ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- On The Brink

[ Posted Friday, January 3rd, 2020 – 18:23 UTC ]

As we sit down to write this, America is on the brink... of a lot of things, all at once. Largest among these: we are now on the brink of another war in the Middle East, this time with Iran. We could also be on the brink of a North Korean nuclear test or I.C.B.M. launch, which would probably signal a disastrous end to the Trump diplomatic bromance with Kim Jong Un. We're on the brink of a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate -- only the third one in our entire history. We're on the brink of a presidential primary season. And we're on the brink of a new political decade. All are pretty momentous, meaning that 2020 could turn out to be even more chaotic than the three years which preceded it. There's a scary (or just plain exhausting) thought, indeed.

Yesterday, the Trump administration essentially assassinated a foreign country's military leader while he was visiting Iraq. This is not to say he didn't deserve such a fate, but let's at least call it what it is when we discuss it. If the shoe were on the other foot, this would be akin to Iran using a suicide bomber to take out one of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff while he was on foreign soil. It's that serious, and we should definitely not forget that when we analyze how Iran is likely to react, both internally and externally. How would we react if a Pentagon bigwig were blatantly taken out by a foreign country? The answer to that is quite likely: "not in a very restrained manner," when you think about it. It is an act of war, plain and simple -- and not against a leader of a stateless organization (like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State), but against a high-ranking military official of a rather large and powerful country. Now, there have been provocations by Iran which have led up to this point, to be sure -- attacks on oil tankers, on a Saudi refinery, and in both Syria and Iraq against various groups (including U.S. soldiers). Iran does not have clean hands, and the man assassinated certainly had the blood of American soldiers on his own hands. So it's not like Trump decided to take out the defense minister of some random neutral country or anything -- this wasn't some unprovoked attack by any stretch of the imagination.

Still, as with all things Trump, one has to wonder exactly what is going to happen next. Is there even a plan? Are there even projections? Does anyone at the Pentagon or the C.I.A. or in the White House really know what our ultimate objective really is, at this point? Are there a few contingency plans lying around for what could happen next? It'd be nice to hear some answers to those questions, to reassure America that Trump didn't just decide to do this in some hissy fit with no regard for the consequences.

Of course, Trump being Trump, "there's a tweet for that." Back when he was a private citizen with the hobby of trolling the sitting president, Trump sent out quite a few tweets warning that Barack Obama was likely to start up a war with Iran because his poll numbers weren't high enough, and he thought it would help him get re-elected. Sound familiar?

Open hostilities between us and Iran was always a possible outcome, one exacerbated by Trump unilaterally deciding to pull out of the nuclear agreement with Iran. And Iran has been provoking us for quite some time now, almost daring us to react. But it all became a lot more real when Trump saw video on television of people besieging an American embassy, which is obviously not the sort of thing he'd like to see, heading into an election year.

Kim Jong Un also appears ready to make a splash on the world stage, perhaps literally (by a missile test which ends somewhere in the ocean). Trump's superficial friendship with the North Korean dictator has now proven to be a complete failure. Nothing was achieved unless you count "elevating Kim Jong Un's international stature." Trump always approached Kim as a real estate huckster, trying to sell him on the idea that North Korea could cash in in a big way by developing its real estate and raking in foreign money, in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons. This was doomed to failure, of course, probably because Trump has never really quite grasped that it doesn't require building a bunch of shorefront casinos to get your name plastered on every single building in a totalitarian quasi-theocracy that already revolves completely around the worship of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and now Kim Jong Un. Trump's misread on this basic fact had been leading the nominations for "Trump's biggest foreign policy blunder," at least until this weekend. The only question we have about North Korea, at this point, is whether Kim will start nuclear and/or I.C.B.M. tests right away -- to piggyback on what is going on with Iran -- or whether he will wait a bit until he can be assured of dominating the world's headlines by himself.

Meanwhile, Congress is locked in a squabble over the next step in the impeachment of Donald Trump. For now, Nancy Pelosi is calling the tune, refusing to hand over the articles of impeachment until Mitch McConnell comes to an agreement with Chuck Schumer on the trial procedures the Senate will use to try the president. Sooner or later (our guess is "sooner") this dam will burst, though, and no matter what parliamentary compromise is or is not reached, the trial will go forward. We'll have weeks of this trial, after which the Senate will vote and Trump will not be removed from office. At some point in here (whether during the trial or immediately afterward), Trump will give his final State Of The Union speech of his first term (or, as the Democrats sincerely hope: "...ever"). So there's that spectacle to look forward to.

In one month, the first voters in Iowa will brave the freezing weather to cast the first votes for the Democratic presidential nominee. Between now and then we'll have one more debate, which will likely only have five (or, at the most, six) candidates on stage. We have now officially reached the point where more Democratic presidential candidates have dropped out of the race than are still running. Julián Castro became the fifteenth candidate to bow out this weekend, which leaves only (!) fourteen still running. Perhaps by the time of the Iowa caucuses we'll be down to single digits. But we wouldn't bet on it, at this point.

Fundraising numbers for the final quarter of 2019 are being announced, and it looks like Bernie Sanders is far out in front of the pack, despite his reliance on small donors. He is setting all kinds of records for a presidential candidate -- he's got over five million donations now, for instance -- and yet the media continues to give him short shrift. For the record, he just raised over $34 million in the past three months. Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren all raised over $20 million as well. Warren's fundraising was down a bit, while Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang saw large increases (while still significantly trailing the frontrunners' numbers).

Some in the media framed the fundraising race unfairly, since they pointed out that Trump raised more than each individual Democrat in the past quarter. True, but Democratic fundraising taken as a whole has actually outpaced the Republican efforts. Which is precisely how the numbers should be compared -- the red team versus the blue team, rather than the red team versus each individual player in blue. Trump is whipping up enthusiasm in his base, it is true, but Democrats are even more enthused about taking him on -- which should be the headline, not: "Trump beats Bernie in fundraising."

The first four primary states will dominate the political headlines in February, as the impeachment drama fades into memory. Then in March comes Super Tuesday, which is really "Super Duper Lollapalooza Tuesday" this year, due to all the huge states which have moved to the front of the line in the calendar. This is where Michael Bloomberg's "ignore the first four states and spend a boatload of money everywhere else" strategy will either launch him into the running or fizzle miserably.

