ChrisWeigant.com

New Rule: No Repeat Debate Questions

[ Posted Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 – 16:29 UTC ]

I have a proposal for a new rule for the Democratic presidential debate moderators, going forward: no repeat questions should be allowed. It's a pretty simple idea, really. The moderators would be barred from asking the candidates questions that have already been asked in previous debates. After all, there are plenty of other subjects that have yet to be talked about, so why should voters be subjected to these re-run debate segments, over and over again?

I'm not directly knocking CNN or the New York Times, who hosted last night's debate. They did a better job than the last few sets of moderators did, after all, introducing segments on subjects as diverse as job losses due to automation and abortion rights. These were interesting to explore, mostly because we haven't heard these questions asked of the candidates previously. The new subjects brought up last night were, in fact, refreshing, so please don't see this proposed new rule as a personal slam on Anderson Cooper and his team.

Even so, we got yet another repeat of the debate over Medicare For All versus just adding a public option to Obamacare. And it was framed exactly the same as the previous three times we've heard it debated: "Taxes will rise! Everybody flee!" The moderators again tried to get Elizabeth Warren to utter the word "taxes," and once again she refused to do so, speaking of "costs" instead. This may have been informative the first time it happened, but last night was not that first time. Healthcare reform is a complex subject, but you wouldn't know it from reviewing the first four debates. The voters do care about this subject more than almost every other, but wouldn't they be better served by a segment about the mechanics of reducing the price of prescription drugs, or addressing the closing of rural hospitals? Or those surprise bills from "out of network" services and emergencies? There are many facets to healthcare reform, and while Medicare For All is the answer of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to all of these issues, the other candidates should be directly asked how such things would fit into their proposed healthcare fixes. Slapping a public option on Obamacare may wind up being a good thing, but it doesn't address all the problems still inherent in our health insurance system.

If the moderators had to follow a new rule that they couldn't tread on ground previously covered, then they'd have to get more creative and explore other aspects of not only healthcare reform, but the other issues we keep hearing rehashed. How about a deep and wonky dive into exactly how Democrats would go about revising the Trump tax cut (really the Paul Ryan tax cut, to accurately put the blame where it belongs...), for instance? Would you scrap the idiotic new 1040 "postcard" form -- together with its six separate schedules -- and return to putting all of this information on a single page once again? Would you overturn the limits on state and local tax writeoffs? Would you make charitable giving tax deductible for everyone? Would you bring back the personal exemption? How would you adjust the new standard deduction? How would you adjust the tax brackets to preserve the tiny tax cuts that the middle class received while reinstituting the taxes on the higher incomes? Or would you just repeal the law altogether, which would raise some people's taxes who weren't wealthy? What would you do on capital gains? Just on this one single issue, it's pretty obvious there are a lot of very specific questions voters would be interested in hearing the candidates address.

The new "no re-runs" rule might also force the moderators to address more recent events. Last night, to their credit, the moderators asked about impeaching Donald Trump as well as a few personal issues that didn't exist in the previous debate (Hunter Biden, Bernie's heart attack), but there are other recent events that deserve attention as well. What do the candidates think about the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong? What would they say to the protesters right now? If they disagree with Trump's trade war and China tariffs, how would they do things differently? Would they attempt to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement? Again, these are all questions I for one would like to see discussed.

Having a rule that previous issues couldn't be asked about would force some of these unaddressed issues to the fore. Many are now complaining that climate change didn't get a single question last night, while we did have time for 20 minutes on Ellen DeGeneres and George W. Bush watching a football game together. Granted, even the new rule wouldn't fend off such silliness (Ellen and Dubya certainly hadn't been brought up in any of the previous debates, so the question still would have been an allowable one). But it would at least force a lot more creativity in the issues the moderators choose to use their limited time exploring.

The only real exception to the rule would be to ask some of the other candidates about something noteworthy a candidate said in a previous debate. A good example of this happened last night, as candidates were asked about the policy of "mandatory buybacks" of assault weapons -- including having to explain how exactly such a thing could work. This led to an interesting point made by Julián Castro, when he pointed out that poor people really don't look forward to seeing a police officer at their door for any reason.

