isn't working for somebody they are more likely to be upset than if it is. Also, if something bad happens to them economically they tend to blame the economy. However if their circumstances improve, they give themselves credit as well as the economy. A lot of the anger in 2016 came from the fact that there have been more losers than winners over the last few decades despite national economic progress. Little has changed in the last two years - the tax cuts were meant to give regular people a bit of cash to make them feel good, but the lobbyists didn't leave anything after they got their share.

    Note 2: The economy is not guaranteed to keep growing at a macro level. We are well past the usual point where we see a setback, and the Fed is rising interest rates and enacting Quantitative Squeezing. This is usually the point of the party where people start looking for car keys, arguing over who will drive home Becky who is throwing up in the potted plant, and deciding that Kevin can just spend the night in the flowerbed - the sprinklers will wake him up in the morning. The Republicans might get lucky and the economy might charge on for 3 more years, and I deeply hope it does, but this is the point where I start to look at my cable bill, what I'm spending on eating out, and getting quotes from new insurance companies for my cars.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    I grew up with waxed paper straws and the world didn't come to an end.

    I'd like the people who are happy that we are inflicting pain on sea animals to explain the personal crisis they would face either not having a plastic straw in their drinks or, if they really need one, using a wax paper straw.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Did you read William Bradley's piece on why the resistance isn't up to dealing with Trump, much less the transition?

  75. [75] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Of course... Anyone who doesn't toe your line, it's better off if they are killed, right?? :^/"

    A golden example of right-wing hypocrisy...this from the same person who trotted out, "And conspired to prevent him from being elected by using their positions to lie and cheat..Personally, the deserve to be shot.." less than a week ago about former NI officials, for which he could supply no credible evidence. That reduced his statement to an opinion, and therefore valueless, so nothing new under the sun here. I suppose a half-point can be awarded for being a consistent bearer of dross.

    I guess with all the nonsense, obfuscation and just plain bullshit bouncing around the brain-box of our resident Trump apologist, it's tough to keep it all straight.

    LL&P

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    I check out his columns at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/william-bradley

    The latest is from January - is there a better link to his columns?

    Thanks.

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    Chances that Treasonous Trump will blame Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome H. Powell if the economy dives:

    100%

    Percentage of Treasonous Trump supporters who know which President nominated Powell?

    A lot less than 100%

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I'm afraid I am not aware of any link to his new columns anymore.

    I receive them via email, as do all who were commenters on his old New West Notes site.

    I'll keep you posted if I find out how you can access them …

    Do you suppose Chris would mind if I post one of Bill's latest here?

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, that's a bad idea ...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just wish more people could read them but he doesn't seem to want to widely disseminate them … of course, he knows everyone who's anyone...

  81. [81] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    According to neilm [72}, ". .people are more unhappy at losing $100 than (they are) at gaining $100."

    Now surely, there's a pearl of wisdom profundity worthy of enshrinement in the book of "Most insightful Quotes of All Time", right alongside Stig's almost equally profound observation to the effect that "some fossil energy must be consumed during the extraction process"!

    Trump often sets a very high bar in the contest for "Stupid Statement of the Week" trophy, but some of our Dem/Lib cohorts around here have not the slightest trouble clearing it, even making the task look easy!

  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    [59] Michale

    "The climate will do what the climate will do and there is NOTHING humans can do about it.."

    Not True. You and Liz have already talked about things that can be done. Humans have CAUSED the accelerated change in the climate, and HUMANS can SLOW down that change, through things, for example, like developing viable fusion power.

    "If Yosemite decides to blow, NOTHING humans can do will prevent it.."

    I think you mean Yellowstone, not Yosemite. Since Yellowstone is actually one of Earth's super volcanoes.

    "If a giant asteroid wants to collide with the earth there is NOTHING humans can do to prevent it.."

    Also Not True. NASA and others as you well know, have been researching what we could do. Everything from trying to blow it up with a nuclear bomb, to nudging it off course with rockets or deliberate impacts.

    "If the sun wants to go supernova, there is NOTHING humans can do to prevent it.."

    Something which is a physical impossibility, given what we currently know about physics and the type of star the sun is.

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Let’s just switch the argument from being called “climate change” or “global warming” and call it what it truly is.... “ways we are fuc*ing ourselves up!” Increased carbon dioxide burns ozone that protects us from certain types of radiation.

    Fracking has caused increased lubrication of tectonic plates which has resulted in increased seismic activity wherever fracking occurs.

    Those that live in areas with large amounts of auto exhaust are at a greater risk of COPD, asthma, and lung cancer.

    Michael is right, we cannot take politics out of any discussion where there is doubt as to man’s influence on climate change because it is the ONLY place where deniers exist! There isn’t a legitimately accredited school that teaches that climate change is a hoax. No, the only people who deny man’s impact on the climate are old, white conservatives who are too embarrassed to admit that the GOP lied to them when it chose to defend Big Oil’s profits over defending the truth. Hell, Big Oil even admits to their products having impacted our climate in a negative way, but conservatives still stick to defending the lie!

    We are the only country that is no longer a part of the Paris Accord. Why? Because no where else on this planet are there people so gullible and willing to support a party that so blatantly puts corporate profits above the good of the people.

    So even if the lemmings don’t want to admit to climate change, they can see the other benefits of cutting back our carbon footprints. Hopefully, they’ll die off soon enough and we can put this idiotic chapter of our history to rest.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Relatively speaking, you couldn't be more incorrect on that point. As I pointed out earlier, every other country on the planet has signed onto a declaration that asserts exactly that.

    And, as usual, you can't best me in my argument, so you make up one of your own..

    You're talking politics.. I am talking PEOPLE...

    And the handful of scientists that claim to have evidence to the contrary would have to whore themselves out to a different industry.

    Ahhhhhh

    So the "scientists" who agree with your political agenda are legit..

    Those that have REAL science that disproves your pet fear-mongering.. THEY are "whores"...

    Nice...

    As an aside to Liz... See??? It's ALL about a political agenda.. That is the ONLY thing at work here..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you mean Yellowstone, not Yosemite. Since Yellowstone is actually one of Earth's super volcanoes.

    I stand corrected.. I always get those two mixed up... Thanx for the correction..

    Something which is a physical impossibility, given what we currently know about physics and the type of star the sun is.

    "given what we know"..

    THAT is my entire point..

    Relatively speaking, we don't know shit.. About the sun about the planet and about climate..

    And yet, YOU advocate tinkering around and futzing around with something so infinitely complex to address a problem that is, again relatively speaking, only seconds old...

    Where is the logic in that???

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael is right

    Thank you... I bet that hurt.. :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooooooooohhhh LB????

    Ya wanna rethink your ranking of my "vent"??? :D

    You said "not very good", but I think the word you were looking for is:

    "DOMINATION!!!"
    -Mortal Kombat

    :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump often sets a very high bar in the contest for "Stupid Statement of the Week" trophy, but some of our Dem/Lib cohorts around here have not the slightest trouble clearing it, even making the task look easy!

    "I know, right!?"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are the only country that is no longer a part of the Paris Accord. Why?

    Because it's nothing but a sellout of US sovereignty to the UN, an organization PROVEN to be the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth..

    YOU might be fine to sell out the US soul to some evil faceless corporate entity, but PATRIOTIC Americans are not..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, the Paris Accords are a laughable and ridiculous fallacy..

    Even if EVERY country on the planet, including the US, followed the Paris Accords TO THE LETTER, ya know what would the result be??

    On one side of the '=' sign, there would be LESS than a .02% drop in the global temp over the next 100 years..

    World wide economic decimation is on the other side of the '=' signs...

    All of that pain and suffering of economic catastrophe over the entire planet... ALL of that *JUST* to lower the global temp .02% over a century...

    Only a total and complete MORON, or a person totally enslaved by Party/Ideology would support the Paris Accords...

    And what makes ya'all's support EVEN WORSE is that it won't even work!!!

    EVERY weather-related prediction has been totally and completely and absolutely WRONG...

    The Arctic is not ice free... The Antarctic is gaining ice.. Children in the UK still know what snow is... Hurricanes aren't any more frequent than they have been for hundreds of years and they are no more devastating, nature-wise, than they were a hundred years ago..

    In short, ***ALL*** of the hysterical and Chicken Little-esque fear-mongering that the hysterical Left has spewed for the last 40 years has been WRONG... Not a SINGLE accurate prediction...

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    The track record on correct Global Warming predictions is even WORSE than the track record on TRUMP IS TOAST predictions..

    And THAT says something....

    Face reality people.. The Global Warming con has run it's course.. The proponents of the religion has milked it drier than Tammy Faye Baker's bank accounts...

    The people are wise to the con and yer never gonna get it back..

    But, take heart.. Rumor has it there is a planet out there, Nibiru that is gonna collide with earth any day now..

    Maybe the Hysterical Left can start pawning a Earth Planet Mover that will save our planet.. But only if we give hundreds of billions of dollars to Dick Branson and Al Crazed-Sex-Poodle Gore.. Yunno.. The guy who invented the Internet... :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s just switch the argument from being called “climate change” or “global warming” and call it what it truly is.... “ways we are fuc*ing ourselves up!” Increased carbon dioxide burns ozone that protects us from certain types of radiation.

    Well, then.. The solution is SIMPLE..

    Simply GET RID of all of the carbon dioxide...

    Of course, THAT plan would mean there would be ZERO life on the planet in wha?? Couple months?? Couple years??

    But hay.. It has the benefit of ya'all won't have to worry about Global Warming any more!?

    It's a good thing all those "scientists" who had a "consensus" that the planet was cooling 50 years ago didn't come up with a plan to heat the earth, eh??

    Or.... did they...?????

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    I grew up with waxed paper straws and the world didn't come to an end.

    Yea, how did yer drink taste after the straw was in there for any hour? :^/

    The ignorant straw ban is just another way that elitist scumbags want to control the masses...

    Take plastic straws away is the first step in taking your car away..

    I'd like the people who are happy that we are inflicting pain on sea animals to explain the personal crisis they would face either not having a plastic straw in their drinks or, if they really need one, using a wax paper straw.

    If sea animals are too stoopid that they get straws in their noses, then Darwinism will run it's course.. Survival of the fittest.. Or, in this case, the smartest...

    Maybe if they weren't doing so much cocaine they wouldn't have an issue with straws in their noses..

    , if they really need one, using a wax paper straw.

    You might not mind having yer rum n coke taste like a candle in order to save yer precious sea turtle..

    But others might...

    But yer right.. It's perfectly acceptable to put a waiter in jail for a year because he served a drink with a plastic straw..

    Yea. THAT's justified. :^/

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might not mind having yer rum n coke taste like a candle in order to save yer precious sea turtle..

    Speaking of rum n coke..

    ****WARNING***** OFF COLOR JOKE *****
    If yer easily offended by guys locker room talk, proceed at yer own risk...

    .....

    .....

    .....

    .....

    .....

    A guy walks into a bar.. Says "I want a vodka & orange juice"... Bartender puts an apple on the bar. "There ya go", he says.. Guy said "I said a vodka & orange juice!!" Bartender says "try it"... Guy takes a bit of the apple... "Holy shit!!! This tastes like orange juice!!" Bartender says, "Turn it around.." Guy turns it around. "Damn!! This tastes like vodka!!"

    Bit later, another guy walks in. "Gimme a rum & coke.." he says. Bartender puts an apple on the table. Guys says, "dood! I said I want a rum & coke!"... Bartender says "try it..." Guy takes a bite of the apple.. "Dood!!! That tastes like rum!!!" Bartender says, "turn it over.." Guy takes a bit of the other side.. "WOW!!! That tastes like coke!!!!"

    A bit later, another guy walks in.. "Dammit, I want some pussy!!" Bartender puts an apple on the bar.. Guy says, "I said I want some pussy!!" Bartender says "Try it.." Guy takes a bite and spews it out all over the floor and yelled, "This tastes like shit!!!"

    Bartender says, "Turn it over"...

    :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Joshua,

    I'm an educator. This is why I want Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/30/im-educator-this-is-why-want-judge-kavanaugh-on-supreme-court.html

    Comments??

  95. [95] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The Earth cannot be hit by an asteroid.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Earth cannot be hit by an asteroid.

    ARMAGEDDON, starring Bruce Willis, proves it can.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how ya'all routinely castigate and denigrate President Trump for his business practices that happened years ago.....

    Accidents at Amazon: workers left to suffer after warehouse injuries
    Guardian investigation reveals numerous cases of Amazon workers being treated in ways that leave them homeless, unable to work or bereft of income after workplace accidents

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/accidents-at-amazon-workers-left-to-suffer-after-warehouse-injuries

    Yet ya'all completely ignore and are perfectly OK w/ Bezos' practices that are hurting people in the here and now.. Because Bezos has a -D after his name and his is Anti-Trump, Bezos gets a past and the hundreds of low income Americans can just go pound sand...