By June, hopefully we'll have a Democratic nominee, although with multiple strong candidates running there's always the outside chance that Democrats will head to their convention without a clear winner. June may also shake up the entire presidential race in seismic fashion, as the Supreme Court will be handing down some key rulings which could instantly become central subjects in the presidential race. The focus of politics can change quickly, as evidenced by the fact that a few weeks ago, not many people was asking any of the Democrats what their policy towards Iran would be. But now, and for the foreseeable future, it'll be one of the first things asked. Remember, the political media focus can change on a dime.

All summer long, the general election will rage. Running against Trump is going to be tough (just ask all those Republicans he beat, back in 2016), and the campaign may be more brutal than anyone alive has ever seen. Trump will stop at nothing to remain president, and we will all have to learn exactly what that means in the months leading up to the election. There may be multiple "October surprises," as well as a few "September surprises," and at least a handful of "August surprises" and "July surprises" to boot. It's going to be a wild ride, that's the only thing anyone can say for certain at this point.

Eventually, we will get to Election Day, though. Either Trump is re-elected and Democrats spiral down into despondency, or Trump is beaten and there is dancing in the streets once again. Even assuming the latter, however, doesn't mean the year will end well for Democrats. The phrase that currently causes the most fear to us personally is: "lame-duck Trump." What will Trump do if he loses the election? He will have almost three full months to do anything he wishes (and that he thinks he can get away with), with the full power of the federal government still under his nominal control. If you think Trump is unhinged now, just imagine what he'll be like after losing. It's enough to strike fear into the most optimistic Democratic heart, that's for sure.

The election may have a huge silver lining, though, if a big blue wave develops. If Democrats do well enough, they won't only chuck Trump out of the White House, they may also flip enough key state legislature seats and governorships to guarantee a much-more-level playing field for the next ten years of American politics. Gaining some degree of control (even if it is just one chamber of the statehouse) will prevent the worst Republican gerrymandering excesses after the 2020 Census is complete and the states redistrict their House seats. Democrats absolutely got wiped out after the 2010 Tea Party elections, and a lot of attention (and money) is being paid at the state level to ensure that this does not happen again next time around. Democrats winning big at the top of the ballot may bring a whole bunch of good news further down the ballot as well. One can hope, at any rate.

As 2020 begins, America is indeed on the brink of many momentous happenings. The most important, obviously, is whether we're going to be in an open war with Iran. So far, the recent wars we've fought in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.) have been against rather limited adversaries. Iran is an order of magnitude bigger than all of these, however, meaning a declared shooting war with them is going to be a lot tougher slog than anything we've seen previously. Everything else we're on the brink of kind of pales in comparison to it, in fact. In the coming weeks we'll know more about how far this is going to escalate, but for the moment we remain on the brink of it all.

Welcome to 2020, in other words.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 555 (1/3/20)

Since we're taking a longer view this week (rather than attempting to review the past three weeks of politics), we decided not to hand out our weekly awards at all. So we'll have to wait until next Friday to ponder who was the most impressive and most disappointing Democrats of late.

Instead, we've got a special talking points section this week. Oh, before we begin, we thought we should point people to yet another in a long line of anti-Trump statements from staunch Republicans (which has become almost a weekly feature here). This one is from Florida, from a guy who was a mover and shaker in Republican politics before the dawn of the Trumpian era. Now he is quite plainly disgusted with where his party has gone, and he is not shy about putting his feelings into words. It's a pretty good read (although it does get down into the weeds of local Florida politics a bit in the middle), so we wanted to provide the link, in case anyone's interested in reading that sort of thing.

We had to mention this up front, because we put together our actual talking points with one idea in mind: create some talking points that every Democrat running for president can use in 2020. Unlike the Democratic presidential debates, we are much more concerned with what ties all Democrats together rather than the wedge issues which divide Democratic factions. Sooner or later, we're all going to have to get behind the party's presidential nominee, and these are the talking points that any of them should be able to use, either before or after that happens.

Democrats have to provide a clear vision -- one might call it a "2020 vision" if one were in the habit of crafting talking points and campaign slogans, in fact (hint, hint) -- of how things would be different under their leadership versus what we are all experiencing now. How would they be different than Trump? How would all of them be different?

These are the things that the eventual party nominee is going to be running on in the general election, in other words, no matter who he or she is. These are the stark differences between any of them and Donald J. Trump. These are the slogans that need to be deployed to make the case as easy to understand as possible. There are plenty of others we could have included as well, too -- this is just a sample representation. Call it: "What We'd Tell The Democratic Nominee To Run On."

 

1
   The Oval Office is not a schoolyard, and I am not a bully

A few of these have to do with personality, plain and simple. Because even many Republican voters can't quite bring themselves to defend the worst of Trump's behavior. Remind everyone of this, in no uncertain terms.

"If I am elected president, I will solemnly promise never to use Twitter to bully others in any way, shape or form. I will restore the dignity that the office of the president deserves -- or deserved, at any rate, until January of 2017. I will never call people names on Twitter. I will never be a bully on Twitter, against my political opponents or against anyone else, period. I can make political points in other, more dignified ways. The Oval Office should not be some schoolyard or playground where Nelson Muntz is the loudest voice of all. People will not fear hearing what their president has to say, or to tweet. I vow to never stoop to the disgusting and disgraceful tactics of Donald Trump while I am president, because I think America is tired of all of that. And that we're better than that, as well."

 

2
   I will listen to those who know

Another key difference worth pointing out.

"If I am elected president, I promise that I will listen to people who know more about things than I do. I will actually read briefing papers, and I will not demand that these briefing books be a single page with lots of maps and graphics. I do not get bored that easily, and my attention span is long enough to read multiple pages on important subjects. My ego is not too big to realize that scientists and generals and other experts know a lot more than I do on all sorts of subjects, and I will be eager to listen to their advice rather than tune it out while contemplating my golf swing. When such people tell me things are accepted fact, I will not instead believe some conspiracy theory I heard on the internet. I will look at data. I will absorb new facts. I will listen to those who know. And my solemn promise is that I will never, ever decide to pick up a big black marker and change a weather map just because I am so insecure that I can't admit I made a stupid mistake in a tweet."