In the next debate, to give another example of an allowable exception to the "no repeat" rule, moderators should ask all the candidates whether they would ban their close relatives from either serving in the White House or having ties to foreign companies -- because this issue is bigger than just Joe Biden, and it is absolutely guaranteed to be brought up by Donald Trump in the general election no matter who he's running against. Or pick up on that Kamala Harris bugaboo and ask everyone else if Twitter should ban Trump or not, and why. It's patently obvious that he breaks their rules of the road on at least a weekly basis (sometimes daily or even hourly), so should politicians get a free pass to say whatever they want on social media or not? Pick up on the Andrew Young line ("our data is our property") and ask whether each candidate would support an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees every citizen's privacy.

As you can see, it's pretty easy to come up with new questions that would be interesting to hear debated. And limiting the questions to new issues would even boost ratings, so the media companies should be able to get behind the idea. More people will tune in if they know in advance that this won't be a retread debate. So how about it, Democratic National Committee? Let's move the debate forward instead of running over the same exact ground time and time again. Forcing the moderators to come up with unique questions will force them out of the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom and make them address many of the other subjects that voters do indeed care about. Personally, I'd love to see an entire segment on marijuana reform, but that's just my own personal bias. You may have your own key issue that you would also like to see the candidates address. The way to get more diversity in the questions being asked is to ban repeat questions framed in exactly the same terms as last time. And the time before that, and the time before that.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

38 Comments on “New Rule: No Repeat Debate Questions”

  1. [1] 
    andygaus wrote:

    Ask, What would be your first moves to address the climate crisis?
    Also, what reforms will you sponsor to reduce the impact of big money in government?

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask, What would be your first moves to address the climate crisis?

    That's simple..

    Nothing..

    Humans do not have the technological capability to control the planet's climate..

    The planet's climate is ALWAYS changing and, in the here and now, humans are simply along for the ride..

    It would be akin to asking to address the planet's orbit...

    It's a ridiculous question because the technology doesn't exist to accomplish the goal..

    Humans cannot control the planet's climate..

    Anyone who says different is a moron or has a political agenda..

    Also, what reforms will you sponsor to reduce the impact of big money in government?

    DH, is that you??? :D

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Rep. Elijah Cummings passed away this morning his office announced just now.

    Incredible servant of the people of Maryland and this country! RIP!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Hunter Biden..

    Let's look at the facts...

    Hunter goes to Ukraine with Daddy Joe and then lands an obscenely high fee of Fifty THOUSAND dollars A MONTH for sitting on a board of a company that Hunter knows NOTHING about in a country Hunter knows NOTHING about and dealing with issues that Hunter knows NOTHING about..

    Get that?? Hunter knows NOTHING about ANYTHING and they pay him Fifty THOUSAND dollars a month..

    OK, then Hunter goes with daddy Joe to China and then lands in a sweethard deal to be part of a funding group whose goal is 1.5 BILLION dollars...

    So, the facts are these..

    Hunter goes with daddy to Ukraine and then lands an obscenely lucrative monthly pay..

    Then Hunter goes with daddy to China and lands ANOTHER lucrative "job" where the group targets 1.5 BILLION dollars in income..

    And ya'all think it's all a big coincidence?? That Hunter just happened to fall into these jobs and VP Biden had NO CLUE about it or NO HAND in it???

    Com'on people.. I know for a fact that.... SOME of ya'all are smarter than that... :eyeroll:

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take my word for it..

    Let's see what an uber Left rag has to say about it..

    Sorry, but Democrats need to talk about Hunter Biden
    Democrats are afraid to talk about Hunter Biden. Trump won’t be.

    A few things are true about the Hunter Biden story. One is that there’s no evidence Joe Biden did what Donald Trump has accused him of doing: pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor to protect his son from investigation.

    But another is that Hunter Biden poses real problems for Joe Biden’s campaign, and if Democrats pretend otherwise, they’re making a mistake.

    Many Democrats consider raising the Hunter Biden question unfair to Joe Biden. Why should he have to answer for the legal actions of his adult son? But no one said politics was fair. And if Democrats avoid the issue, they can be certain Trump will not. Biden’s vulnerability here needs to be tested in the primary, when Democrats have other choices, rather than in the general, when they won’t.
    https://www.vox.com/2020-presidential-election/2019/10/16/20916760/joe-biden-hunter-biden-democratic-debate-trump-2020

    Democrats need to nail down Joe Biden on Hunter..

    If they don't, and Joe is the Dem candidate, they can bet President Trump will be wall to wall Hunter Biden.

