Analysis of Green Strategies will be based upon:

1) Laws of Thermodynamics

and

2) Fundamental Long Term Geological Cycles, most notably the carbon cycle.

Failure to do so will most likely result in short term remediation which makes long term solutions more expensive, less effective and/or downright impossible for future generations.

Technological Flim/flam like "clean coal" fails on both counts....unless your expectations for human longevity and population size are brief and/or small.

The science is well defined, the implications of applying it are extraordinarily complex. Much more so when you factor in politics, local, national and multinational.

No matter how much the girls claim to the contrary, it is NOT against the law to get dirt on your political opponent, no matter how evil the source.

The only problem with your whining repetitive BS is that it's entirely incorrect. Here... once again... is the law that contradicts the incessant spew of your bullshit mountain.

Section 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:

(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or

(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

(d) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See 11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.

(f) Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

So to recap yet again: I've shown you the written law and provided a link to that law multiple times now, which states therein that it is illegal for a campaign to solicit, accept, or receive the help of foreign nationals, and you are demonstrably a moron who isn't capable of grasping this fact and who continues to spew your ridiculous bullshit wherein you apparently believe that Americans have a First Amendment right to do so despite this written law.

It's well-settled law that our First Amendment rights are limited. It is indubitably illegal in many jurisdictions for an American citizen to yell "fire" in a crowded venue unless something is in flames. I've now shown you the law multiple times where it is illegal to do what you keep insisting is legal, and no matter how many times you repeat it, you're wrong... it's illegal.

Your feeling that a written law is unconstitutional also doesn't make it legal, and if you seriously believe the Supreme Court would actually make a ruling that would strike down the current law (see blockquote above) that would thereby allow foreign governments unabated to turn the First Amendment into a tool to kill American democracy, then moron isn't strong enough a word to describe you. :)

Smart man. Stay tuned. :)

I really think both are necessary. The blue-sky approach moves the Overton Window on the whole discussion, which allows concrete plans to actually be seriously considered and (hopefully) passed. One boosts the other, to me...

chaszzzbrown [4] -

The duck curve? OK, you lost me...

James T Canuck [8] -

I'm still not 100% sold on the 'collusion' aspect of 2016, I am however sold on the fact that Trump has monumentally poor instincts for personnel, if his choices thus far are anything to go by.

That's an excellent statement, and it's where a whole lot of people are at this point. Until the Mueller report comes out (whatever it says), that's where we really are.

Will the Mueller report contain any obviously impeachable charges? That's an open question. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

But I bet a lot of the public sees "an impeachable offense" kind of like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography -- they'll know it when they see it.

C.R. Stucki [9] -

No matter how much the girls claim to the contrary, it is NOT against the law to get dirt on your political opponent, no matter how evil the source.

If a foreign government is involved, then it is. As it should be. Otherwise we'd have spent the whole Cold War electing whomever the KGB wanted us to.

Of course, back then Republicans would have cared if Russia had helped them get elected... that's a big difference from today...

Balthasar [13] -

That is an excellent point, and I could not agree more. Coming up with snappy names is tough, and you're right, this one is a winner.

-CW

Far as I'm aware, nobody disputes that the Russians hacked the Democratics' emails, and it may well be that helping Trump was their motivation, but people always fail to make a legitimate connection between those two things.

The emails revealed that Hillary stacked the primary deck against her opponent. Fine, Hillary is a devious bitch, but WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH TRUMP???

The only way that benefits Trump would be if it made Bernie's supporters (the most radical Dems) so mad they voted Republican! NOBODY's dumb enough to buy into that!!

I can scarcely believe that anybody would wonder/question about those things.

The man (Trump himself) is a dishonest, unethical, marginally competent (or maybe marginally INcompetent) person, who gets to box above his weight thanks to an inherited fortune, who also happens to be an asshole of the first rank as a human being, and who associates pretty much exclusively with the notorious "Birds of a feather"!

I'd be happy to see every single on of his hangers-on wind up in the hoosegow, with him right along side of 'em, just so long as it's over a legitimate transgression of the law, and not something rabid Democratics conjured up to punish him for beating their unbeatable candidate.

No matter how much the girls claim to the contrary, it is NOT against the law to get dirt on your political opponent, no matter how evil the source.

Considering the lacklustre, cavalier approach all GOP committees have looked into this issue, I wouldn't go hiding the cutlery just yet. Were I inclined to take a leap of faith and presume Trump's disassociation from Russian meddling, I'd need an explanation as to why so many of his associates have run afoul of Mueller and his probe. Why have these people lied? Why did Sessions recuse himself from Russian-related oversight? Why did these individuals have a Russia commonalty while working for Trump and his 2016 campaign? And finally, are these characters part of the 'best people' narrative Trump was eagerly assuring his adherents he would surround himself in the event he won?

If you're not inclined to wonder, that's your business, but to my mind, knowledge is power. I'm still not 100% sold on the 'collusion' aspect of 2016, I am however sold on the fact that Trump has monumentally poor instincts for personnel, if his choices thus far are anything to go by.

As for Trump's Russian connections, let's have a peek at his tax returns, those of his kids, and all financial entities under Trump control... Trump has a history of using the tax code to his benefit, I doubt highly he would omit any business dealings, such as Trump Soho, as a loss if he could ultimately benefit. Hmm? There's no point having a 'collusion' debate until it's established that Trump had/has form for Russian contact. A conspiracy to knobble the 2016 election would have to include prior Russian contact, no one believes such a random happenstance just falls into the lap of a presidential candidate.

LL&P

https://www.justsecurity.org/62573/richard-burr-leadership-senates-russia-investigation-disintegrate/

Meanwhile Blotus has another incoherent power grab fest, backed by America's most disgraceful Senate Majority Leader in history before flying off to Florida to play golf.

Hide all the sharp objects from the girls - I sense an impending rash of wrist slashing in the land of Weigantia.

On the Green New Deal, I recommend his article There’s now an official Green New Deal. Here’s what’s in it..

The author notes that very little has passed to deal with climate change - including "practical" scaled-down, ought-to-be-possible legislative efforts.

But that bill didn’t pass the Senate. (2009) And there’s been little forward momentum on climate legislation since then. Instead, the scope of “practical” solutions has just gotten smaller and smaller. Even the more recent Climate Solutions Caucus — a bipartisan congressional group aimed at showing that people of many political stripes can agree on combating climate change — declined to criticize the Trump Administration for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. “That should have been an easy lift,” Jaffe said.

And if bipartisan, practical, detail-oriented climate solutions aren’t working, are they really practical? “I think that’s a fair observation,” Jaffe told me.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-green-new-deal-is-impractical-but-practical-solutions-havent-worked-either/

The political will has to be there - as embodied in enough legislators and POTUS who grasp the need to act on this. It's not going to be a matter of how ambitious or timid the legislation - it's going to be a matter of who's in Congress and WH.

Americans can't entertain such radical ideas, clean water: never. Electric mass mobility: shuddersome. Guaranteed affordable healthcare: treasonous. Affordable housing: the temerity.

Who could possibly be against that, right?