 

3
   More people covered, not fewer

Put aside all the hairsplitting and remind everyone what the fight is really all about, and which side believes what.

"If I am president, I will fight hard to make sure that more Americans are covered by health insurance, not fewer. I have my own ideas about how to make this happen, but I will be willing to listen to any plan that comes out of Congress that achieves the goal of more-universal coverage, no matter who proposes it. Make no mistake about it, Republicans -- led by Donald Trump -- have wasted an entire decade fighting Obamacare solely because Obama's name is on it. They have thus put themselves on the side of fighting endlessly to deny millions of people coverage. They have repeatedly put themselves on the side of the insurance companies rather than those with pre-existing conditions. They want you to have fewer choices for health insurance, period. Democrats want the opposite. We want to make the attempt to cover every man, woman, and child in this country. We think our nation will be healthier as a country if our people don't have to worry about going bankrupt when they get sick. We believe that everyone should have health insurance, and Republicans just don't. That is the choice you will be making this November, no matter how they try to obfuscate this central truth."

 

4
   Make it easier to vote, not harder

This one's about fairness, which always polls sky-high with the American public.

"If I am elected, I pledge to work to make it easier for all Americans to cast a ballot. Democrats want to make it easier for people to vote, while Republicans want to make it harder. There's a reason for this, and it's an ugly one. The GOP wants certain voters to have so many hurdles that they just give up and don't bother voting. They think this gives them a partisan edge. They cite non-existent 'voter fraud' as the reason behind doing so, but voter fraud simply does not exist except as a tiny -- miniscule, even -- portion of all votes cast. They use this excuse to end early voting, to end weekend voting, to move polling places off university campuses, to allow identification like hunting licenses but not student ID cards, to purge voter polls of voters in districts that don't vote for them, and when all that fails to just throw a bunch of ballots into a swamp -- as happened recently in North Carolina. Democrats believe that voting is a basic right in our democracy, and we will fight hard to make sure that every eligible voter is allowed to vote in as easy a manner possible. We want to end hours-long waits at the polling places. We want to allow people to mail in their ballots and cast early votes on weekends, so that people who can't take time off from work can still have their voices heard. Quite simply, we want to make it easier for you to vote. Republicans want to make it as hard as possible -- especially if you're inclined to vote for us. We consider that to be un-American, because we believe in fairness and we believe in the right of every American to cast a ballot, period."

 

5
   Tax the rich

This used to be considered political poison, but the polls show (over and over and over again) that overwhelming majorities -- even of Republican voters -- strongly support the idea.

"If I am elected president, the rich are going to have to suck it up and pay their fair share of taxes. The free ride for billionaires and Wall Street is going to end, folks. Time after time, Republicans have told us that showering tax goodies on the wealthiest among us is somehow going to make everyone's lives better. We don't believe that, because it has proven to have failed each and every time they have tried it. We have a more complex tax policy than just 'give your boss more money,' and we're going to implement it to roll back the enormous tax breaks passed under Donald Trump for the millionaires and billionaires. We think it's more important to allow middle-class families to write off charitable donations than it is to give the wealthiest unlimited writeoffs. We think corporations ought to pay a minimum tax rate no matter how many writeoffs they conjure up to hide their enormous profits. When Republicans weep and wail about deficits and the national debt, they never seem to mention the fact that we wouldn't be in nearly as deep a hole if they hadn't given the tax revenues away to the people who least needed such breaks. Donald Trump promised that if he were elected president his own taxes would go up. That was nothing short of a gigantic lie. He and people like him got millions of dollars worth of tax breaks. We think that's the wrong way to do it. We think the richest should start paying more taxes, period. And you know what? Over seven in ten Americans agree with us."

 

6
   Uphold law and order, not break it

This one is an easy lay-up, and it strikes right to the heart of the enormous hypocrisy currently within the Republican Party on the issue.

"If I am elected president, I solemnly swear that the Justice Department will be absolutely independent and non-political. I will end the use of the Justice Department as a partisan meat-axe. I will appoint an independent attorney general, and then I will not petulantly tell him to go after my political enemies. Republicans -- before Trump took over -- used to pride themselves on being the party of 'law and order,' but it's impossible for them to now make that claim with a straight face. Ever since Trump hijacked their party, they have gone along with all his lawbreaking and lawbending behavior without a solitary peep. They have looked the other way while Trump has set dangerous precedents for what the president of the United States should be allowed to get away with. I will restore honor and dignity to the office that Trump has dragged through the mud. And the first thing I will do to ensure that is to depoliticize the Justice Department and tell them to work to uphold law and order for all, instead of finding excuses for why law and order doesn't apply to me personally."

 

7
   Can you really take four more years?

This really needs to be the heart of the Democratic argument, because it works so well for undecided voters who may not hate Trump but also may not approve of everything he does. So make the case on that level alone.

"What this entire election boils down to is this: When you go into the voting booth, are you really going to vote for four more years of this?!? Do you really want another four years of waking up in the morning dreading to hear what the president tweeted in the wee hours? Do you long for the days when a sitting president refused to pick fights and bully private citizens for no reason? Do you remember what the word 'presidential' used to mean in this country? We can return to that, and I can lead the way. Have you had enough of presidential petulance? Would you really rather not see another tantrum from the Oval Office? Do you want to go back to the days when a president refused to call his opponents names that are both juvenile and downright vile? I challenge everyone to go back and take a look at some video of either Barack Obama or George W. Bush speaking. Remember when presidents correctly used the English language for entire sentences at a time? Remember when you could hear a president speak without expecting to cringe at any moment? That's what I can promise you. I will vow to restore dignity and basic humanity to the office of the presidency. I don't know about you folks, but I'd really like to get back to some semblance of normal. Does anyone really look forward to four more years of what we've all endured for the last three? That's your choice. Four more years of this, or four years when you can once again hold up your head and proudly tell your children that they should act like the president of the United States. That's the choice you have to make, plain and simple."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

144 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- On The Brink”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I guess we're going to have to come up with a name for the 2020's and roaring has already been taken, so ...