    And THAT will resonate with Trump supporters, Independents and NPAs...

    It's really that simple..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for those in the previous commentary who claim Hunter Biden did nothing wrong.. (You know who you are...)

    Turley: Why more questions remain after Hunter Biden's interview

    “Say it nicer.” No words better sum up the news coverage of Hunter Biden. That instruction given from him to ABC News reporter Amy Robach came after she noted that he was “in and out of rehab” several times for dependency on drugs ranging from cocaine to crack. In fact, the media has been “saying it nicer” for weeks, telling readers and viewers there is “no finding of wrongdoing” by the son of Joe Biden while avoiding any substantive discussion of his controversial business dealings.

    During the interview, Hunter Biden moved between muted apologies and indignant denials about alleged efforts to cash in on his father being vice president. The interview was galling for those critical of this common form of corruption. For three decades, I have written about the practice of giving lucrative jobs and contracts to the spouses and children of powerful politicians as a way of gaining influence in Washington.

    Hunter Biden’s deals are textbook examples of how political families become rich from public service. Still, many in the media continue to repeat Joe Biden’s position that “no one has asserted my son did a single thing wrong.” That, of course, is untrue. Even if the deals did not amount to crimes, they were wrong. They have always been wrong, but both parties have always protected these deals as a dirty little secret.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/466057-turley-why-more-questions-remain-after-hunter-bidens-interview

    Joe and Hunter Biden did something wrong..

    THAT is why they promised that, if daddy Joe was elected POTUS, they never will do it again..

    If you ever have to promise NOT to do something again, then you did something wrong that required that promise..

    It's THAT simple..

    Hunter Biden did something wrong..

    Joe Biden did something wrong..

    And from THAT starting point is where Hunter and Joe need to begin to lay the facts...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in another COLONEL JESSUP moment..

    Hunter Biden claims that he never talked with his daddy about his obscenely lucrative deals in China and Ukraine...

    Yet Joe stated that he (Joe) told Hunter to "Be careful with these dealings"

    So if Hunter never said anything to Joe about his obscenely lucrative dealings.....

    How did VP Joe Biden know enough to tell Hunter to "be careful"??

    It's obvious that SOMEONE is lying...

    And you guys HATE lies, right??

    Oh, that's right.. You don't mind lies when it's someone of the LEFT doing the lying.. Someone with a -D after their name spewing the BS...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:
  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    Humans do not have the technological capability to control the planet's climate.

    "Control" is an unreasonably stringent criterion. We can't decide to have Nebraska get an average of eight more sunny days per year over the coming decades with half an inch more rain and 1.3 degrees warmer, while Afghanistan averages six more days of partly-cloudy weather than they have been getting, with winters averaging 0.4 degrees cooler and summers 0.9 degrees warmer, and so on down the line for locations all over the world. That would be control.

    We can affect the climate. We already are affecting the climate, but we can change how we affect climate.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Control" is an unreasonably stringent criterion.

    And yet, it's going to TAKE "control" to do what the Global Warming fanatics want to do..

    We can affect the climate.

    Simply not factually accurate... There are a multitude of examples where the climate changed and humans didn't even exist on the planet..

    So, to claim that NOW, it's humans who are affecting the planet's climate is the epitome of disingenuousness..

    We already are affecting the climate, but we can change how we affect climate.

    And yet, none of those changes have amounted to a hill o beans...

    Basically you propose that we not only HALT climate change, but you ALSO want to reverse the planet's climate...

    Impossible...

    The planet's climate has been changing long LONG *LONG* before humans ever rose from the primordial muck..

    And the planet's climate will CONTINUE to change long after humans have gone the way of the dodo...

    This is fact and no amount of politically correct "science" will change that fact..

    The planet will do what it wants with it's climate.. Humans have no say in the matter..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most of the so-called "facts" you can point to are flawed studies and models that suffer from the GIGO issue...

    NASA and NOAA in conjunction placed 114 hyper accurate weather stations across the CONUS. This, they said, would eliminate the tweaking required to produce the desired result.. The RAW data that it provided would PROVE the planet is warming..

    Well, guess what??

    After 15 years of readings, this hyper-accurate weather station grid PROVED that there has been NO warming.. In fact, this hyper-accurate grid showed a cooling trend..

    So, please.. Don't bother with that consensus bullshit.