    No, they can't even do that because Bezos frak'ed them up....

    Once again, proving it's *ALL* about politics and NOTHING about concern for hard-working Americans...

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    According to neilm [72}, ". .people are more unhappy at losing $100 than (they are) at gaining $100."

    Now surely, there's a pearl of wisdom profundity worthy of enshrinement in the book of "Most insightful Quotes of All Time"

    Thanks, but I can't take any credit.

    Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel in 2002 in Economics for the paper that identified this, and other, anomalies of human nature.

    But you're an economics major, so I'm sure you already knew that.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT Publisher Complains to Trump About ‘Potential’ Violence Against Journalists – Ignores Over 500 Violent Attacks on Trump Supporters
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/nyt-publisher-complains-to-trump-about-potential-violence-against-journalists-ignores-over-500-violent-attacks-on-trump-supporters/

    I gotta ask..

    Does being a Democrat automatically make a person a raging hypocrite??

    Or is being a hypocrite a requirement for being a Democrat??

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When an asteroid enters the atmosphere it becomes a meteor. When a meteor makes contact with the surface of the earth it becomes a meteorite.

    So only a meteorite can hit the earth. A meteor can never hit the earth.

    An asteroid could only hit the earth if we lost our atmosphere so we would already be dead.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    An asteroid could only hit the earth if we lost our atmosphere so we would already be dead.

    Which is kinda like what would happen if the hysterical Humans Cause Global Warming religion fanatics get their way and we eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere...

    :D

  102. [102] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Do you actually READ what you write??

    No, I have NOT read D. Kahneman's paper, but I'd be willing to bet that what he ACTUALLY WROTE was something like "People are more UNhappy about losing $100 than they are HAPPY about gaining $100.

    AT least that makes some sort of sense, whereas your version (where you evidently omitted the "HAPPY"), is simply ridiculous, right? However, his paper seems to presume that it's possible to quantify 'Happyness Units' and compare them to 'Unhappynes Units', a ridiculous concept on its face.

    But as far as that goes, I'd have to rate his Nobel right up there alongside Obama's Peace Prize (you remember Obama, thae guy who assassainated people damn near every single day by means of drone strikes), and Paul Krugman's Nobel, the guy who isn't even a 'real' (meaning Classical, as opposed to Political) economist.

    It's a total travesty that those nutcases in Norway are able use Nobel's name for their bogus awards, making people think their awards are equivalent to the ones bestowed by the Swedes.

  103. [103] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's a total travesty that those nutcases in Norway are able use Nobel's name for their bogus awards, making people think their awards are equivalent to the ones bestowed by the Swedes.

    And yet it means so much more to win one than it does to win the annual "Parrot" award, bestowed on corporate stooges who repeat what Fox and Trump and Putin say, word for word.

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS:

    Read "Thinking Fast and Slow" if you want to get some insights into Kahneman's insights into his work.

    Alternatively you can read Michael Lewis' "The Undoing Project" (the same Michael Lewis who wrote "The Big Short").

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky discovered some interesting "bugs" in our psyche with manifestations in how we behave economically - i.e. the difference in happiness impact of gain vs. loss as well as sunken cost bugs, etc.

    You'd enjoy it.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    And yet it means so much more to win one

    It USED to..

    Once they gave it to Odumbo for just being black, it lost all meaning..

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just to counter some of the fuzzy claims about the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

    It is indeed part of the regular Nobel awards, I don't know why it is claimed to be "Norwegian" instead of "Swedish", and I expect there will be more new Nobel Prizes in fields that were not strongly developed in 1895 when the prizes were originally set up.

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paul Krugman....the guy who isn't even a 'real' (meaning Classical, as opposed to Political) economist.

    Krugman is currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He was previously a professor emeritus at Princeton University, and before that, a professor of economics at MIT. He also holds the title of Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance), liquidity traps, and currency crises. A 2011 survey of economics professors named him their favorite living economist under the age of 60.

    I think he qualifies as a 'real' economist, one that would be highly amused by your opinion of him, given that you couldn't scratch his balls on the subject.

  108. [108] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    It's just a guess, but I'm betting that the reason "People are less UNhappy about losing $100 than they are about GAINING $100" could well be that NOBODY is the LEAST BIT UNhappy about GAINING $100". In other words any unhappyness whatsoever is, by definition, more than zero unhappyness!

    Surely that ought to qualify me for a Norwegian Nobel!

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Surely that ought to qualify me for a Norwegian Nobel!

    "Indeed..."
    -Teal'c

  110. [110] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Everyone of those august institutions is simply a bastion of liberal thinking, where the Econ professors couldn't care less (or as Weigantians normally say. "could care less") about principles of economics (think maximum outputs with min. inputs, etc.), but rather devote their entire careers to crafting mathematical models hoping influence how wealth is distributed AFTER it is produced.

    Classical economics died with Milton Friedman.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [108] Boring word games.

  112. [112] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [110] - classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

    "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is."

    You think you are smarter than all economists who don't even understand their own field.

    Frankly, when it comes to understanding economics from the top economics thinkers of our current time, or somebody with a political grudge posting on a blog, call me crazy, but I'm going with the real experts.

    They are still researching because they know they have more to learn.

    Do you have nothing more to learn about economics?

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once they gave it to Odumbo for just being black, it lost all meaning..

    Obama was awarded the Peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" during his first year in office, which included such highlights as a treaty to further reduce nuclear stockpiles, outreach to Muslim countries, including historic speeches in Ankara and Cairo, and being the first sitting president to chair a session of the UN Security Council. His executive order to close the extralegal Guantanamo Bay prison (later blocked by Republicans) was also cited.

    Your description just betrays the sad, racist current running through today's GOP.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is."

    That describes practically all of Weigantia..

    For example.. ya'all thought yer predictive prowess in the 2016 was WAY WAY better than it actually was.. :D

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [107]

    The right wing is currently are in a post-fact world, mostly because facts and reality keep correcting their claims and worldview.

    This isn't a partisan view, simply an observation. The left also has the ability to lose touch with reality - an equivalent example to Treasonous Trump and his crew is Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro and his followers who are as dim on the left as the Republicans currently are on the right.

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neil [115]: an equivalent example to Treasonous Trump and his crew is Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro and his followers who are as dim on the left as the Republicans currently are on the right.

    Agreed.

  117. [117] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "In the field of psychology. . . ", the first criterion for membership is that you have to be crazy yourself, before you can join.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    The right wing is currently are in a post-fact world, mostly because facts and reality keep correcting their claims and worldview.

    Says the guy who is part of a group that claims Hillary REALLY won the election and President Trump colluded with the Russians..

    :D

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    Says the guy who is part of a group that claims Hillary REALLY won the election

    No, I didn't.

    See how facts and reality are a struggle for you.

  120. [120] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    First rule of Dem/Lib political debate: When unable to rebut, resort to psychobabble.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    First rule of Dem/Lib political debate: When unable to rebut, resort to psychobabble.

    I see ya met Weigantians.. :D

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I didn't.

    See how facts and reality are a struggle for you.M

    Yea, you have.. You (and many others) have gone on and on about how Hillary really won the election because A> She won the Vanity Vote and 2> Trump colluded with the Russians...

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea, you have.. You (and many others) have gone on and on about how Hillary really won the election

    This is easy. Point to the comment where I made such a claim.

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A> She won the Vanity Vote

    The 'vanity' vote? The popular vote, i.e., the most votes. By your measure every elected Senator or Governor won with merely 'vanity' votes. The Presidency is the only office in America that you can win with a 5 million vote deficit.

    But I imagine you'd call that a 'vanity' fact.

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    First rule of Dem/Lib political debate: When unable to rebut, resort to psychobabble.

    Sorry if simple concepts are beyond you. Odd, given that you've just claimed that you understand the whole field of economics better than all the economists since Friedman.

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    oop. Didn't mean to be so bold. heh.

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    Rudi is now decided that, yes, there was collusion with the Russians, but it isn't a crime.

    He says he can't find the word "collusion" in law books.

    I suggest he tries "treason", "election finance laws" and "being a douchebag in public".

    I predict he will get hits on at least two of those three.

    Rudi is just the gift that keeps on winning for the Democrats. I'm not getting tired of Rudi's winning.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 'vanity' vote? The popular vote, i.e., the most votes.

    And another one who thinks Hillary won the election..

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Presidency is the only office in America that you can win with a 5 million vote deficit.

    And ya'all have been PERFECTLY fine with the Electoral College...

    WHEN your candidate won it...

    Now that your bonehead of a candidate lost, NOW it's an issue..

    How is this not hypocrisy???

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now that your bonehead of a candidate lost, NOW it's an issue.

    Nope, it's been an issue since 2000, when Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes (half a million) and still lost the election. How quickly some forget..

    And another one who thinks Hillary won the election..

    I didn't say that Hillary won the election, I stated factually that she won the popular vote. Keep up.

  131. [131] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Lol...I try to my with day with a cough, a coffee and a chuckle, to that end, I watch FOX (news). I like to think I get a balanced diet of opinion from the spectrum that media supplies. FOX was doing its usual 'nod, agree and explain why' about a Trump tweet concerning Mueller's investigation and how it was inaugurated by democrats, lead by dems and based on a fake dossier...all red meat for FOX and its flock, of course. My chuckle floats in when FOX twists itself into pretzel form trying to explain why this obvious lie-tweet is gospel. They use phrases like..."we all know" or "as we have been saying all along" or, my favorite, " you'd be crazy not to see," none of which can be deemed to back up Trump's egregious assertion in his tweet, except to people who believe that if they keep hearing the same thing is must be true. Obviously, FOX has to react to these tweets, regardless of their veracity, in the positive, I have no problem with that..it's their raison dêtre to feed their cash-cow.

    However, today my daily laugh came from FOX's nemesis, CNN...The folks at CNN, quite adroitly, place a lot more emphasis on airing divergent opinions and people than FOX, I assume to maintain the air of impartiality their core mission states. Frequently, CNN will wheel out Rudy Giuliani, a constant source humour for me...Today was no different. I suspect Giuliani sees himself as an 'Oracle of Delphi' like figure while on CNN, he certainly puts himself across as if he's enlightening CNN viewers with what he would like them to believe. The problem is, his shtick doesn't play well in the CNN environment, they don't play the game with the same rules as FOX, the old " because we say so, it's now fact" news premise doesn't wash on that side of the street. True to form, Giuliani made me laugh. Today he compared Michael Cohen's apparent betrayal of Trump as, "like Brutus putting the last knife into Caesar." Now, I realize this analogy might, on the surface, seem apt, but if you know your Roman history well, you'll know what's funny and ironic about this ill-considered parallel. A brief reminder...At this time in Caesar's political career, he had total control over the army, dispatched Pompey and his supporters after a brief civil war and been appointed 'Dictator' (an elected position, for a year, in the Roman world, basically allowing someone unfettered control over all things Roman, without senatorial approval.) It wasn't until he essentially passed a law making himself 'dictator for life' that it was realized as a "Tyrant" (in Rome a Tyrant was indistinguishable from a King, with no restraint from an elected body. The Romans had rid themselves of Kings, and hated the system of kingship as barbaric,) it was at this point that Brutus was initiated into a plot to kill Caesar. Historians believe that Brutus had as much personal reason to enter the plot as political, Caesar had for years been sleeping with his mother, which at the time wasn't so bad, except that Caesar was forever reminding him his mother wasn't worth much more than she was, a whorehouse madam. So, during the Ides of March, this band of Senators and Brutus ambushed Caesar resulting in his death...Et Tu Brute. So I laughed, Brutus has had a tough go from history, mainly because he's pictured in a Shakespearean context as a villain, whereas in reality, he was acting in reaction to Caesar declaring himself 'Dictator for life' and the public affronts to his mother. Once again, Giuliani confirms why he's better suited to the world of FOX, where his silliness is swallowed up, and not CNN, where the audience might actually concern themselves with fact.

    LL&P

  132. [132] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Seems to me that losing to the 2nd most unpopular candidate in U.S. presidential history might be more appropriately characterized as having won the 'UNpopular vote', right?

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, it's been an issue since 2000,

    Yea???

    Where was the outcry in 2008 and 2012??

    Non-existent because YOUR candidate won...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems to me that losing to the 2nd most unpopular candidate in U.S. presidential history might be more appropriately characterized as having won the 'UNpopular vote', right?

    Logical.. :D

  135. [135] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    As you mentioned, Rudi says that "collusion is not even a crime".

    Kinda reminds me of somebody else pointing out regularly for the last 2 yrs that "getting dirt on your politicval opponent, even from dirty Commies, is not a crime."

    Remind me, who was it said that?

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't say that Hillary won the election, I stated factually that she won the popular vote. Keep up.