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I guess that apostrophe wasn't really necessary, was it?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    An addition to TP#2:

    And, I'll never stop learning.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re. TP 4

    There is much to be said for everybody to have an equal say in how the things we do in common, and how the things that affect everybody equally should function.

    It's far less clear why it's a good thing or a fair thing for everybody to have equal say in how we spend the money that we do not earn equally. For instance, why should people who own no property have an equal say in how we collect and spend property tax?

  5. [5] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re TP 5

    Dems/Libs invariably characterize the reluctance of the rich to pay more taxes as "greed".

    What ought to be the word that describes the desire of the poor to be supported by the fruits of the sweat of other peoples' brows?

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Still, as with all things Trump, one has to wonder exactly what is going to happen next. Is there even a plan? Are there even projections? Does anyone at the Pentagon or the C.I.A. or in the White House really know what our ultimate objective really is, at this point?

    I’m guessing Putin and Russia might know the game plan. If you ask yourself, “What can Trump do that would benefit Russia the most in this scenario?”, you are most likely on the right track!

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Thank you for the link to the Mac Stipanovich interview. I found it incredibly fascinating and, as a former Republican who now is so disgusted by what the GOP has become, it was kind of nice to know that I am not alone in the frustration that I feel. Stipanovich is a true “conservative”...and sadly a dying breed.

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    For instance, why should people who own no property have an equal say in how we collect and spend property tax?

    The same reason we don’t let the inmates run the prison! Trusting people to do the right thing when they are given absolute power has never ended well for society as a whole.

  9. [9] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    Sorry that is not a legitimate equivalence.

  10. [10] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Vocab notes:

    3. Obfuscate
    4. Miniscule (sp.: Minuscule)
    5. Writeoffs
    6. Petulantly (also 7)
    6. Depoliticize
    7. Semblance

    If you are writing talking points for the American people, remember that not everyone went to college and not everyone knows the big words.

    I speak as a well-educated high school teacher who fights the vocab wars every day. People don't know words. Trump may be a moron, but one advantage he has is that his second-grade vocabulary scores a home run with very, very many people who hate that they don't really understand what most politicians are saying.

  11. [11] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] C. R. Stucki

    "It's far less clear why it's a good thing or a fair thing for everybody to have equal say in how we spend the money that we do not earn equally. For instance, why should people who own no property have an equal say in how we collect and spend property tax?"

    Because this is a democracy, where everybody is supposed to have an equal vote regardless of how much wealth they have.

    Otherwise, when you start putting in qualifications, where does it stop? You don't have a democracy anymore.

    Why do people who have no children, have to pay to educate other people's children? Or have a say in how school funds are spent?

    Why do only American citizens get a say in how sales tax revenues are spent, when illegal immigrants who do pay sales taxes do not get a say in how it is spent?

    You do understand where this ultimately is going and what kind of cans of worms you are opening right?

    "why it's a good thing or a fair thing for everybody to have equal say in how we spend the money that we do not earn equally."

    You do understand this kind of thinking is what leads to monarchies, revolutions like the French and Russian revolutions, and the worst abuses of 18th and 19th century England like poor houses, debtor prisons, a strict class structure that Americans rebelled against and the like?

  12. [12] 
    John M wrote:

    [5] C. R. Stucki

    "What ought to be the word that describes the desire of the poor to be supported by the fruits of the sweat of other peoples' brows?"

    Why not try out a few of these for size:

    1) humanity 2) compassion 3) Christian charity

    4) or my personal favorite: being Christ like

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    [9] C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "Listen

    Sorry that is not a legitimate equivalence."

    Actually it is a very legitimate comparison. You just don't like having to consider the implications is all.

  14. [14] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, another good introduction, to start 2020 on the right foot.

    In particular, I applaud your highlighting these points:
    'True, but Democratic fundraising taken as a whole has actually outpaced the Republican efforts.'

    '...if a big blue wave develops. If Democrats do well enough, they won't only chuck Trump out of the White House, they may also flip enough key state legislature seats and governorships to guarantee a much-more-level playing field for the next ten years of American politics.'

  15. [15] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    As for the Talking Points, I am disappointed that you omit any mention of climate change. We can expect news stories throughout 2020 of more record flooding, record-breaking high temps, etc. Trump's backward-looking, environmentally-destructive policies - not least of which is the withdrawal from the Paris accord - are indefensible and threaten our future, regardless of political persuasion. Republicans have surrendered all ground on global warming and Democrats must exploit this.

  16. [16] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    And finally, these talking points are all well and good for policy papers and campaign platforms. But Democrats must learn the lessons of recent history, one domestic and one foreign.
    * Hillary Clinton issued rafts of policy statements throughout the fall of 2016; Trump's 'policy folder' was laughably empty. To many voters, that didn't matter. 'Make America Great Again' was enough for them.
    * Boris Johnson won a stunning majority last month in the United Kingdom. The Labor Party campaigned on 'bread and butter' issues, equivocating on their Brexit stance. Bojo's message was simple and exploited the exhaustion of many UK voters to 3 years of uncertainty: 'Get Brexit Done'.

    The eventual Democratic candidate for President must 'dumb it down': a few catchy slogans and a 'vote the bastard out' message. (Those of us who care about our democracy, and value substance over style, know who we'll be voting for in November.)

  17. [17] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I concur with ListenWhenYouHear that the Florida Republican's interview was valuable.

    This paragraph was especially germane:
    '[During Reagan's Presidency] if you went into the booth and voted Republican, you had a good idea of what you were getting, even if you did not know the candidate. You were getting fiscal discipline. You were getting a strong commitment to a forward-leaning foreign policy. America as the leader of the free world. Free trade. You were getting pro-home rule bias. You were getting personal accountability and you were getting, as you will recall, a shining city on the hill, to which the entire world looked for leadership and to which immigrants, beckoned by that light, were welcomed.'

    Every Democrat, up and down the ballot, must challenge repeatedly his/her Republican opponent to articulate the 'Trump doctrine', that s/he of course supports. Then watch the Republican pause for a long silence and deflect (or lie). Even the Democratic candidate for dogcatcher must hammer home how Trump has debased the Republican Party - and thus every Republican candidate in 2020.