    Science is NOT based on consensus.. Science is NOT a popularity contest...

    If the FACTS disprove the theory (as has been the case for 20 years) then the theory must change to fit the data..

    Global Warming fanatics insist on changing the data to fit the theory..

    That ain't Science.. That's a con...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Did you WANT to talk about the weather?? Or were you just making chit-chat??"
    -Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

    :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have reason to worry after the last presidential debate
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/466188-democrats-have-reason-to-worry-after-the-last-presidential-debate

    Of course, you can't tell that to many of the Weigantians here..

    To them, things are all roses and candy..

    The actual VERY REAL POSSIBILITY that Democrats will lose (as the majority of Weigantians who express an opinion have stated) is totally alien and foreign to those Democrats here..

    It is my hope that they and the rest of their Democrat brethren stay completely ignorant until election day...

    :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats want to beat President Trump in 2020 and return a sense of normalcy to the White House, they may want to make sure that the current front runners are up to the job at hand. Winning a primary is one thing, but winning a general election is a completely different beast. When the top three candidates are a self avowed socialist, a former vice president mired in scandal, and a quasi populist at war with Wall Street, it is fair to say that there is room for concern. Luckily, it is still early.

    Elizabeth Warren could potentially be the best candidate and the worst candidate to take on Trump in the general election all at once. She is clearly thoughtful, extremely smart, and prepared to lean into the historic moment that her candidacy presents, but like Hillary Clinton, she has yet to find her voice or ability to create a likeable narrative that will drive apathetic Democrats to the polls on Election Day.

    The party cannot afford another nominee like Michael Dukakis in 1988 or John Kerry in 2004. Democrats do not need to prove that they are smarter than Republicans or occupy some moral high ground. Democrats need to prove that they are listening to voters, that they share their pain, and that they will fight like hell to improve the lives of all Americans.

    The problem for Democrats if they have never shown an INKLING of care as to what voters say..

    Democrats tell voters how they SHOULD feel.. Democrats TELL voters what they SHOULD think...

    Democrats actually LISTENING to voters???

    Ain't never gonna happen..

    Because Democrats are so locked into their delusion of how the world is, they don't want to hear about ANYTHING that disputes their world-view...

    We see that here in Weigantia all the time..

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Also, what reforms will you sponsor to reduce the impact of big money in government?"
    "DH is that you???"

    No.

    If you have been paying attention and comprehending what I post you wouldn't ask that question.

    At the risk of being repetitive, you can't get the big money out of politics with reform.

    Reform requires legislation. The big money legislators will not pass legislation to get the big money out of politics. The only way to pass legislation to get the big money out of politics is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.

    The problem has to be solved BEFORE legislation can be passed to solve the problem.

    My question would be "What action are you taking now to get the big money out of politics instead of promising reform at some point in the future through legislation that big money legislators will never pass?"

    And I would ask the politicians that say climate change is an emergency that we must address now why they are not taking the first in addressing climate change by addressing and taking action now on the main reason we cannot address climate change- big money controlling our political process?

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    I don't suppose your no repeat rule would apply to anyone that keeps repeating the lie that the Democrats and Republicans are opposition parties instead of the reality that they are just putting on a good cop/bad cop show for the rubes?

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have been paying attention and comprehending what I post you wouldn't ask that question.

    Neither of which are my strong points. :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe the rule should be that questions/issues that have been repetitively asked/raised without getting a real answer should be answered by those ignoring the questions/issues with real answers that are not dodges that do not address the questions/issues but instead change the questions/issues to fit the argument you want to make instead of actually addressing the issues/questions.

    Of course, this does not really require a rule.

    It could be done just because it is the right thing to do.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians and the media actually did things just because it is the right thing to do?

    It would be so much better than Blather, Rinse, Repeat.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (17)-
    Heh. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems who praised Obama for troop withdrawal now highly critical of Trump
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-who-praised-obama-for-troop-withdrawal-now-highly-critical-of-trump

    It's as I said..

    Democrats praise Odumbo's pre-mature pullout of Iraq..

    But Democrats are PRO-WAR when it's President Trump who is the Commander In Chief...

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The White House just announced next year’s G-7 Conference to be held at Trump’s failing Miami resort...it’s starting to become clear that some part of Trump is actually begging to be removed from office!