    So, you concede that President Trump is the free, fair and legally elected POTUS, right??

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    I would be willing to “shut down” government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security

    Treasonous Trump, 7/30/18

    Please, please shut down the government over this. Your base might lap this up, even thougg they were the ones shouting the answer "Who's going to pay?" > "Mexico!", but independents and anybody with a brain is going to ask two questions:

    1. Did you tell us Mexico was going to pay?

    2. Don't you have control over both houses and you still can't get a vote on the funding that the Democrats will somehow then block?

    C'mon Michale, grasp reality just once - weren't we told Mexico was going to pay for the wall?

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    As you mentioned, Rudi says that "collusion is not even a crime".

    Yup, but breaking election funding laws is, so is participating in hacking or being in possession of stolen goods. These are characterized under the term "collusion" by the press and in particular Treasonous Trump (who regularly denies "collusion" - why would he deny something that isn't against the law, one wonders?)

    As we have said all along, playing word games with "collusion" might make you feel smug, but Mueller knows the law and that is Rudi's real problem.

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you concede that President Trump is the free, fair and legally elected POTUS, right??

    Not yet, let's see what Mueller has to say. Treasonous Trump and his inner circle may well have participated in illegal activities - and as we have stated almost continuously for over a year, we just have to be patient until the report is released. However, given the number of charges, the pressure put on people to bear witness, etc. it isn't looking good for the clown show.

  140. [140] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Where was the outcry in 2008 and 2012??
    Non-existent because YOUR candidate won..

    Non-existent because Obama won the popular vote as well, both times.

    So, you concede that President Trump is the free, fair and legally elected POTUS, right?

    All those qualifiers! Insecure, huh? Yep, he was elected, legally. That doesn't mean that he didn't corruptly conspire to receive illegal assistance from the Russians in that effort, or hasn't corruptly benefited from emoluments violations since he took office. Those are separate matters.

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nope, it's been an issue since 2000,

    Yea???

    Where was the outcry in 2008 and 2012??

    History lesson.

    Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college. This might be why there wasn't an outcry about him winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote in 2008 and 2012.

    I'm trying to keep reality as simple as I can for you here. You're welcome.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    being in possession of stolen goods.

    Yea, except when it benefits the Left.. Pentagon Papers??

  143. [143] 
    John M wrote:

    [90] Michale

    "Even if EVERY country on the planet, including the US, followed the Paris Accords TO THE LETTER, ya know what would the result be??

    On one side of the '=' sign, there would be LESS than a .02% drop in the global temp over the next 100 years.."

    A DROP in temperature, even a tiny one, is better than the alternative 4 degree temperature rise, is it not?

    "The Arctic is not ice free..."

    YET. But it will be within YOUR lifetime.

    "The Antarctic is gaining ice.."

    NO it is NOT. This is a proven fallacy.

  144. [144] 
    John M wrote:

    [96] Michale wrote:

    "The Earth cannot be hit by an asteroid.

    ARMAGEDDON, starring Bruce Willis, proves it can.. :D"

    NOPE. DEEP IMPACT, starring Tea Leoni, Robert Duvall, Elijah Wood, Vanessa Redgrave, and Morgan Freeman, proves it can. :D HAH! I'll see your Bruce Willis and raise you 4 more stars!

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOPE. DEEP IMPACT, starring Tea Leoni, Robert Duvall, Elijah Wood, Vanessa Redgrave, and Morgan Freeman, proves it can. :D HAH! I'll see your Bruce Willis and raise you 4 more stars!

    Oh, com'on... Bruce Willis is worth TWICE all of those other actors..

    Hell, Freeman is in trouble with #MeToo.... :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    A DROP in temperature, even a tiny one, is better than the alternative 4 degree temperature rise, is it not?

    No...

    YET. But it will be within YOUR lifetime.

    yea.. Ya'all have been saying that for over a decade.. And always pushing the date back when FACTS prove you wrong..

    Like I said.. ya'all are like those doomsday preachers always predicting the end of the world. And the prediction comes and goes and yet, guess what??

    NOTHING happens.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yea [stolen goods], except when it benefits the Left.. Pentagon Papers??

    Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 along with other charges of theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Due to governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering by government prosecutors, the charges were eventually dropped.

  148. [148] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bruce Willis is worth TWICE all of those other actors..

    Really? Better actor than Robert Duvall? More accomplished than Vanessa Redgrave? Better looking than Tia Leone?

    You must be a sucker for catchphrases, I guess.

  149. [149] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    bruce may not be a brando, but his acting chops are a bit underrated, i think due to him being typecast in action roles. ever see him in nobody's fool with paul newman?

    JL

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ever see him in nobody's fool with paul newman?

    No, but I'm not really down on Willis, just surprised to see him placed above Duvall, who has undisputable chops.

  151. [151] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Here’s what I cannot understand about climate change deniers.... if they are correct, then nothing changes - man’s actions cannot affect our climate and anything we have done was a waste of time. (That ignores how requiring better fuel efficient motors in our cars save owners money, or how electric cars do not cause air pollution, of course!)

    BUT IF they are wrong and man’s actions are causing damaging changes in our climate that could be corrected, they are screwing over future generations just to feel smug! But much like the abortion issue, equal rights, and marriage equality, conservatives love to focus their energy opposing issues that really won’t impact their lives as much as it will others.

  152. [152] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    To clarify, according to US law, collusion is a crime. In the case of Trump, the moment he asked the Russians, who in turn paid Wikileaks, to hack the DNC, the three parties entered into a contract. Within that contract, Wikileaks established a monetary value of the information they provided, and by extension, the Russians provided that info to the Trump campaign's benefit. It's unlawful for any person running for office in the US to accept anything of value from a foreign power that may aid in their election to office. The law is unambiguous, what Trump and his campaign did was illegal. All that's up for debate is whether a 'quid pro quo' was agreed upon at any point...Given that Trump the lesser, Manafort and Kushner all fell over each other to attend a meeting with a shill for a Russian oligarch, whose sole legal imperative has been the repeal of the Magnitsky Act since it's inception, you'd have to be an idiot to imagine any other reason for the gathering.

    Obviously the Mueller investigation is winding down, Trump and his addle-minded council are directly impugning the special council and essentially confessing their collusion by now insisting that what they did wasn't a crime after-all.

    I can't see Mueller announcing his findings while the house is on summer recess, in the same way I can't see Trump appearing before before Mueller for an interview...the last place a consummate liar wants to be is where people don't ask questions they don't already know the answers to. Also, Trump would have to plead the fifth on any question that involved his past involvement with Russian mobsters, otherwise he would be inviting investigators to bring into evidence his tax returns...and we all know he won't do that as it proves his involvement with shady people and his corrupt dealings with Bayrock LLC. and Trump Soho.

    Stocking up on popcorn, it's about time this crook paid the piper, he might not go to jail, which is fine...but he'll become politically toxic and seen for what he has always been, an incompetent boob and common huckster.

    LL&P

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    and we all know he won't do that as it proves his involvement with shady people and his corrupt dealings with Bayrock LLC. and Trump Soho.

    I really hope the whole story comes out about Trump Soho. There is so much smoke around this transaction/pact that I'm guessing there are a couple of good books in it.

    Also the Turnberry deal in Scotland - an all cash deal coupled with a huge investment in a property that simply doesn't throw off much cash - this is near where I grew up and it was always a white elephant - something fishy is going on there as well.

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    Amazing proposal by Mnuchin to index link the cost of assets when calculating capital gains. This is so evil it deserves profound respect - the richest 5% in this country are going to have a massive party if this passes. Deficits are going to grow.

  155. [155] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, this tax cut is "going to pay for itself".

    For sale: Large bridge in Brooklyn - looking for buyer that believes the previous statement.

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, our gun nut audience is likely to be squeezing their brains into pretzel shapes over the next few months.

    The plans to print AR-15s are starting to circulate and there is rising concern from the gun control advocates.

    The natural reaction from the right (Individual freedom coupled with indifference if the mentally ill build armories then kill children) is to support this.

    However they haven't been reprogrammed by the NRA yet. For the NRA, this is a disaster. They are simply a lobby arm for the firearm manufacturers, and so this could impact profits. My guess is that they are huddled away trying to come up with a story for the rubes that equates "Freedom" and "second Amendment Rights" with banning the production of firearms in everybody's garage. Not many firearm manufacturers also sell 3D printers or their "ink".

    Undoubtably they will come up with some story and I'll bet that the local RWNJs jump on board.

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    My guess on the story the NRA will concoct:

    The plans for the AR-15 are copyrighted, and so use of them is illegal.

    They will then invoke patents to ban other plans from legality.

    This will all be done under very serious-faced concerns for the "rights of Americans and American businesses".

    It will be lapped up blindly by the gun nuts.

  158. [158] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Oh for fuck's sake...when will this idiocy end. That complete pillock, Trump is now sounding out Iran for "meetings" like he's being magnanimous. All Trump's actions since his bukkake, at the business end of Putin at Helsinki, have been open to side with Russian foreign policy. This guy is the reason why America has to overhaul its political system, how can a political adventurer gain power in this day and age? Answer; people are stupid and refuse to concede their political allegiance when a twat like Trump emerges. I think anyone who believes that the details of Trump and Putin's 'private' meeting at Helsinki would never be made public, think again, all Trump's actions since and in future will echo what his overlord insisted he do.

    LL&P

  159. [159] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Unless there has been a massive improvement in metal 3D printing technology that has somehow been absent on the tech blogs, I'm not seeing the printed ar-15 being that big of a deal. I would not touch a 3D printed plastic gun with a ten foot pole. I doubt a criminal smart enough to buy a normally produced gun off the streets would touch one either. Is this a whole gun with breach and barrel or just the other parts that don't have explosions going off inside of it? Metal 3d printers are expensive and toxic. CNC equipment is just expensive. If you have access to a full machine shop why bother with 3D tech at all? Your toaster is hundreds of years more advanced that a basic firearm...

  160. [160] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [159] You forget that rednecks dine out on their own noses to spite their face...why else would they except an obvious fraud from Manhattan as their savior? Stupidity, that's why, gullible too. Their hayseed mentality will be their ruin.

    LL&P

  161. [161] 
    John M wrote:

    159] BashiBazouk

    "Unless there has been a massive improvement in metal 3D printing technology that has somehow been absent on the tech blogs, I'm not seeing the printed ar-15 being that big of a deal."

    Despite the many still current disadvantages: Too expensive. not widely enough available, takes too long to print, single use only, etc.

    The major concerns seem to be:

    It leads to a product that is totally untraceable. I.E. no serial numbers, forensics, etc.

    It is also virtually undetectable with current technology as well. I.E. doesn't show up in x-ray machines or metal detectors, etc.

  162. [162] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    John M [161]

    It seems to be more fear than actual threat. Lots of untraceable ways to assassinate people and after 911 skyjacking is pretty much dead, with the: we are going to die anyway, might as well take out the mofo's out mentality. A mass causality event with plastic weapons would probably only work a handful of times before a counter was developed and might backfire (literally) on the attackers. Advancing technology opens up many ways to kill that does not require old tech. Seems dealing with the reason to kill would be more effective. It would also be easy enough to require coded nano-particles into the printing substrate that would allow traceability...

  163. [163] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [154]: Amazing proposal by Mnuchin to index link the cost of assets when calculating capital gains. ... Deficits are going to grow.

    Of course this will grow the deficit, but I believe it to be fair in principle. For example, if a farmer acquired his farm decades ago when oats were pennies per bushel and soybeans were sold for the price of oats today, I think indexing his acquisition costs is equitable in calculating his real gain.

    I will disclose that under such a change I would stand to realize a substantial benefit were there a sale of some of the property I own.

  164. [164] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    On the other hand, the proposal of easing sanctions on Oleg Deripaska's aluminum company makes no economic, political, or foreign policy sense at all.

    That, combined with all the other seemingly crazy recent behavior and utterances by the White House, makes me wonder why Trump is being so loud. This, while I still don't understand why the Russians were so loud during the campaign.

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    bruce may not be a brando, but his acting chops are a bit underrated, i think due to him being typecast in action roles. ever see him in nobody's fool with paul newman?

    Hudson Hawk??

    And can Robert Duvall sing? :D

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC,

    James T Canuck wrote:
    To clarify, according to US law, collusion is a crime.

    Yea?? Prove it..

    Find any US law that has the word "collusion" in it...

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    BUT IF they are wrong and man’s actions are causing damaging changes in our climate that could be corrected,

    And if YA'ALL are wrong about climate catastrophes (as ya'all have been WRONG time and time again, FAILED PREDICTIONS time and time again) ya'all will have destroyed the global economies and brought about a worldwide depression that makes the 1930s depression look like lollipops and rainbows for nothing...

    We don't know enough about how climate works to go frakin' around with it..

    What part of that is unclear to you??

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Yep, he was elected, legally.