  18. [18] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump lies all the time, and his supporters just sit back and giggle at how mad it makes most people — never calling him out for his dishonesty. Not that they could call him out even if they wanted to — they turn on their own if anyone dares speak ill of the master.

    But because Trump has never been forced to be honest with the American public since his first day in office, we never know if he is being truthful with what he tells us. And even worse, we can never trust him when he says that he is telling the truth. Trump has shown that he has no problem having our government agencies spread disinformation if he think it benefits him, personally.

    Right now, as our country is looking at the possibility of war with Iran over Trump’s decision to have one of their military leaders executed by drones, it would be wonderful if we could have faith that he is telling us the truth for why this execution was necessary at this time. But we cannot trust him — and based on his record with the truth, we should not trust him to act on our nation’s best interest!

  19. [19] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    In 2011, ‘12, and ‘13, Trump repeatedly predicted that Obama would start a war with Iran to shore up his political support at home.

    “In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran,” Trump tweeted in November 2011.

    Days before that tweet, Trump posted a video in which he claimed that “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected — and as sure as you’re sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”

    Trump tweeted days before the 2012 election:
    “Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!”

    Even after Obama won re-election, Trump tweeted that he thought Obama would still attack Iran, but for a different reason:

    “I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!”

    https://www.vox.com/2020/1/3/21048155/trump-obama-war-iran-tweets

    Well, the Projectionist-&-Chief sure seems to believe that starting a war with Iran would be a smart strategy for someone wanting to be re-elected!

    The scariest of these tweets has to be the one from after Obama was already re-elected. It’s bad enough that he’s OK with starting a war to get re-elected, but he then Trump admits that he has no problem with starting a war in order to “save face!” Our snowflake President is going to get a lot of people killed unless he is removed from office!

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    How about the Whoring Twenties?

    After all, both parties whore themselves out to the big money interests.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the talking points, Democrats can say those things but most of it won't be true.

    And if you are going to give advice to others (let's make to others "tothers" so it can make next years banned word list), then you should also follow that advice yourself.

    And you should start with talking point two- "I will listen to those who know."

    BERNIE SANDERS IS NOT RUNNING A SMALL DONOR CAMPAIGN.

    How many of his donors are really small donors?

    When he first started his campaign after about a month of fundraising you reported on the percentage of his donors (around 87%) were small donors but haven't mentioned it since.

    What is that percentage now and how much of his money has come from small donors and how much has come from multiple small donations from large donors now?

    What difference does it make if Sanders gets thousands from a donor in many small contributions and Biden gets the same amount of money from a donor in one contribution?

    It's time for you to provide an example for the Democrats on how to follow up and make a claim to listen to those who know by finally showing you are capable of not being so insecure that you can admit your mistake of perpetuating the small contribution campaign disguised as a small donor campaign lie.

    And listen to someone that knows the solution to a failing democracy is more democracy and let citizens know there is a way to achieve it using One Demand which is simply utilizing how democracy is designed to work.

    Get REAL.

    As for the question "How would all of them be different?" - Trump plays for the Globetrotters and the Dems play for the Washingnton Generals.

    Once you get started on the first step, that good cop/bad cop show for the rubes would be a good place to go next.

  22. [22] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [12]

    Your response suggests reading comprehension problems. Think about what you said. Those are the words that "Christians" might hope the 'brow sweaters' (producers) would apply to THEMSELVES.

    I asked for the word(s) that you might apply to the folks who wish to consume the productivity of the 'brow-sweaters.

    I seriously doubt that Christ EVER expressed the desire to be supported by the efforts of OTHER Jewish carpenters!!

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it makes my brow sweat just thinking of all the hard work of water skiing off my yacht while my accountant and stock broker watch the market trends.

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I seriously doubt that Christ EVER expressed the desire to be supported by the efforts of OTHER Jewish carpenters!!

    Wow! Are you going to be disappointed by what you are about to learn! Jesus and His disciples lived off of the kindness and generosity of others. Jesus HAD been a carpenter, but left that career once He began ministering full time. He wasn’t healing the sick in between building vomitoriums for Roman Senators. Jesus literally lived off of the kindness and generosity that came from the hard work of others!

    But Jesus was not unique in this. Believe it or nor, it used to be the custom for people to welcome those traveling and in need food and shelter and give them a roof over their head and a hot meal.

    Another crazy fact: Jesus, as a carpenter, would likely have constructed crosses for the Romans to crucify criminals on. Jesus was a cross maker.

  25. [25] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What is that percentage now and how much of his money has come from small donors and how much has come from multiple small donations from large donors now?

    You are the one screaming Bernie is a fraud! You’d think that the person making such an accusation would not need others to prove his point for him...but then I realized it was RonDon the Con making the noise; and, sadly, it all made sense.

    Remind the group how many successful campaigns you have managed using your small donor philosophy? Ok, forget whether or not they were successful, how many campaigns have you managed? Worked as a staffer on? Worked as a volunteer?

    Well, personal experience is not always required for success...how many campaigns have successfully used your small donor model to finance their election bid?

    You sure love to point out just how much money One Demand could bring to elections if everyone who could participate DID participate. Only problem is that our country has incredibly low voter turn-out numbers, and the number of those that vote and give money to a campaign is much lower still. You like to tell us how much your group could produce, but you have never explained how you would get that number of people to start voting and donating?

    Your previous answer to this question was that people were not involved only because they do not know it exists...but that is completely untrue! We were all unaware of One Demand prior to learning about it on CW’s site. CW hasn’t done an article on you, but he lets you promote your group any way that you wanted to and as often as you chose to. So CW deserves the credit for allowing you to promote your idea in your own words (you know it better than anyone else) and to recruit followers on here. All of us learned about your ground-breaking political movement thanks to CW granting you a forum to pitch your idea as much as you want to....and still none of us have joined up!

    Quit blaming CW for your failure! He is far more generous to you than you deserve!

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's HILARIOUS to watch a bunch of Left Wingers wallowing in religious dogma and ideology..

    I guess the hate runs so deep with ya'all, your willing to start commenting on religious matters...

    Just another indication of ya'all's hysteria..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Iran retaliated..