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The White House just announced next year’s G-7 Conference to be held at Trump’s failing Miami resort...it’s starting to become clear that some part of Trump is actually begging to be removed from office!

    Says the guys who wanted to impeach President Trump since BEFORE he even took office.

    Ya'all never even gave President Trump a chance..

    You just fanned the flames of your hit and bigotry.. :eyeroll:

    #sad

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOOKERS, STRIPPERS AND CRACK
    Hunter Biden's questionable past and business dealings could undo dad's bid for White House

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-profile-piece

    Yea... Hunter Biden never did ANYTHING wrong.. :eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re Hunter Biden's lucrative foreign deals. Clearly, that's a case of using political connections for personal gain.

    But as I've previously noted on this forum, it's given that the reason people of modest means seek political influence is that it is the easiest way to achieve material wealth.

    Why the hell is everybody surprised/upset to re-discover that ancient truth? Are all you Democratics suffering from terminal naivete along with your economic ignorance?

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,
    my contention is that neither seeking political dirt nor making deals with foreign entities is that unusual or abhorrent on its own. what makes donald's recent behavior different is the combination - doing both at the same time. even if nobody else does, i'd at least expect you to understand the analogy of domestic mudslinging and deals with foreign entities as the bleach and ammonia of politics.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    my contention is that neither seeking political dirt nor making deals with foreign entities is that unusual or abhorrent on its own. what makes donald's recent behavior different is the combination - doing both at the same time.

    Oh puullleeeessseeee...

    They are BOTH bad and you know it. Yer just tap dancing because you want to call a spade a spade when it comes to President Trump and you want to avoid the mean terminology when it comes to Biden...

    By trying to deny that there is a double standard (which there obviously is) you sink further into the muck..

    Either one is OK but doing BOTH is bad??? :eyeroll:

    Com'on, JL!!

    That's just tap dancing and WEAK tap dancing to boot..

    Yer simply tailoring your outrage to fit the facts....

    Biden and Hillary and Trump are all "guilty" of doing the same things...

    Ya'all here (NEN) are find with Democrats who do it and don't like it when President Trump does it..

    That's the beginning and end of the facts in this case..

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yea... Hunter Biden never did ANYTHING wrong..

    No one said that Hunter never did anything wrong. He's human, just like the rest of us. We said he never did anything wrong in Ukraine, and that's it.

    Compared to the Trump kids, of course, he's been a perfect angel.

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    The problem has to be solved BEFORE legislation can be passed to solve the problem.

    Once the problem is solved, why would we need legislation that addresses it at all?

    But then again, you think that millions of people will be thrilled to sign up with your organization promising to only support politicians that are on board with OneDemand...even though they are not told up front that not only are there no politicians currently on board, but that you aren’t looking to recruit politicians — you think that they will come to you once you have signed up the 20 million potential voters needed to make your plan work!

    Nor have you explained why people should/would pledge to support only candidates that meet your one criteria! Neo-Nazi’s could be the only group to agree to your OneDemand, and you think they deserve to be elected over a candidate that accepts large donations. This is why no candidate should ever run on just ONE issue... there is a strong chance that once you get past the one area that you agree on, you discover that they are horrible people who never should have been elected!

    Thank God CW is preventing OneDemand from ever taking off!

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22

    as the bleach and ammonia of politics.

    Trump’s version is the” bleach and ammonia in a windowless supply closet with the door closed” of politics!

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mulvaney: Okay, it was a Quid Pro Quo

    The acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admitted on Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld foreign aid in order to get Ukraine’s help in the U.S. election.

    “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded when a reporter pointed out that withholding funding from Ukraine “unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens” is a “quid pro quo.”

    “Get over it,” he added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mick-mulvaney-acknowledges-quid-pro-quo_n_5da8a1ffe4b0b24e75deeec6

    Well, that settles that.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one said that Hunter never did anything wrong. He's human, just like the rest of us. We said he never did anything wrong in Ukraine, and that's it.

    Yea?? Then why did Hunter and Joe promise to never do it again??

    If it wasn't wrong, then there should be no reason to promise not to do it, right??

    Well, that settles that.

    It's cute that you think HuffPoop settles ANYTHING... :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Compared to the Trump kids, of course, he's been a perfect angel.

    Glad to see you didn't leave your hate and bigotry at your (no)class reunion.. :^/

  33. [33] 
    dsws wrote:

    }}We can affect the climate.