    When why are you trying to nullify a free, fair and legal election, JUST because the candidate you wanted got her ass handed to her..

    An electoral college landslide, I might add...

    Mueller's report is due out within the month... And if Democrats and NeverTrumpers try to use that report to remove President Trump??

    "It would be bad"
    -Egon Spangler, GHOSTBUSTERS

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dimon says Trump's tax cut and deregulation have 'accelerated growth'

    "We needed competitive taxes. The way the American public should be thinking of it is: For 20 years, we've been increasingly uncompetitive, driving capital and brains overseas," says Jamie Dimon.

    Dimon also says some of the regulatory rollbacks pushed by Trump are helping small businesses.

    The J.P. Morgan Chase CEO is worried about President Donald Trump's trade policies, however, noting they could "offset some of the benefits" of the tax overhaul and other measures."

    J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Monday that President Donald Trump's tax cuts, along with some of his other efforts, have helped out the U.S. economy.

    "Presidents get a lot of credit [and] a lot of blame for things they didn't do, but the president has done things which accelerated growth," Dimon told CNBC's Wilfred Frost on "Closing Bell." "We needed competitive taxes. The way the American public should be thinking of it is: For 20 years, we've been increasingly uncompetitive, driving capital and brains overseas."

    Dimon also said some of the regulatory rollbacks pushed by Trump are helping small businesses. "We've had less small business formation in America than in any other recovery," he said. "This has accelerated the growth. It's been 20 percent over 10 years; it should've been 40. The reason it wasn't 40 is because of a lot of things that we did hurt ourselves."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/dimon-says-the-presidents-tax-cut-and-other-efforts-have-accelerated.html

    Ooooooowwwwww That's just GOTTA hurt!!!

    Ya'all fear mongered over and over and over again how a President Trump would "destroy" the US economy..

    And lo and behold, we find just the opposite..

    Democrats are toast in November.. :D

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    ICE agents accuse Oregon mayor of abetting 'Abolish ICE' protesters
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/31/ice-agents-accuse-oregon-mayor-abetting-abolish-ice-protesters.html

    So much for the claim that Democrats don't support the ABOLISH ICE terrorists...

  171. [171] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    "Yep, he was elected, legally.

    When why are you trying to nullify a free, fair and legal election, JUST because the candidate you wanted got her ass handed to her..

    An electoral college landslide, I might add..."

    You can add it, but that doesn't make it true. Not even close. It wasn't a landslide. Trump barely made it because of an electoral college fluke with a razor thin margin and an opponent who was even more weak and disliked than he was. I would not count on that happening again.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blue Wave Balderdash

    Mark Penn, chairman of the Harris Poll and former pollster to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, provides a description of the polling business that few pollsters or media types will find flattering. In a recent column for the Hill, he indicted the “pundit-polling-news establishment” for studiously ignoring the blindingly obvious lessons of 2016. In his estimation, the major polling firms and news organizations to whom they purport to provide objective data have made no meaningful changes in the methodology that led them to miss the seismic shift in voter attitudes that led to President Trump’s 2016 victory:

    Almost two years later, very little has changed in polling and analysis at major institutions and news media. If anything, the polling has drifted even further from reality when you look at the questions being asked and, more importantly, the questions not being asked. You don’t need polls to see the America you live in. You need polls to understand the part of America you don’t know.

    Penn clearly believes that the use of public opinion surveys as information-gathering tools with which to gauge the general mood and specific concerns of the voters is a dying art. They are now used primarily to reinforce the editorial line of the news organization for which they are ostensibly gathering information. If a news network or publication is opposed to the policies of President Trump, the pollsters tend to “focus on the anti-Trump storyline as though the point of the questions is to prove the validity of that coverage.” That may keep the customer satisfied, but it also means the “polling could be missing reality, again.”

    And that is not good news for the Democrats. They can’t win a majority in either house of Congress based on media happy talk about public opinion polls that tell you more about who’s paying for them than what the voters are actually thinking. Which brings us to all those “news” stories about the generic ballot and the allegedly imminent blue wave. Does any of it really mean anything? Probably not. As Ed Kilgore, by no means a conservative, pointed out over the weekend, “At this point in 2014, Democrats led in most generic congressional polls, but then lost the national House popular vote by nearly 6 percent.”
    https://spectator.org/blue-wave-balderdash/

    Polling entities have virtually made ZERO changes in how they conduct polls in the last 2 years...

    And yet, ya'all STILL swear by the polls.. But ONLY the polls that re-enforce what you want to hear...

    It's called confirmation bias..

    And ya'all are full of it.. :D

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is going to use America's strong economic numbers to ensure a GOP midterm victory..

    If Trump is disciplined enough to make the economy his headline, there's not much Democrats can do to counteract his message.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-going-use-america-s-strong-economic-numbers-ensure-gop-ncna895621

    Face reality, Weigantians...

    Liz is right.. Democrats do NOT have a rally'ing message..

    "Better Plan, Better Pizza" fell flat after Trump played the Democrats..

    "For The People" had a life-span of less than a day before it fizzled out..

    The current message "LET'S BE MORE TRUMP THAN TRUMP"?? Yea.. THAT's gonna work out so well... :^/

    Democrats remind me of that old TWILIGHT ZONE episode where an American politician is rallying Americans, thanx to the help from a man in the shadows.. When the political falls flat on his face, the man in the shadows steps out to castigate and denigrate the fallen politician..

    The shadow man is Adolf Hitler... And the American politician that failed is the Democrat Party...

    A perfect example of life imitating art...

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can add it, but that doesn't make it true. Not even close. It wasn't a landslide.

    Of course it's not "true" to you..

    But it IS factually accurate..

    Trump barely made it because of an electoral college fluke with a razor thin margin

    306 to 232 is NOT a "razor thin margin" by ANY stretch of the definition...

    I would not count on that happening again.

    Polling hasn't changed an iota since 2016...

    Of COURSE it's going to happen again.. You'll see in November..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's revisit that special and auspicious time.. :D

    There is simply no way that NC and FL will go Hillary.. You drive around FL and you'll see 40 TRUMP signs for every single Hillary sign...

    Florida is Trump.. You can take that to the bank..

    After what Hillary and the Left Wingery pulled in Charlotte last month?? There is NO WAY that NC is going to Hillary..

    North Carolina is Trump. You can take that to the quickie mart... :D

    And another goodie :D

    The big 3 you are mistaken on, CW is FL, NC and MI....

    It's a foregone conclusion that Trump will win FL and NC...

    If Trump takes MI too??

    It's all over but the fireworks...

    Oh wait. Hillary cancelled her victory fireworks... Maybe she knows something ya'all don't.. :D
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/07/final-electoral-math-my-2016-picks/#comment-87668

    Ahhhh a stroll down memory lane.. :D

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    That, combined with all the other seemingly crazy recent behavior and utterances by the White House, makes me wonder why Trump is being so loud. This, while I still don't understand why the Russians were so loud during the campaign.

    Think about it.. Think about what we know..

    We KNOW that President Trump is disciplined enough to remain quiet if it's in his best interests to do so. He would not have amassed the huge business empire if he did not have that capability..

    We also KNOW that the KGB's successor organization has the capability of running a completely and unequivocally covert op against the US.. No fingerprints left anywhere...

    So, given these FACTS, think about what you just said...

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re #175...

    I know, I know... That was mean and uncalled for..

    Unfortunately, in the comments section in the here and now, it's all about pushing buttons.. :D

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    No charges after US police kill man who yelled 'don't shoot'
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-charges-us-police-kill-man-yelled-dont-183441165.html

    And once again, moronic Left Wing activists don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.. :^/

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    No charges after US police kill man who yelled 'don't shoot'
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-charges-us-police-kill-man-yelled-dont-183441165.html

    And once again, moronic Left Wing activists don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.. :^/

    Tell me I'm not dead on ballz accurate here...

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrr

  181. [181] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-111,112

    Well said. CRS is no better when he pontificates about the sciences. All hat, no cattle.

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    Tell me I'm not dead on ballz accurate here...

    We don't know, because you are so biased against anybody who is shot while being black.

    If you actually, just once, pointed out a case where the police were in the wrong and got as angry with bad cops as you do with black people, then you might have some credibility.

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    We don't know, because you are so biased against anybody who is shot while being black.

    Bullshit.. I am biased against the hysterical anti-cop mentality that permeates the Democrat Party..

    If you actually, just once, pointed out a case where the police were in the wrong and got as angry with bad cops as you do with black people, then you might have some credibility.

    I have..

    Point out to me a case where a cop was in the wrong in the shooting of a black person and I didn't condemn it..

    You can't because no such instance exists..

    When it comes to credibility in this (and many other) issue(s) I have all the credibility in the world.. And ya'all have none

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, are you DEFENDING the scumbag anti-cop protesters and validating their claims? Even though the FACTS clearly show that it was a good shoot??

    Are you??

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    Point out to me a case where a cop was in the wrong in the shooting of a black person and I didn't condemn it..

    OK:

    1. Quintonio LeGrier
    2. Jamail Amron
    3. Christian Taylor

    Need any more?

  186. [186] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "People are less unhappy when they're making money than when theyre losing money." Or, to put it like normal people would say, "People are HAPPIER making money than losing money".

    That's called the 'Kunning-Druger effect'. Those were the same guys whose research revealed that water is wet, the sun is hot, and pseudo intellectuals are stupid.

  187. [187] 
    neilm wrote:

    Like

    4. Brandon Glenn
    5. Reginald Doucet Jr

    They all won wrongful death lawsuits.

    Now, let's see you denigrate all of them. You just can't help yourself.

  188. [188] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [186]

    Give it up - if you really want to take on Kahneman and Tversky be my guest.

    My money is on Kahneman and Tversky.

    Can you provide a list of your key arguments against their research? Or do you just think you are some smart troll?

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Donald Trump, 'worst politician ever', on path to re-election, Thomas Frank says"

    “There is a labourist, workerist populism that has been around for more than 100 years, is deep in the American grain, and is very popular, but the Democratic party simply doesn’t believe in it any more.”

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Quintonio LeGrier
    2. Jamail Amron
    3. Christian Taylor

    Any of them ruled unjustified??

    They all won wrongful death lawsuits.

    You and I both know that winning a civil lawsuit isn't, criminally, proof of anything..

    Were ANY of the ruled unjustified??

    The only one I can think of off the top of my head was the shooting in North or South Carolina where the cop planted a gun..

    I condemned that one most aggressively..

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you dodged my question, Neil..

    Are you validating the claims of the scumbag protesters???

    It's a simple YES/NO question..

    Why are you afraid to answer??

  192. [192] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    CRS, let's just remind ourselves that common sense doesn't always turn out to be true. People have believed all sorts of 'common sense truths' that turned out not to be true after all. Common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth. It doesn't hurt to check the truth of 'common sense' now and again.

    This goes for new ideas as well as old ones and for all schools of economics. Actually, it goes for any field of study I can think of.

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's a simple YES/NO question..

    Why are you afraid to answer??

    Who knows - you are so biased in favor of bad cops it is impossible to tell.

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS, let's just remind ourselves that common sense doesn't always turn out to be true. People have believed all sorts of 'common sense truths' that turned out not to be true after all. Common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth. It doesn't hurt to check the truth of 'common sense' now and again.

    On the other hand, 'common sense' is common sense for a reason..

    Problems arise when it's one's Party/Ideological slavery is the determining factor when wanting to question "common sense" or not...

    In other words, ya'all believe in "common sense" until it violates the Party slavery. When it does, THAT is when ya'all question "common sense"...

    And that's bad...

  195. [195] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I have no dispute with KI and T, only with the terminally weird/comical/ridiculous way in which you (re)phrased their findings.

  196. [196] 
    neilm wrote:

    In other words, ya'all believe in "common sense" until it violates the Party slavery. When it does, THAT is when ya'all question "common sense"...

    And that's bad...

    Dude, you are the only "party slave" around here - the Treasonous Trump party.

    The rest of the posters spend a lot of time in internal conflict.

    Here are the posts by category:

    1. Discussions on Democratic Strategy
    - this is all about not agreeing with party dogma

    2. Discussions on how crazy the Republicans have become, in particular the leadership
    - disbelief at the craziness that everybody is talking about well beyond this forum

    3. Climate change, police shootings, gun control, etc.
    - any disagreement with you is labeled party dogma, even though there is disagreement among the posters

    4. You getting on a rant and claiming that everybody else isn't addressing subjects that pop into your head/you read on some RWNJ web site
    - it isn't all about you and what you want to talk about Michale

  197. [197] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have no dispute with KI and T, only with the terminally weird/comical/ridiculous way in which you (re)phrased their findings.

    Thus "word games".

  198. [198] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let me re-phrase my comment that causes you so much concern CRS:

    Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that the pain of losing $100 exceeded the joy of gaining $100 that led to inconsistent economic behavior.