    Missiles hit Green Zone and Iraq base housing US troops: security sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/missiles-hit-green-zone-and-iraq-base-housing-us-troops-security-sources/ar-BBYC7Kb

    Put some small bomb crates in an empty lot and tore some shingles off an airport barracks housing US Troops..

    Ooooooooooo Scary... :eyeroll:

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could also be on the brink of a North Korean nuclear test or I.C.B.M. launch, which would probably signal a disastrous end to the Trump diplomatic bromance with Kim Jong Un.

    Yea... THAT prediction has already failed to materialize..

    Yunno, it's funny..

    Ya list all these very very BAD things for this country and the world in general.

    And ya'all are HOPING they will happen.. Ya'all WANT Iran to kill hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of Americans..

    JUST so ya'all can have another shiny to beat President Trump over the head with..

    There is no better indication of how far off the reservation ya'all have gone..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the Talking Points, I am disappointed that you omit any mention of climate change.

    Climate change is a joke...

    Of course the climate is changing.. It's been changing for BILLIONS of years...

    It's gonna continue to change long past the time humans go the way of the dodo...

    Ya'all thinking that humans can actually CONTROL the planet's climate??

    That's nothing but ignorant arrogance..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I am very disappointed..

    How come ya didn't notify me there was a new commentary up..

    I wasted all day in the BANNED WORDS commentary... :^/

    hehehehe

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    How ANYONE who believes it's perfectly acceptable to kill babies right up to the moment of birth can complain about someone else not being christian enough...

    The epitome of SADLY LAUGHABLE hypocrisy...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Daniel Turner: US can withstand Iranian attack on global oil supplies, thanks to Trump energy policies

    If Iran were to attack U.S. warships or other shipping and close the Straits of Hormuz – the passageway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, leading to oil markets around the world – oil shortages and big increases in oil prices would quickly follow around the globe.

    Fortunately, President Trump has aggressively pursued deregulation and other needed policies that have led to big increases in U.S. production of oil and natural gas. This makes us far less vulnerable to Iranian threats to block the Straits of Hormuz than we would be if a Democrat becomes president in 2021, because all the Democratic presidential candidates have called for actions that would sharply reduce U.S. fossil fuel production.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-turner-america-can-withstand-iranian-attack-on-global-oil-supplies-thanks-to-trump-energy-policies

    Thanx to President Trump, Iran can't do squat to our oil supply...

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C.R. Stucki -

    I can see the problem that you're struggling with. You appear to believe that there is a large "job mart" out there that people go to like they go to supermarkets.

    Every job is about the same, so if a Jewish Carpenter, for instance, picks up a good job he's 'taking it away' from some deserving other person.

    But the truth is far far away from that, and the labor situation in this country is much MUCH more complicated than that.

    Are you a college grad, temp worker, or illegal? Your prospects will be different. Grad students are being imported. Government says our labor card is full. Probably good for us if some folks sit it out right now.

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Jesus, as a carpenter, would likely have constructed crosses for the Romans to crucify criminals on. Jesus was a cross maker.

    False! Why would you waste a trained carpenter to nail two blocks of wood together? Don't forget that there were few trained well enough to be called "carpenters", who could command good prices if they traveled enough. Soldiers did the cross making.

    Even in The Last Temptation of Christ, Judas visits him to say, why are you wasting your time on this shit? Translation: even a fiction writer knows when he's testing credibility.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Daniel Turner: US can withstand Iranian attack on global oil supplies, thanks to Trump energy policies

    Yeah, Turner conveniently forgets that the US hit oil independence under Obama, not Trump.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but wasn't it Joseph that was the carpenter?

    I thought Jesus as a child and a few years as an adult around 30 was mentioned in the Bible, but there was nothing mentioned about the years in between.

    Maybe people just assume Jesus was a carpenter because Joseph was a carpenter.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Truth is, Don, that his name is not mentioned anywhere until more than 60 years. For all we know, his real name was Skywalker.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale [30],

    No lo comprendo.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protests planned across US to condemn Trump administration actions in Iraq, Iran
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/04/iraq-iran-tensions-protests-condemn-u-s-actions-middle-east/2807176001/

    Yea... THAT is the way to win over American voters.. :eyeroll:

    I gotta ask..

    Are Democrats **TRYING** to lose big in Nov of 2020??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, Turner conveniently forgets that the US hit oil independence under Obama, not Trump.

    And HOW did the US achieve oil independence unde Odumbo???

    Thanks to fracking and oil exploration & exploitation that Democrats oppose.. Even back then.

    So, oil independence came IN SPITE of Odumbo and the Dumbocrats..

    Not BECAUSE of anything they did...

    So, nope.. Odumbo doesn't get any credit because he and his fellow Dumbos were a HINDRANCE and an OBSTRUCTION to US Oil Independence...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    Sorry, but carpenters were used to build the crosses. I am not sure if you realize how crucifixions worked, but here’s the basics. Crucifixion was a very slow and an extremely painful way to die. Death was typically from drowning. Yes, drowning.

    They would lie you down, arms spread wide. They would next drive a spike through your wrists, between your ulna and radius bones — not through your hands as is often depicted in art. The bones in your hands are far too small to hold your weight and the spike would rip them to pieces and you would fall off the cross.

    Your legs are crossed and your feet are placed on a small pedestal nailed to the bottom of the cross which allows you to stand up. A spike is then driven through your ankles.

    Once you are nailed and secured to the cross, it was lifted up and dropped into a hole that was about 3 feet deep meant to keep you upright. Your ankles are shattered, your arms have spikes rubbing against your bones. Your lungs start to fill with fluid as you hang in agony. To breathe, you have to press your arms against the spikes and push yourself up with your legs. The pain is excruciating. It hurts to allow your body to hang, it hurts to force your body up in order to breathe. When you no longer could force your body to pull itself upright to breathe, you drowned. Death often took days.

    According to the Bible, A Roman guard stuck a spear though Jesus’ rib cage to hasten his death. The spear did not break any ribs, sliding between the ribs, and water seemed to pour out of Jesus’ side. The clear fluid wasn’t water, but it was most likely the fluid that our heart rests in inside our chest cavity. That fluid is needed for the electrical pulse that causes our heart to beat. Without it, our heart no longer works.