    Simply not factually accurate... There are a multitude of examples where the climate changed and humans didn't even exist on the planet..

    This is the kind of bullshit anti-logic that I normally ignore. "We can affect the climate" does not imply, does not even suggest, that we're the only thing that has ever affected the climate. Of course lots of other stuff can also affect the climate, duh. If we can affect the climate*, we're one such influence among many. You know that. Everyone knows that. So your reply is disingenuous, and not worth responding to.

    If you ever wondered why I don't reply to so many of your replies to my posts, that's a very common reason.

    *There's no real doubt that we can affect the climate, same as anything else does that changes the albedo of large areas of land, or the transpiration rate of vegetation over large areas of land, or the atmospheric concentration of gases with more than two atoms per molecule. Physics doesn't magically get suspended when a difference is caused by human activity. No one honestly believes that it does. However, addressing the anti-logic of the talking point requires acknowledging the logical possibility that we might be living in a world that runs on divine command or whatever instead of on physics.

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Says the guys who wanted to impeach President Trump since BEFORE he even took office.

    Yeah, I did not think a compromised Russian asset that bragged about sexually assaulting women, ran a fake “university” that was a scam to rip off those that signed up, had his businesses file for bankruptcy 7 times, that could not pass the lowest level of background checks, that lied about the over 110 contacts his campaign had with Russians, that loved when the media reported he had pledged to donate large sums of money to charity but did not love honoring that pledge (typically donating a small fraction of what he had originally promised if he gave anything at all), that lied about not having any business deals with Russia while he was campaigning, who promised that he would release his tax returns if he was elected but did not, and who’s son told reporters that the majority of their funding was from Russia years before he decided to run should be the President.

    You, for some reason, think that those qualities are admirable.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the kind of bullshit anti-logic that I normally ignore. "We can affect the climate" does not imply, does not even suggest, that we're the only thing that has ever affected the climate. Of course lots of other stuff can also affect the climate, duh. If we can affect the climate*, we're one such influence among many. You know that. Everyone knows that. So your reply is disingenuous, and not worth responding to.

    And yet, it struck a nerve so much that you DID respond to it..

    What you are implying is that humans can control climate.. We have made the CLIMATE hotter and, even though it's mostly a GOOD thing, political yahoos got it up their ass to create an entire cottage industry around STOPPING climate change and made tons of money doing so...

    But the kind of control you envision does not exist..

    And there is PLENTY of empiracle evidence that we don't know enough to go fritzin' around with the planet's climate...

    What if scientists during the big GLOBAL COOLING panic of the 70s hit on a way to make the planet HOTTER and save us from GLOBAL COOLING..

    What kind of predicament would we be in right now??

    History is replete with examples whereas ECONOMIC FACTORS drove "science"...

    "Science" said that smoking was good for humans..

    We know that was ECONOMIC "science" designed to push a product..

    This global warming bullshit is simply more of the same..

    How do we know??

    Because the biggest proponents of it DON'T BELIEVE it enough to alter their lifestyle..

    Do you still move around in combustion engines?? DO you still use plastics and other items that require fossil fuels and pushing carbon into the atmosphere??

    Of course you do..

    If Global Warming was TRULY the catastrophe, the planet ending pandemic that Global Warming nuts claim it is..

    Why are they still flying around in their private jets and buzzing around huge mega-opolis cities in their SUVs???

    If it's such an emergency, why are you still using a device that is responsible for putting TONS of carbon into the air???

    You continue your lifestyle because you know deep down inside that it's a bunch of hoooey...

    When Global Warming proponents start ACTING like there is a real emergency instead of preaching to others to tighten THEIR belts while they continue the dump TRILLIONS of tons of carbon into the air..

    Whey THEY start acting like it's a real emergency...

    Then I'll consider their "science"...

    But right now, it's CLEAR from the FACTS and the REAL science, that it's one big con..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    And on THAT note, my friends.. My wonderful wonderful friends.. I bid ya a fond adieu.. :D

    It's poker night.. :D

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "Science" said that smoking was good for humans..

    Only if you got your science for the Tobacco Institute of America! They also loved to point out it would be stupid for them to sell a product that could kill the people they count on to buy their product.

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,
    the smoking example demonstrates the trouble with "simple" logic. unqualified logical operations applied to complex systems tend to ignore any data external to the system.

Comments for this article are closed.