    Are we done now?

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dude, you are the only "party slave" around here - the Treasonous Trump party.

    Yea, that's the opinion of Hysterical NeverTrumpers who have been WRONG about everything Trump to date...

    So.... I'm good.. :D

    . You getting on a rant and claiming that everybody else isn't addressing subjects that pop into your head/you read on some RWNJ web site

    Are you kidding??? Talk about denying reality..

    I have been controlling the topic from the start.. I have played ya'all into posting DOZENS of comments on the hysterical Humans Cause Global Warming con..

    I then got bored with that so I maneuvered ya into commenting about the scumbags Black Lives Matter terrorist group... :D

    Shit, son.. I have said "JUMP!!" and ya'all asked "How high??" on the way up.. :D

    This is my own little puppet theater. heh

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ya'all oblige me at ever turn.. :D

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me re-phrase my comment that causes you so much concern CRS:

    TRANSLATION
    Ya got me, so I am going to try to back-pedal furiously to save some semblance of face

    :D

  202. [202] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is my own little puppet theater.

    So you think of yourself as a "super troll".

    Sorry - nice try, but you are just a tolerated clown. On most blogs you would have been banned as an obvious troll long ago. CW really sticks to his "free speech" belief - certainly far more than any other blog I know.

    Your breeches are too big and your pants are falling down.

  203. [203] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya got me, so I am going to try to back-pedal furiously to save some semblance of face

    Wow you are full of yourself today Michale. Rewording something is some sort of climb down in your head? Time to go back on the meds buddy.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you think of yourself as a "super troll".

    If phrasing it like that gives you some semblance of self-respect, that's fine.. :D

    Sorry - nice try, but you are just a tolerated clown.

    Like I said.. If that's what you need to believe to make it thru your President Trump is the leader of the free world world....

    I am happy to allow it, old chum... :D

    Your breeches are too big and your pants are falling down.

    Funny.. Ya said something similar on 6 Nov 2016....

    And here we are.. :D

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow you are full of yourself today Michale.

    And yer just noticing this now!?? :D

    Rewording something is some sort of climb down in your head? Time to go back on the meds buddy.

    I calls 'em and I sees 'em...

    And back-pedaling is becoming quite the Weigantian past time these days.. :D

  206. [206] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-188

    Kahneman and Tversky applies nicely to the Bernoulli Wager AKA the St. Petersburg Paradox.

    Flip a coin until you obtain a tails result. Your payoff is 1 dollar if you flip a heads on the first try, nothing if you flip tails. The payoff doubles each time you get another heads toss: 1,2,4,8.... How much are you willing to pay to play that game?

    Most college undergrads are initially willing to pay about $4. It doesn't increase much if you explain to them that the expected payout is infinite. A very few are willing to up to about 50 bucks. (These tend to be math majors). People don't behave as if 10 million bucks is ten times as good as 1 million bucks.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    We have 2 outstanding questions.

    1. Are you validating the protesters' position in the Chicago shooting, IE are you claiming it was a bad shoot??

    2. Were the OI shootings you listed all adjudicated as "good shoots", IE justified use of force???

  208. [208] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    It's totally rational to behave as though subsequent money acquired has a reduced utility value compared to the first money. Jeff Bezos can eat fancier food than can a poor person, but he cannot eat a bite more.

    But that's not neilm's point. Go way back and read where he first brought up the K - T thing. It's beyond ridiculous the way he (I presume) re-phrased it.

  209. [209] 
    neilm wrote:

    We have 2 outstanding questions.

    I've already answered questions - time for you to man up - do you support bad cops who shoot illegally just because they are cops, and if not, why do you only post links to news where a cop gets vindicated, but not links to ones where bad cops are punished?

    Also, why do you then gleefully use the link and make up some story in your head that everybody else on the site was wrong and you were proved right?

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've already answered questions -

    Nope, you haven't answered either of them..

    Once you do, I'll be happy to address your points. :D

  211. [211] 
    neilm wrote:

    Republicans Who Do The Same Thing Every Time

    1. Rand Paul is always the maverick who is going to vote against the Republicans, then a week or two later changes his mind (latest example, Kavanaugh). Note I'm not against changing your mind, just making it a public spectacle to get news coverage time after time.

    2. Lindsay Graham getting all worked up and gung-ho then doing nothing - (latest example, Russia sanctions for continued interference in our elections).

  212. [212] 
    neilm wrote:

    Once you do, I'll be happy to address your points. :D

    You won't answer because you can't answer. You still can't point to any comment I made supporting your lie that: "Yea, you have.. You (and many others) have gone on and on about how Hillary really won the election"

    You can't point to one case where you eviscerated a bad cop despite multiple times where you gleefully point to a dead person and tell us they deserved it.

    Time to man up, if you can. (We know, you can't, all you can do is troll.)

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    You won't answer because you can't answer.

    No, I won't answer because you have yet to answer my questions..

    I know WHY you won't answer... Because any rational and reasonable answer would show the fallacy of your argument..

    I get it, I really do...

    You can't point to one case where you eviscerated a bad cop despite multiple times where you gleefully point to a dead person and tell us they deserved it.

    I already have pointed to one case. The scumbag cop in one of the Carolinas who shot a black guy in the back and then planted his tazer to make it look like the black guy attacked the cop first..

    Your turn..

    Were ANY of the cases you listed a "bad shoot"...

    No, none were..

    So why should I eviscerate a cop who was simply just doing his job??

    Why do you ALWAYS assume that, if a cop kills a black perp, the COP is always guilty of murder??

    I know, I know.. You won't answer that either...

    But at least we're having the discussion I want to have.. :D

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    where you gleefully point to a dead person and tell us they deserved it.

    It's easy...

    Just pretend they were a Trump supporter... See how easy it is??

  215. [215] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do you ALWAYS assume that, if a cop kills a black perp, the COP is always guilty of murder?

    Because it isn't any cop's job to be judge, jury and executioner. That's the State's job, following a fair and open trial, according to the law. The patrolman's job is to make an arrest, period. If he is unable to make a clean arrest, it's his job to call in someone who can.

    The cops that get into these situations are acting out of insecurity, fear or belligerence. Until they can learn to apply non-lethal force in every instance, they simply aren't doing their jobs correctly.

  216. [216] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Part of the problem is the twisted ideology of the right. They claim to be pro-law enforcement, but also in favor of arming everyone to the teeth. We now have many more guns than we do citizens in this country, creating a very dangerous environment for our keepers of the peace.

    How about working together with pro-law enforcement liberals on gun laws that would reduce the danger to cops on the street?

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because it isn't any cop's job to be judge, jury and executioner.

    And you think THAT is what happens??

    It COULDN'T be that the cop legitimately felt his life or the life of others were in danger??

    It COULDN'T be that, now could it?

    Thank you for proving my point..

    It's ALSO funny how ya'all ONLY feel that way when it's a black perp... I guess, in YOUR minds, it's justified when it's white Perps...

    :^/

    The patrolman's job is to make an arrest, period.

    No.. It's the patrolman's job to make it home alive and insure other innocents make it home alive..

    THAT is job 1...

    The cops that get into these situations are acting out of insecurity, fear or belligerence.

    OHMYGODS, that is just TOO STOOPID to address.. :^/

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about working together with pro-law enforcement liberals on gun laws that would reduce the danger to cops on the street?

    First off, there AREN'T any pro-law enforcement liberals..

    Second of all, liberals believe the ONLY solution is a gun ban...

    The epitome of moronic-ness...

  219. [219] 
    John M wrote:

    [174] Michale

    "You can add it, but that doesn't make it true. Not even close. It wasn't a landslide.

    Of course it's not "true" to you..

    But it IS factually accurate.."

    NO, It's NOT.

    "Trump barely made it because of an electoral college fluke with a razor thin margin

    306 to 232 is NOT a "razor thin margin" by ANY stretch of the definition."

    Yes it IS.

    HERE is both the PROOF and the FACTS:

    Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections. Mr. Trump won 30 states, gathering 306 of 538 electoral votes. There have been 45 presidential elections in which the winning candidate won a larger share of the electoral vote.

    Rank according to the Percent of electoral vote won:

    1.George Washington (1789) 100 percent
    George Washington (1792)
    3.Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936)
    4.James Monroe (1820)
    5.Ronald Reagan (1984)
    6.Richard Nixon (1972)
    7.Thomas Jefferson (1804)
    8.Abraham Lincoln (1864)
    9.Ronald Reagan (1980)
    10.Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
    11.Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932)
    12.Dwight Eisenhower (1956)
    13.Franklin Pierce (1852)
    14.Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940)
    15.James Monroe (1816)
    16.Herbert Hoover (1928)
    17.Dwight Eisenhower (1952)
    18.Woodrow Wilson (1912)
    19.Franklin D. Roosevelt (1944)
    20.Ulysses Grant (1872)
    21.William H. Harrison (1840)
    22.George Bush (1988)
    23.Warren G. Harding (1920)
    24.Andrew Jackson (1832)
    25.Ulysses Grant (1868)
    26.Calvin Coolidge (1924)
    27.Theodore Roosevelt (1904)
    28.Bill Clinton (1996)
    29.James Madison (1808)
    30.Bill Clinton (1992)
    31.Andrew Jackson (1828)
    32.Barack Obama (2008)
    33.William Taft (1908)
    34.William McKinley (1900)
    35.Grover Cleveland (1892)
    36.James K. Polk (1844)
    37.Barack Obama (2012)
    38.William McKinley (1896)
    39.Abraham Lincoln (1860)
    40.James Madison (1812)
    41.James Buchanan (1856)
    42.Benjamin Harrison (1888)
    43.James Garfield (1880)
    44.Martin Van Buren (1836)
    45.Harry Truman (1948)

    46.Donald J. Trump (2016) 56.9 percent

    47.John F. Kennedy (1960)
    48.Zachary Taylor (1848)
    49.Richard Nixon (1968)
    50.Jimmy Carter (1976)
    51.Grover Cleveland (1884)
    52.George W. Bush (2004)
    53.Thomas Jefferson (1800)
    54.Woodrow Wilson (1916)
    55.John Adams (1796)
    56.George W. Bush (2000)
    57.Rutherford B. Hayes (1876)
    58.John Quincy Adams (1824)*

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    No.. It's the patrolman's job to make it home alive and insure other innocents make it home alive..

    THAT is job 1...

    PERIOD

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    HERE is both the PROOF and the FACTS:

    Yes.. That is PROOF and FACTS of the ranking of the Electoral win..

    But 306 to 232 is NOT a razor thin win..

    270-269 is a "razor thin" win..

    306 to 232 is a landslide. A shellacking..

    PERIOD...

  222. [222] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    We're starting to see some expressions of concern from the right and from Russian US-facing outlets that the new government of Ecuador will imminently expel Assange from their London Embassy. It's assumed that there are no more than a couple quick hops from that event to holding Assange in the US without bail. I have a feeling those concerns are well founded.

    Act II is officially over on Labor Day. I'll speculate the following. Arresting Assange in Britain should come this month. His extradition can proceed over the election break. He can be shown proven Federal charges carrying mandatory sentencing guidelines totaling most or all of the rest of his life in prison.

    The SC can be ready for one of the opening scenes of Act III which I will dearly love to see. If Assange cooperates, I further speculate that Stone can at long last be indicted for operating a conspiracy with foreign agents against the interests of the United States. That's a synonym for collusion.

    Of course Stone was not in the campaign, sort of, but for me it would be a great way to kick off the final roundup in this rodeo. Disclosure: for reasons going back decades, I do not like Roger Stone.

  223. [223] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Collusion...Conclusion. Michelle, ma belle
    Sont les mots qui vont très bien ensemble
    Très bien ensemble https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

    Dumbass. Michale, when will you not fall into traps?

    Break with tradition, read and follow the links, try to fathom the truth. Your orangutan is on the brink of the endangered list...Run this past your Pastor...according to Monkeyman, collusion is only a crime when the DNC do it.

    LL&P

  224. [224] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's the patrolman's job to make it home alive and insure other innocents make it home alive..

    We're talking about the shooting of unarmed black men here, of which there have been about a dozen in 2018.

    At no time were the cop's involved lives at risk, because these victims weren't armed.

    In 1824 Robert Peel's 'Peelers', London's first Metropolitan Police Force, reduced a rampant crime rate by 75%, armed with nothing but nightsticks and whistles.

    In the mid-1990's Mayor David Dinkins significantly reduced New York's crime rate by adopting the 'broken windows' policy, a highly effective, but non-violent, policing technique.

    Number of unarmed suspects shot by the combined police forces of London, Paris, Rome, Berlin and Madrid this year: 0.

  225. [225] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In 1824 Robert Peel's 'Peelers', London's first Metropolitan Police Force, reduced a rampant crime rate by 75%, armed with nothing but nightsticks and whistles.