    Thus, Jesus died of a broken heart!

    Romans kept amazing accounting records on how they tortured and killed people, including listing needed supplies and the costs for those supplies. Carpenters were hired to build crosses.

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    The earliest documents mentioning Plato that still exist were written hundreds of years after his death. We do not doubt his existence. (Honestly, believing whether Christ actually ever lived is your choice and please don’t take this as me trying to convert you... THAT IS NOT MY INTENTION!!! I just enjoy debating this Christ-stuff with folks as it is one area that I spent years studying. Admit that I am gay and kiss that career goodbye!)

    Face it, 80 years is not too bad for someone who lived 2000 years ago. Not many texts survive that long. Jesus was not a scholar, and the crowd he hung around and would carry on his message and ministry were mainly poorly educated fisherman and tax collectors. That they did not have an immediate record of Jesus’ life following his sudden death is not that surprising, especially when the Romans (at the request of the Pharisees) started cracking down on the early followers of Christ in the years after his death.

    Other than Judas, the disciples of Jesus were all around to offer first person accounts of Jesus’ teachings in person. Ten of them were put to death for preaching the message of Christ. Only John died a natural death, exiled to a small island. It wasn’t until Saul became Paul that there was someone who we can point to in the early church as definitely being educated.

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Ya'all thinking that humans can actually CONTROL the planet's climate??

    That's nothing but ignorant arrogance..

    Let’s see... how many people have made that claim on here....hmmmmmm...carry the three.....a GRAND TOTAL OF ZERO! No one has made the argument that you are accusing us of believing! If you think Climate Change is about controlling the climate, that is on you for never educating yourself on the subjects you love to attack! Can we influence climate change? Damn right we can!

    What I find funny is that it was not all that long ago that Republicans used to choose not to look completely ignorant and uneducated on this subject matter. I remember watching a video in science class of Pres. Bush Sr. speaking about what we needed to do to combat global warming.

    When the GOP decided to simplify things by just opposing everything the Democrats supported, it was because they knew their base would rather fight against Democrats than to work with them. It allowed them to say “Democrats want to destroy our nation” without having to point out the exceptions where we actually were in agreement!

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s see... how many people have made that claim on here....hmmmmmm...carry the three.....a GRAND TOTAL OF ZERO! No one has made the argument that you are accusing us of believing! </I

    As usual, you are factually full of kaa-kaa

    "Man causes climate change"
    -JM

    Can we influence climate change? Damn right we can!

    There are no facts to conclusively prove this.. The models that make the claim have NEVER been accurate.. The predictions that would support the claim have NEVER come to pass..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s see... how many people have made that claim on here....hmmmmmm...carry the three.....a GRAND TOTAL OF ZERO! No one has made the argument that you are accusing us of believing!

    As usual, you are factually full of kaa-kaa

    "Man causes climate change"
    -JM

    Can we influence climate change? Damn right we can!

    There are no facts to conclusively prove this.. The models that make the claim have NEVER been accurate.. The predictions that would support the claim have NEVER come to pass..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the GOP decided to simplify things by just opposing everything the Democrats supported, it was because they knew their base would rather fight against Democrats than to work with them.

    Once again, you accuse the GOP of doing exactly what Democrats have done for the last 3 years..

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    historians believe that jesus was probably from a family that was a little wealthier than most carpenters of the time. perhaps a general contractor for government projects.

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Once again, you are responding to statements that differ from what I actually said.

    Ya'all thinking that humans can actually CONTROL the planet's climate??

    That's nothing but ignorant arrogance..

    Notice the word “CONTROL” in bold....

    I responded to your statement with:

    Let’s see... how many people have made that claim on here....hmmmmmm...carry the three.....a GRAND TOTAL OF ZERO!

    You replied that I was incorrect and I assume you were offering this as your proof:

    As usual, you are factually full of kaa-kaa

    "Man causes climate change"
    -JM

    “Control” and “cause” are two very different things.

    You, as usual, are wrong!

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Control” and “cause” are two very different things.

    Semantics...

    The simple fact is this..

    YOU claim that Humans have caused the climate to warm..

    YOU claim that Humans should take action to to cool the climate..

    THAT is control..

    Humans cannot control the planet's climate.

    You and I BOTH agree on that point.

    So, quit whining and bitching about the changing climate..

    The planet's climate is going to change regardless of what ignorant and arrogant humans (such as yerself) do or say..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop saying Biden is the 'most electable'. Trump will run rings round him

    Did we learn nothing from 2016? Trump is savagely effective at destroying establishment politicians – and Biden would lose

    Supporters of Joe Biden are unlikely to be persuaded by most of the common criticisms. They know he can be rambling and unintelligible. They know his record is unimpressive and that he doesn’t really have “policy proposals”. None of this matters, though, because to them he has the most important quality of all: he can beat Donald Trump. Nothing you can say about the former vice-president’s record, platform or mental state matters next to the argument that he is the best hope Democrats have of getting Trump out of office.

    There’s just one problem: it’s a myth. It is a myth just as it was a myth that Hillary Clinton was a good candidate against Trump. Biden is not, in fact, the pragmatic choice. He would not beat Trump. He would lose. And we must say this over and over again. Forget his flubs. Forget his finger-nibbling. Biden would be crushed by Trump. If you want Trump out of office, don’t support Biden.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/joe-biden-electable-trump-2020-election

    It's sad in a way..

    Joe Biden's legacy will be he was a thrice time luser as a presidential candidate..

    That is what he is going to be remembered as.. :(

    All his previous accomplishments (and there are many) will be forgotten..

    And that's just sad..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    From a previous commentary..

    I'm no great lover of Obama, but the accusation you're making is ludicrous and entirely disconnected from the facts.

    Except that it's not..

    Obama asked Putin (Via Mendedev) for Putin to give Obama space (something of value) so that Obama could win his election..

    In return, Obama promised to be flexible for Putin after he (Obama) won the election..

    That is the FACTUAL account of what happened.

    And that is EXACTLY what ya'all are accusing President Trump of..

    Of course, there are no facts to PROVE it in President Trump's case, which is why it's not one of the charges in democrat's faux impeachment coup..

    answer: even in this unlikeliest of scenarios, putin is being paid nothing to do nothing.