    Correction: that was 1829. And by the way they wore top hats while they did it! Peel was adamant that police should look as UN-military as possible, reasoning that the public would be less likely to be helpful if their neighborhoods felt 'occupied'. To that end, he also dressed his 'Bobbies' in blue, to contrast with the red uniforms that the British military wore at the time to send the clearest possible signal: we're not the military.

  226. [226] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    And if YA'ALL are wrong about climate catastrophes (as ya'all have been WRONG time and time again, FAILED PREDICTIONS time and time again) ya'all will have destroyed the global economies and brought about a worldwide depression that makes the 1930s depression look like lollipops and rainbows for nothing...

    Two things:

    One, the businesses created in the effort to combat climate change have been a huge boost to the economy! The Solar industry now employees far more people and is worth more than the outdated coal industry. You cannot provide any proof that the economy is hurt by those combatting climate change because it is having the opposite effect — something that is obvious to everyone who hasn’t buried their heads in the sand!

    Two, we have NOT BEEN WRONG when it comes to the predictions! They predicted the ocean temperatures would rise and they did. They predicted the polar icecaps would melt at accelerated rates and they have. Your prediction that fighting climate change will doom our economy is the only failed prediction being discussed by anyone.

  227. [227] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Second of all, liberals believe the ONLY solution is a gun ban...

    I won't bother countering with a list of the myriad times that liberals have supported half-measures, including the assault-rifle ban in the 1990's.

    You're on the losing side of the gun argument. Polls show support for gun control approaching 69%. Only the NRA's wealthy backers (including Russia, apparently) have kept tougher laws from being enacted already.

  228. [228] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    No.. It's the patrolman's job to make it home alive and insure other innocents make it home alive..

    THAT is job 1...

    PERIOD

    No. No that is not JOB #1! Police officers know that they may be called to put their lives in danger for the sake of their community. “To Serve & Protect” might result in their losing their life.

    The goal is to make sure everyone goes home alive each night. But that is not their “job.” Trust me, my heart stops anytime I see our police chief’s vehicle driving through the neighborhood while Devon is on duty.

  229. [229] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    The Bobbies also have a minimum height requirement. One of my best Mates is a 'Top Hat', according to her, when you're sworn in you take an oath to not shrink from any contingency that endangers a human life. ANY.

    Plastic guns might change that oath.

    Keep focus, Trump having a go at the Koch Bros. today is the smokescreen for the plastic gun idiocy...Not only has Trump not augmented a single gun law, he's made sure it's even easier to have a firearm for every nutter. 1.2 million fresh millennial's every year, hating gun violence, and it's GOP defenders, will make the difference in November.

    Lol, Manafort...blaming his subordinate for his own actions, aint going to wash. Orville Redenbacher loves this shit.

    Honest Abe...According to Trump, he's rocketed past 'The Great Emancipator' in popularity. I know my British/Canadian education is limited, but I'm fairly sure polls didn't exist before the electronic age? Meh...no doubt, it'll blow right by the herd.

    LL&P

  230. [230] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    We're talking about the shooting of unarmed black men here, of which there have been about a dozen in 2018.

    At no time were the cop's involved lives at risk, because these victims weren't armed.

    It is not whether the officer’s life was actually at risk, but whether or not it was reasonable for the officer to believe that their life or someone else’s was at risk when they pulled the trigger that the law is concerned with.

    The media will report that a person driving a car towards an officer is “unarmed”. Tamir Rice was “unarmed” despite the fact that he was playing with a toy gun that looked just like a real handgun. The people he had pointed the toy gun at did not believe it was a toy. A person in a dark alley who the police tell to “freeze” who thinks they should ignore the command and instead grab their phone out of their pocket to film the whole encounter (resulting in their being shot) will be considered “unarmed”.

    I am all for prosecuting police who violate the law and abuse their authority. But the belief that there is an epidemic of police violence is simply untrue. The reason that so few officer involved shootings result in charges being filed against the officer is because they are extremely well trained on when they are legally justified to use deadly force.


    In 1824 Robert Peel's 'Peelers', London's first Metropolitan Police Force, reduced a rampant crime rate by 75%, armed with nothing but nightsticks and whistles.

    That was enough at the time. Also, the “use of force” they were permitted to use with those nightsticks would easily be considered “police brutality” by today’s standards.

  231. [231] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [222] Blue.

    I too have an askance eye on Assange. He's got the life expectancy of a gnat unless a western power takes him in. Either way, no more creme brule for him.

    I quite like Roger Stone, at least he on the right track with the Kennedy assassination. LBJ obviously had him killed, and Stone goes all the way to connect the dots in his books. Well worth a look-see, Stone's books are brilliantly sourced and great read.

    LL&P

  232. [232] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm curious...What, if anything, is everyone making of Guiliani's unforced error regarding a strategy meeting prior to the 'Trump Tower' collusion meeting? I know, until the silly little man tacitly confirmed this meeting happened, named 3/4 of the participants and then slithered back into reticence, we weren't aware of this stink-tank. Now, we get to add this revelation to the original story, seems apparent to me the motley crew of Manafort, Kushner and Don the less had nothing but skullduggery-aforethought.

    Lol...'skullduggery-aforethought'

    Delicious.

    LL&P

  233. [233] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [232] James T

    To me, it says that Team Treason had good reason to think that the meeting was going to become public knowledge in short-ish order anyway. So, might as well start the distraction/obfuscation now; so that when a real reliable source confirms it, it will already be old/fake news for the base.

  234. [234] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    The safest outcome for Assange himself would be to give himself up to the Swedes and stand trial for rape and any additional charges for evading justice. A Swedish jail would probably be one of the few places on earth he would be safe.

  235. [235] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [233] ZZZ

    I had considered that among the plausible explanations, I just don't ascribe that depth of cunning to these clowns. Remember, as far as Trump's 'brain trust' is concerned, they're selling snake-oil to folks that can't read the label. The rest of us, they couldn't care less what we understand. Trump and his gang have long since given up broadening their base, they're on permanent white-wash duty to forestall dissension in the ranks.

    Plus, why try to walk it back? I think it's yet another clanger.

    LL&P

  236. [236] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [234] Agreed.

    Assange being fed nothing but bread, water and Surströmming for a decade or two does dance nicely in my mind. He's earned it.

    LL&P

  237. [237] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LWYH [230]: Tamir Rice was “unarmed” despite the fact that he was playing with a toy gun that looked just like a real handgun. The people he had pointed the toy gun at did not believe it was a toy.

    They also shot Rice almost immediately upon encountering him, rather than take the extra two or three seconds that they needed to ascertain that Rice was actually carrying a toy. The cop involved in that incident had already been transferred from another department because he was to quick to shoot.

    But the belief that there is an epidemic of police violence is simply untrue.

    Compared to what? No other 1st world country has this problem.

    they are extremely well trained on when they are legally justified to use deadly force

    That's not settled opinion. I've seen programs that suggest that the training itself induces paranoia, and that the trainers themselves are trigger-happy.

    the “use of force” they were permitted to use with those nightsticks would easily be considered “police brutality” by today’s standards.

    So we should be shooting people instead? Check your logic.

    All of these rationales would make far more sense if there were just as many unarmed whites as blacks being mistakenly shot, but there aren't. That's the crux of what has our black communities upset, justifiably so.

  238. [238] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    JTC [231]I quite like Roger Stone, at least he on the right track with the Kennedy assassination. LBJ obviously had him killed, and Stone goes all the way to connect the dots in his books. Well worth a look-see, Stone's books are brilliantly sourced and great read.

    Stone is a political hit-man, whose firm (with Manafort) was once the biggest lobbying operation on K street. His political dirty tricks resume includes organizing the 'Brooks Bros riot' of Republican operatives that stopped the vote counting in Florida in 2000, among others. He's high-priced pond scum.

    As for his books, the most sympathetic review of the LBJ book, by Hugh Aynesworth for the Washington Times said: "The title pretty much explains the book's theory. If a reader doesn't let facts get in the way, it could be an interesting adventure." Aynesworth, who covered the assassination for the Dallas Morning News, added that the book "is totally full of all kinds of crap".

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    No. No that is not JOB #1! Police officers know that they may be called to put their lives in danger for the sake of their community. “To Serve & Protect” might result in their losing their life.

    The goal is to make sure everyone goes home alive each night. But that is not their “job.” Trust me, my heart stops anytime I see our police chief’s vehicle driving through the neighborhood while Devon is on duty.

    Fair enough. I acknowledge your correction..

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am all for prosecuting police who violate the law and abuse their authority. But the belief that there is an epidemic of police violence is simply untrue. The reason that so few officer involved shootings result in charges being filed against the officer is because they are extremely well trained on when they are legally justified to use deadly force.

    Exactly...

    Upwards of 98% of all OI shootings are ruled Good Shoots..

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    They also shot Rice almost immediately upon encountering him, rather than take the extra two or three seconds that they needed to ascertain that Rice was actually carrying a toy.

    And if it had NOT been a toy, those extra two or three seconds could have cost them their lives..

    Is THAT preferable to you??

    Compared to what? No other 1st world country has this problem.

    Comparing the US to any other country is a fool's errand...

    That's not settled opinion. I've seen programs that suggest that the training itself induces paranoia, and that the trainers themselves are trigger-happy.

    Bullshit...

    All of these rationales would make far more sense if there were just as many unarmed whites as blacks being mistakenly shot, but there aren't.

    Once again, bullshit..

    The fact-checking website PolitiFact concluded in August 2014 that police kill more whites than blacks after the claim was made by conservative commentator Michael Medved. PolitiFact cited data from the Centers for Disease Control on fatal injuries by “legal intervention” from 1999 to 2011.

    “Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct,” said PolitiFact.

    Granted, that doesn't take into account armed or unarmed..

    But the ONLY stat that is relevant here is the percentage of shootings that are ruled Good Shoots...

    That's the crux of what has our black communities upset, justifiably so.

    Are those the same black communities who riot and destroy their own neighborhoods when a black person is justifiably shot by a cop??

    I don't think their opinions count for a hill o beans..

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    To me, it says that Team Treason had good reason to think that the meeting was going to become public knowledge in short-ish order anyway. So, might as well start the distraction/obfuscation now; so that when a real reliable source confirms it, it will already be old/fake news for the base.

    Dammit dood!! You know better than to bring LOGIC and REASON into a conversation about President Trump..

    The ONLY thing you can say is hysterical Anti-Trump rantings!!!

    Fer shame, dood.. Fer shame....

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    The safest outcome for Assange himself would be to give himself up to the Swedes and stand trial for rape and any additional charges for evading justice. A Swedish jail would probably be one of the few places on earth he would be safe.

    If you think that the Swedes will retain Assange and NOT turn him over to the US, I have some swampland down here in FL I wanna sell you..

    The ONLY reason Assange hol'ed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy is because he knew that he would never see the inside of a Swedish court room..

  244. [244] 
    John M wrote:

    [241] Michale

    "I don't think their opinions count for a hill o beans.."

    And that opinion right there on the part of some of the public and law enforcement IS THE PROBLEM.

    How can law enforcement be effective for the community or safe for the officers if you are not positively engaged with the very community that you are supposed to protect and serve and simply dismiss their opinions as if they don't matter?

    Answer me that.

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it. {Trump} just says, ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?"
    -Barack Obama

    US GDP hits 4.1%....

    "Abra-ca-dabra, biatch"
    -President Trump

    :D

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can law enforcement be effective for the community or safe for the officers if you are not positively engaged with the very community that you are supposed to protect and serve and simply dismiss their opinions as if they don't matter?

    Answer me that.

    It takes two to tango, my friend..

    How can LEOs be "positively engaged" with a community that seeks to execute LEOs who have the audacity, the temerity to DO THEIR JOBS when black people commit crimes??

    The article that started this comment thread is a perfect example..

    The "community" didn't care about FACTS... They just wanted their pound of flesh, facts be damned..

    This scenario is played out over and over and over again.

    How do you "engage" with a community like that?

    Answer: You can't

    It's up to the community to change their ways.. Then they would see how LEOs become more engaged in the community..

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who STILL don't get President (which is everyone here)

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/31/how_trump_has_managed_to_defy_gravity_137665.html

    Ya'all have eyes but you do not see...

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This one's for you...

    Poll: Biden leads Trump in early 2020 match-up
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/01/biden-trump-2020-elections-752979

  249. [249] 
    John M wrote:

    [221] Michale

    "But 306 to 232 is NOT a razor thin win..

    270-269 is a "razor thin" win..

    306 to 232 is a landslide. A shellacking..

    PERIOD..."

    NOPE, it is NOT. You're still WRONG.

    One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

    The online political news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being one in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well-known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result. Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill and say a landslide occurs when a candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote.

    One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.

    Trump meets NONE of those definitions of a landslide by ANYONE's OFFICIAL measure.

    While Trump surpassed the required 270 electoral votes with room to spare, his margin ranks no better than the bottom quarter of Electoral College showings in American history, and no better than the bottom one-third of the showings since the end of World War II.

    If your share of the electoral vote ranks behind Martin Van Buren's, then you did not win in a landslide, which is EXACTLY where Trump is ranked.

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

    And if we were talking about the Vanity Vote, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't...

    If it makes it easier to swallow, it's MY OPINION that President Trump won the Electoral count in a landslide..

  251. [251] 
    John M wrote:

    Put it another way Michale:

    Trump won by less of an electoral vote margin over Hillary Clinton than either:

    Barack Obama over his opponents in BOTH of his elections AND

    Bill Clinton over his opponents in BOTH of his elections.

    Are you willing to concede that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won ALL 4 times by landslides?

    You have to in order to claim Trump's victory was a landslide also.

  252. [252] 
    John M wrote:

    [250] Michale

    "And if we were talking about the Vanity Vote, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..."

    AND if I was talking ONLY about the vanity vote, YOU would have a point.

    But I and were not, so YOU DON'T.

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    Touche' :D

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM, if you ever get out to St Augustine, let me know.. First beer is on me.. :D

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is, of course, if yer willing to brave the perils of "deplorable" Trump country.. :D

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barack Obama Releases List of Dem Midterm Endorsements (See If You Can Spot Ocasio-Cortez)
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/barack-obama-releases-list-of-dem-midterm-endorsements-see-if-you-can-spot-ocasio-cortez/

    Looks like Odumbo doesn't like the Socialist....

  257. [257] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [238]...Balty.

    Of course Stone is pond scum, and a complete bogun. As I said, he put in a decent effort with, 'The Man Who Killed Kennedy,' he did get some interesting snippets from sources I'd previously not encountered, and they checked out as authentic. I read his books a few years back, before all his shenanigans with Assange and monkey-man. So I have to call them as I see them. I can't in good conscience dismiss the sum total of his output because he hangs in a motley crew.

    LL&P

  258. [258] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    any conversation that ends in beer is a good one.

  259. [259] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Looks like Odumbo doesn't like the Socialist.

    Methinks someone is trying to stir up trouble.

    Ocasio-Cortez, unlike some other democrats, doesn't need Obama's endorsement. She'll win handily all on her own.

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    any conversation that ends in beer is a good one.

    Word...

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    Methinks someone is trying to stir up trouble.

    Hay.. He's YOUR Messiah....

    Ocasio-Cortez, unlike some other democrats, doesn't need Obama's endorsement. She'll win handily all on her own.

    Most likely..

    Personally, I think Dumobcrats should ALL go all in in supporting the Socialist...

  262. [262] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    JTC [257] I can't in good conscience dismiss the sum total of his output because he hangs in a motley crew.

    I can. Besides, everything I've read about that book indicates a relationship to the truth that one could only call "casual".

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I think Dumobcrats should ALL go all in in supporting the Socialist...

    I mean that totally and completely sincerely..

  264. [264] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I just heard some wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding 3d printable weapon designs. Only if I were a plastic model seller would I realistically be able to use these. I simply searched the 3D metal printers cost, and found, from last year, an article that announced:

    Metal X 3D Printer Brings Metal to the Workshop for Under $100K

    That story mentions that when the printed results are placed in the sintering oven (not included in printer price) to melt the plastic fibers in the metal, "the component shrinks by about 20 percent, as is expected, and what's left is a nearly fully dense metal part."

    Guns need exceedingly exact machining. This is particularly true for any automatic cartridge chambering/ejection weapon. Words like "about" don't work for gun component sizing. So, even before we start on the mechanical components, the barrel better be 0.224 for an AR-15, not about that diameter. That means a metal lathe -with a long bed- is going to be needed. And while we're buying 5-figure metal working machines, we may as well order our vertical and horizontal milling machines, too, because they're going to be needed as well. Oh yeah, and a sintering oven, whatever that is.

    Sure, one could job out the sintering (?), barrel bore and groove work, triggering and chambering machining, and all the other little exactly sized moving parts that make a weapon actually fire.

    Then, here's what really makes this whole thing techno-fiction nonsense. Gun barrels need specialized, flaw-free steel. They get really, really hot, particularly in automatic fire.

    They also have to withstand very high pressures. We had guns in the house when I grew up, and over the fireplace was a 10-gauge double barreled shotgun used by my great-grandfather. The reason it was over the fireplace is because it was made in 1874 and had a damascus steel barrel. Damascus steel was strong enough for the black powder used in shotgun shells in its day. However, a modern high-pressure smokeless shotgun shell would have chambered perfectly, and then, with strong likelihood, turned the chamber's steel into exploding shards of shrapnel with a kill radius of several yards.

    The printer's process description above says "what's left is a nearly fully dense metal part." Un-huh.

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just heard some wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding 3d printable weapon designs. Only if I were a plastic model seller would I realistically be able to use these. I simply searched the 3D metal printers cost, and found, from last year, an article that announced:

    Metal X 3D Printer Brings Metal to the Workshop for Under $100K

    Yea, just another hysterical shiny for the Anti-gun nuts.. Like all their hysterical shinies, very little logic or facts and an excessive amount of hysterical whining and teeth gnashing...

  266. [266] 
    neilm wrote:

    US GDP hits 4.1%....

    Q2 2018: 4.1%

    Q3 2014: 5.2%
    Q2 2014: 4.6%
    Q4 2011: 4.6%

    Abra-ca-bitchslap-dabra!

  267. [267] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    They also shot Rice almost immediately upon encountering him, rather than take the extra two or three seconds that they needed to ascertain that Rice was actually carrying a toy. The cop involved in that incident had already been transferred from another department because he was to quick to shoot.

    The gun had been altered so that unless you viewed it up close, it would be difficult to distinguish it from a real firearm. There are federal laws in place because of the danger these guns pose for causing people to believe they are real. The deaths of multiple children is why we require toy makers alter their guns to make them look less real. The toy makers put a bright orange muzzle on their toys, but black paint hides the orange warning fairly well!

    Rice’s actions also played a part in his death. Rice was pointing the toy at the head’s of strangers walking in the part, laughing at how scared they looked. He had to know that they believed it was a real gun, because who is scared by a Nerf gun? The officers reacted properly given the threat Rice appeared to pose for those nearby. And don’t be fooled by the media’s use of Tamir Rice’s image from when he was 8. Rice was 5’6 and weighed 195lbs. He was a big kid for his age. It is tragic that he died so young.

    I got the worst whooping of my young childhood when I pointed a toy gun at a police officer. My dad made it very clear to me just how dangerous it was to ever point ANY gun (real, toy, or even my “finger gun”) at a person who might believe I am pointing a real gun at them and then they have to shoot me in self-defense.


    But the belief that there is an epidemic of police violence is simply untrue.

    Compared to what? No other 1st world country has this problem.

    Well, when you consider that the police respond to literally millions of calls for service every week in this country without incident, you start to recognize how rare officer involved shootings are.

    No other 1st world country has citizens armed to the teeth the way they are in the U.S.. No officer goes into work hoping to get to shoot someone that day!

    The majority of the time, shootings occur because the officer believes it is necessary to preserve life. They have to make split-second decisions based on the info they have at that time.

    To say “they should have waited a few more seconds” is the same as saying “they should have ignored the obvious warning signs”. We blame the police for not doing anything about the high school shooter in Florida even though he showed signs that one day he MIGHT be a threat, but we fault them when they act when a person has demonstrated that they are an immediate threat!

    And Michale pointed out that more whites are shot by police than blacks, even though at a disproportionate rate. There are more whites in prison than blacks, but again at disproportionate rates for the overall population. Yes, there are some people who get wrongly convicted for crimes they do not commit, and while everything should be done to prevent this, they make up an incredibly low percentage of those in prison. And yes, it is ludicrous that possession of crack would have a stiffer penalty than possession of pure cocaine of the same weight, but that is not the police’s fault — they just enforce the laws as they are written.

  268. [268] 
    neilm wrote:

    No other 1st world country has citizens armed to the teeth the way they are in the U.S..

    Correct.

    No officer goes into work hoping to get to shoot someone that day!

    Hmm.

    One of my classmates from high school joined the police, and thankfully the Glasgow Police so he didn't get a gun. He was a psychopath who wanted to hurt people but you had to get to know him before you got past his mundane exterior.

    Let's face it, if you are a psychopath then being a nurse or a police officer are two jobs that give you ample scope to hide violence more easily than say a plumber or a lawyer.

    This is why the police need to police themselves effectively - the whole omerta nonsense hurts the 99% of good cops from lack of public trust.

    Many of my friends who are lawyers and who are very rich, old, and white don't trust any cop at all. These are people who can browbeat any cop fairly easily in a normal situation, so have nothing to fear, but teach their (wealthy, white) kids how to act around the police to avoid arbitrary violence and harassment.

  269. [269] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Leaning Blue

    You do realize that these guns being printed are pretty much made to be single shot and disposable. Their accuracy will be questionable at any distance. In fact, it is because triggering the bullet will likely cause the gun to explode in the user’s hands that the government opposes making them available to the public. You are right that firearms must be able to handle the high temperatures associated with firing a bullet. Except for the largest commercial 3D printers, no other 3D printer should be expected to create a product that is safe to use.

  270. [270] 
    neilm wrote:

    WRT to 3D printing of guns.

    Technology advances. What is beyond the abilities of today's 3D printers is likely to be standard capabilities in a few years.

    Also, the price of technology drops with time. The computing power in my Apple Watch would have cost millions 30 years ago.

    America will lead the stupidity when it comes to 3D printed guns - but the real challenges will be faces by countries that currently have sensible gun control systems in place.

  271. [271] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm,

    The belief that cops turn a blind eye to the illegal actions of other officers is mind numbing to me! Illegal activities are best done out of public view, and the police know this better than anyone. While they may hear rumor of someone acting improperly, unless they witness it firsthand there isn’t anything that can be done! If they believe a co-worker is using more physical force than is necessary on a suspect, they may pull them off of the suspect, but they have no authority to arrest the officer simply because they think it might be excessive. That is determined by an investigation, not by the officer on the spot.

    The “bad apples” make life for the rest of the police extremely hard! So why would they knowingly protect someone like that? If you witnessed a co-worker do something criminal at your job, would you risk going to prison and losing your career by covering for them? Who would risk doing that, especially if the crime doesn’t benefit you, personally in any way?!? Are you going to risk everything for some person you might barely know or like? So why would a police officer?

    That said, the police do “protect” other officers who are involved in shootings because they know no one else does. (By “protect”, I mean they do not bash them in the press, which many people seem to believe they should do.). The media rarely waits until all the evidence is known before deciding to portray an officer as the guilty party in a shooting. Even if the officer is later found to be in the wrong, the police aren’t going to trash them publicly. Good people with great intentions still make mistakes that have horrible results. It doesn’t make them horrible people. It just means they have to be held accountable for their actions.

  272. [272] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    73

    I grew up with waxed paper straws and the world didn't come to an end.

    I still use those. :)

  273. [273] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I am not at all knowledgeable about about 3-D printer technology, but I can pretty much assure you that plastic guns, regardlwss of how manufactured, would pretty much be limited to firing .22 cal Rimfire ammo. Larger calibers would generate more pressure than the plastic could bear without exploding.

  274. [274] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    196

    Very well said, sir. :)

  275. [275] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    246

    The "community" didn't care about FACTS... They just wanted their pound of flesh, facts be damned..

    This scenario is played out over and over and over again.

    How do you "engage" with a community like that?

    Answer: You can't

    Apply this logic to the "community" that is the Trump cult where the herd of gullible bleating sheeple spew out their talking points on cue, play incessant semantic games regarding "collusion" a.k.a. "conspiracy," and etcetera ad nauseam "facts be damned."

    Perhaps you'll figure something out if you do. :)

  276. [276] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    273

    I am not at all knowledgeable about about 3-D printer technology, but I can pretty much assure you that plastic guns, regardlwss of how manufactured, would pretty much be limited to firing .22 cal Rimfire ammo. Larger calibers would generate more pressure than the plastic could bear without exploding.

    You had me until you added: "regardlwss of how manufactured." Oops.

    What do you think about larger caliber shells not made of the typical brass but rather made of steel with the lead an inch deep inside? A shell like that could contain the explosion of the round's gunpowder rather than transferring that force to the plastic barrel of the gun... steel ammunition could essentially act as the barrel of the weapon, right?

    Simple science, which I understand is not so simple for so many. ;)

  277. [277] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    No, actually wrong.

    Two points - 1),modern gunpowder does NOT "explode", it burns, and 2), if you seat the bullet an inch deep into the cartridge case, there would (in the case of handgun ammo), not leave nearly sufficient space for the powder.

    But far more important, matters not in the slightest what the cartridge case is made of - the instant the bullet exits the case mouth, the full pressure of the burning propellant is transferred to the gun barrel.

  278. [278] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I don't see the 3D printer guns being that much of an issue in the US, once the hue and cry dies down. You folks have guns coming out the ying-yang, you can buy them as easily as we Canadians can access universal health care, free dental and prescriptions. They will only ever be news when used for some heinous act like in a school or an airport. My only surprise in all of this was the grudging support of the comrades at NRA for these cap-guns...must be all that Ruskie dosh pouring into their coffers, they no longer need to concern themselves with the likes of Smith and Wesson, Remington and RRG...

    LL&P

  279. [279] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    277

    Two points - 1),modern gunpowder does NOT "explode", it burns,

    Who said anything about smokeless powder? What part of the term "gunpowder" is confusing at all for you, Stucki? I'm talking about "gunpowder." Yes, it is a low-level explosive.

    and 2), if you seat the bullet an inch deep into the cartridge case, there would (in the case of handgun ammo), not leave nearly sufficient space for the powder.

    You couldn't be more wrong, Stucki. I know several guys who've been making these for years manually; they know their stuff. I'll see if I can find a link for you. Be right back.

    Okay, not anyone I know in this article but some of the same basics they use:

    https://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

    But far more important, matters not in the slightest what the cartridge case is made of - the instant the bullet exits the case mouth, the full pressure of the burning propellant is transferred to the gun barrel.

    No, sir, it absolutely is NOT... and the roof of the chamber is left open. See the link I found you. Go back to basics, Stucki. Duh. :)

  280. [280] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The problem I see with the 3D printed plastic gun is if you ever watched an airport screener screen your bags, is nothing is invisible. It's just transparent rather than solid black. The gun shape is there, the screeners just need to be trained to see it, or be replaced with AI. Even if you could make it invisible, you can still look for the ammo. And if you make the cartridge and bullet out of something other than metal and obfuscate the shape enough to fool the screener, then you can detect the propellant. It's a cat and mouse game and all the cat needs is the will and money to fund that will. Yes, 3D printing is getting better and better but so is image recognition software and chemical sensors...

    The real problem I think is all the other parts of the gun. The AR-15 is more of a specification than a single product. Many companies make various parts for it. With 3D printing, you can buy the hard to make parts, the barrel, breach, and anything else that is subject to high heat and pressure, then print the easy stuff. Like fully auto or burst mode mods. Or large magazines. Stuff that is illegal in many jurisdictions.

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    With 3D printing, you can buy the hard to make parts, the barrel, breach, and anything else that is subject to high heat and pressure, then print the easy stuff. Like fully auto or burst mode mods. Or large magazines. Stuff that is illegal in many jurisdictions.

    Yes, you can.. You have been able to do that for a decade or more...

    Has there been an epidemic of shootings with 3D printed components??

    No there has not..

    This latest hysteria is just another way that anti-gun fanatics want to get their toe in the door that leads to a gun ban...

    And, what is so hilarious is this latest hysterical anti-gun shiny is not even a 2nd Amendment issue..

    It's a 1st Amendment issue..

    Just goes to what I have always said.. In order to ban guns, anti-gun nuts will have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and eviscerate they 1st, the 4th and several other Constitutional rights..

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:
  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If they fire Mueller, we take to the streets,”
    -Alyssa Milano

    Oh pullleeessee.. If President Trump has two scoops of ice cream, ya'all hysterical morons "take to the streets"..

    If President Trump uses a nonsensical word, ya'all hysterical morons "take to the streets"..

    Morons like Milano are nothing but a hateful intolerant bigoted caricature....

  284. [284] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    OK, you seem to be describing a firearm (handgun) engineered to accept a cartridge with a steel case sufficiently long to essentially function as a very short barrel. Basically, a steel gun with a plastic handle, firing relatively impotent bullets.

    Doesn't that essentially defeat the whole purpose of the idea of a plastic gun, that presumably being reduced detectability?

  285. [285] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    But don't forget, she's a VERY PRETTY "hateful intolerant bigoted characture".

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    But don't forget, she's a VERY PRETTY "hateful intolerant bigoted characture".

    "Eh.. I've had better.."
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR, LIAR

    :D

  287. [287] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [284] firearm (handgun) engineered to accept a cartridge with a steel case sufficiently long to essentially function as a very short barrel. Basically, a steel gun with a plastic handle, firing relatively impotent bullets.

    I was going to make exactly that point late last night, but I was too tired. The only thing I would have said differently was that what I read described the cartridge as essentially a miniature, one-inch barrel cannon.

    Smooth barrel, very slow muzzle velocity, and, moreover, x-ray visible, metal detectable, and easy for sniffers to detect. With a plastic holder.

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    POLL: TRUMP APPROVAL 50%
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/current_events/politics/prez_track_aug02

    Since I know how much ya'all love polls.. :D

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    Smooth barrel, very slow muzzle velocity, and, moreover, x-ray visible, metal detectable, and easy for sniffers to detect. With a plastic holder......

    ..... and a partridge in a pear tree....

    :D

  290. [290] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [282] Michale, by 'look at the FACTS...' you actually meant, look at yet another opinion in print that either supports my theory or from which my conclusions are drawn. I try to see every side to an issue, I will click on a link that offers up the opinions of people who's stance on an issue is contrary to my own. The article makes some valid-ish points, despite it's stroppy style and snarky attitude. It also quite cleverly repeats yet another cretinous Trumpian tweet about selling 3D guns and scoffs at it like it came from someone who didn't receive $30 million from the NRA for his self-funded campaign. The idea that providing blue prints for manufacturing firearms is a first amendment issue is very thin ice, even the first amendment has it's limits. Within the first amendment, one has the right to speak, but not if it steps on the rights of others. Last time I checked, the right to life is the number one right under the US constitution, so if a "hobbyist" ( I love how this article tries to sell people on the notion that 3D gun manufacturing is now a hobbyist issue...typical gun advocate strategy, drag as many rights and issues into the gun discussion as you can, there's power in numbers,) creates one of these things and kills someone, because guns have only one true use...to kill, has the right to life been compromised? It goes back to built-in gun lobby flaw, right to life verses the right to kill...The anti-abortionist who will kill to drive home their point.

    Maybe, instead of adding to the devaluation of the word, 'facts'...why not just call it what it is, an article in support of your views.

    *A quick reminder of definition of 'fact'... a thing that is indisputably the case.
    "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
    synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
    truth, verity, gospel
    "it is a fact that the water is polluted"
    antonyms: lie, fiction
    used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
    noun: the fact that
    "the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
    a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
    synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet; information
    "every fact was double-checked"
    Law
    the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
    "there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter"

    LL&P

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    BOOM! Trump Approval at 50% — 5 POINTS HIGHER THAN OBAMA at Same Point in His Presidency
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/boom-trump-approval-at-50-5-points-higher-than-obama-at-same-point-in-his-presidency/

    Oh SNAP!!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!! :D

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC

    #290... Another example of ideological slavery..

    Boring..

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woman accused of hitting car in Hyannis after confrontation over bumper sticker
    http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20180731/woman-accused-of-hitting-car-in-hyannis-after-confrontation-over-trump-bumper-sticker

    NeverTrumpers.. :^/

    Remind me again of the respect and tolerance of the Left Wingery??

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

  294. [294] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    284

    OK, you seem to be describing a firearm (handgun) engineered to accept a cartridge with a steel case sufficiently long to essentially function as a very short barrel. Basically, a steel gun with a plastic handle, firing relatively impotent bullets.

    No, it's not a steel gun; it's a 3D printed plastic gun that fires ammunition designed specifically for it. It's also not exactly like the one in the article I posted; I simply posted that in order to give you an idea what I was talking about. The bullets are far from impotent.

    Doesn't that essentially defeat the whole purpose of the idea of a plastic gun, that presumably being reduced detectability?

    Oh, come on, Stucki and LB. Can't either of you think of a reason one might want to perfect a bullet like that besides reduced detectability? I can think of several, but then I am me. :)

  295. [295] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Speaking as a guy born and raised in the Rocky Mtns, where hunting and all shooting sports were a way of life, who owned 21 firearms in his younger days, loaded his own ammo and was knowledgeable of all aspects of ballistic science, no, I cannot think of such a reason.

    Obviously such a firearm/bullet combo would only be useful for killing people, and it wouldn't even do a workman-like job of that! So help us out?

  296. [296] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    295

    Speaking as a guy born and raised in the Rocky Mtns, where hunting and all shooting sports were a way of life, who owned 21 firearms in his younger days, loaded his own ammo and was knowledgeable of all aspects of ballistic science, no, I cannot think of such a reason.

    Likely due to the fact that you're thinking "backward" rather than forward.

    Obviously such a firearm/bullet combo would only be useful for killing people, and it wouldn't even do a workman-like job of that!

    Wrong again. Obviously, anything "useful for killing people" (your terms) would also kill other animals so your statement "would only be useful" is wrong for multiple reasons. Is killing things the only thing you do with a weapon, Stucki?

    So help us out?

    No. :)

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong again. Obviously, anything "useful for killing people" (your terms) would also kill other animals so your statement "would only be useful" is wrong for multiple reasons. Is killing things the only thing you do with a weapon, Stucki?

    According to hysterical Anti-Gun nuts.. YES...

    As an aside to CRS...

    Congrats.. You maneuvered Veronica into making a Pro-Gun argument.. :D

    Kudos.. :D

  298. [298] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [292] Thanks, Michale...If wanting to adhere to factual material in drawing ones own conclusion is 'ideological slavery,' then so be it. 'Ideological slavery' sounds like some kind of catchphrase the mildly educated invoke when cornered in fact-based debate. It also implies that your particular brand of closed-mindedness is somehow ideological freedom. I guess ignorance is bliss in world where people take the word of others as fact...what is it that monkey-man said the other day, " don't believe what you read or what you see on TV"...lol. People wonder how a demagogic blowhard became a right-wing messiah...easy, when a portion of the electorate have no time for facts, zero concern with truth. "Tell us what we want to hear, and we'll careen into the abyss with you, screw the real world, let's call it fake and curl up in our version...what can go wrong."

    LL&P

  299. [299] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    297

    As an aside to CRS...

    Congrats.. You maneuvered Veronica into making a Pro-Gun argument.. :D

    My family invented a line of firearms, Michael Moron, you destitute dumb uneducated asshat goober in your doublewide trailer in Shithole, Florida.

    Congratulations for proving yet again how facts don't really matter to you the least little bit, and you just basically make stuff up about people and believe your own invented bullshit. :)

  300. [300] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [299]

    Kick...we'll get nowhere if you hold back like this. Tell us how you really feel.

    :D

    77&?

  301. [301] 
    Kick wrote:

    James T Canuck
    300

    Kick...we'll get nowhere if you hold back like this. Tell us how you really feel.

    I was thinking the same thing about you, JTC. ;)

    You should know that your posts aren't remotely "boring," JTC, and are simply miles above the asshat's education level. He labels and dismisses because he's ignorant ordure... nothing more than a "wannabe" POS. Did you catch his post wherein he attempted to "borrow" one of your favored terms and flailed miserably in the attempt? Quite right. Side-splitting comedy.

    Please keep posting and ignore his repetitive benighted codswallop; it's limited in scope like his ratiocination. Seriously. :)

  302. [302] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [301] Kick

    "Codswallop". Heh-heh.+1!

  303. [303] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [301] Lol, codswallop...now you're talking my language.

    I get folks like our resident Trump apologist, there's no mystery there, douchebaggery notwithstanding. Alternate facts and goal-post shifting might work on some, but to me it's transparently obvious that it's barrel scraping in lieu of any practical defense of what amounts to the indefensible. As part of the collective experience, I laugh along...this isn't so much the Trump era as it is extended cabaret.

    LL&P

  304. [304] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Don the lesser, another court jester, is now gas-lighting the herd saying the DNC platform is eerily similar to that of 1930's Nazi Germany...Lol. What a tool. What he knows about that era, you could write on the head of pin, apparently. Having lectured on that period in European history in general, and Nazi's in particular, I'm here to to tell you he's delusional. For a start, the Nazi's were ultra-right wing conservatives, which the DNC could never be accused of. The Nazi's saw the leftists as their greatest foe and strove to create a hegemony in destroying the Soviet Union...Trump the lesser, his monkey and in fact the entire motley crew have been caught red-handed, so to speak, consorting with what amounts to the closest thing we have today to a fascist state in Russia. I know Donald Traitor is an uneducated boob, I assumed, and now know, his spawn are philistines also, High IQ's indeed! I have more intelligent houseplants, at least they know difference between right and left and Nazi's and Communists.

    Gaslighting the previously lit...Morons.

    LL&P

Comments for this article are closed.