    And, once again, yer wrong..

    Putin was "paid" with flexibility..

    Flexibility in the The Crimea..

    Flexibility with Eastern Europe missile defense shield..

    Now, if you want to make the claim that "No Pay = No Crime" then President Trump didn't do anything wrong because he didn't get any "pay" from Zelensky..

    obama asked for nothing to be done and offered to do nothing in return.

    Simply NOT factually accurate..

    Obama asked for "space" which is, by ya'all's own definition, a thing of value..

    Obama offered "flexibility" after Obama won his election..

    And PAID UP on that promise in The Crimea and the East Europe Missile Defense Shield..

    but... but... but... that's different? of course it's different. one is an offer of nothing for nothing, and couldn't possibly be proven.

    And yet, it IS proven beyond ANY doubt with Obama's hot mic confession...

    the other is an offer of something for something, and is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    And yet, President Trump was not charged with that "crime"...

    And the mealy-mouthed Article Of Impeachment that Pelosi DID pull out of her ass??? She is too afraid to send it to the Senate..

    You can't win here, JL..

    I have all the facts and all of the reality on my side..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Control” and “cause” are two very different things.

    It's as ludicrous to say humans can control the planet's climate as it is to say that humans CAUSED the planet's climate to change..

    Both claims illustrate the utter ignorance and arrogance of the Global Warming fanatics..

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama asked Putin (Via Mendedev) for Putin to give Obama space (something of value) so that Obama could win his election..
    In return, Obama promised to be flexible for Putin after he (Obama) won the election..
    That is the FACTUAL account of what happened.

    That's just ludicrous, which I've pointed out several times before. This time it has an innovation that assumes a quid pro quo, so you're gonna start the year with an unstoppable lie.
    I suppose that now I'm gonna have to dig it all out AGAIN.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just ludicrous, which I've pointed out several times before.

    Yea.. ya'all keep making that claim.. But you have ZERO facts to back it up..

    Whereas I have Obama's own words..

    I suppose that now I'm gonna have to dig it all out AGAIN.

    Yea, cuz that worked out so well the last time, eh? :D

    Face reality..

    Obama's own words are blatant, obvious and totally unambiguous..

    Obama asked Putin for help to win his (Obama's) election...

    In return, Obama promised Putin "flexibility" once Obama won his election..

    Obama DELIVERED on that promise in The Crimea, the East European Missile Defense Shield...

    These are the facts that are simple undeniable..

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's as ludicrous to say humans can control the planet's climate as it is to say that humans CAUSED the planet's climate to change..

    Your argument defies both science and common sense.

    For the science part, an ever-growing number of scientists have proven that it's man-made. Years ago. The good news is, that it's seen now as a win-win for those countries that really do it (weren't you cheering for energy independance yesterday?).

    As for the common-sense part, just look at what's happened to gas consumption today. It's not only possible, it's probable. Even with Trump in charge.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    @JM from CT

    Trump may be a moron, but one advantage he has is that his second-grade vocabulary scores a home run with very, very many people who hate that they don't really understand what most politicians are saying.

    See, this is a perfect example of bigotry..

    Why wasn't Donald Trump a moron when he had a -D after his name???

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your argument defies both science and common sense.

    Only the "science" that you cherry pick...

    As far as common sense??

    EVERY model and EVERY prediction made by Global Warming fanatics has been WRONG.. WRONG.. WRONG..

    Common sense tells us that if every model and every prediction is wrong, the theory is NOT sound..

    For the science part, an ever-growing number of scientists have proven that it's man-made.

    Bullshit..

    You cannot find a SINGLE scientist (at least a real one) that will say humans "made" the planet's climate change..

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why wasn't Donald Trump a moron when he had a -D after his name?

    He was. Even the NY press understand why he kept the 'D' after his name. Money.

    EVERY model and EVERY prediction made by Global Warming fanatics has been WRONG..

    Wha... Glaciers aren't melting, sea levels aren't rising?

    You cannot find a SINGLE scientist (at least a real one) that will say humans "made" the planet's climate change..

    You're not looking. I think the latest ratio is 100:1 in favor of us cutting it out yesterday.

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm going back to sleep. Toodle-oo.

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Obama asked Putin (Via Mendedev) for Putin to give Obama space (something of value) so that Obama could win his election..

    Obama was telling Putin that if he held off until after the election was over, Obama would agree to whatever they were discussing. Obama didn’t not need Putin to do anything to help him win his election, Obama just let him know it would not happen until after the election was over! How sad for you that Obama was still working on behalf of our country when he said this; unlike Trump who withheld money for his own personal gain!

    They are reporting how Trump was running around Mar-Lard-Ass telling everyone that “something big was gonna happen soon” the day before the assassination of the Iranian general. He’s getting terrified about being impeached and facing criminal prosecution and he probably thinks a war with Iran will cause the public to say that we cannot get rid of him in the time of war...but President Pence will do just fine!

    You gotta believe Trump will try to throw Pence under the bus if he is removed from office.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why wasn't Donald Trump a moron when he had a -D after his name?

    He was. Even the NY press understand why he kept the 'D' after his name. Money.

    And another bullshit lie that you have NO FACTS to support..

    Jesse Jackson honored Trump... Hillary and Bubba LOVED Trump..

    That facts are against ya, my friend..

    Wha... Glaciers aren't melting, sea levels aren't rising?

    Not according to the predictions and models..

    You're not looking. I think the latest ratio is 100:1 in favor of us cutting it out yesterday.

    Then it should be easy to find me a SINGLE real scientist who says that humans have caused the planet's climate to change..

    Go ahead.. Find me that scientist.. I'll be around...

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama was telling Putin that if he held off until after the election was over, Obama would agree to whatever they were discussing. Obama didn’t not need Putin to do anything to help him win his election,

    Yes, Putin DID need to do something.

    According to Odumbo, Putin needed to give Obama space..

    And, as YA'ALL define it, space is "something of value" that Odumbo needed..

    How sad for you that Obama was still working on behalf of our country when he said this;

    Nope.. Odumbo was working for his re-election..

    JUST LIKE you accuse President Trump of doing.

    Once again.. Ya'all make accusations against President Trump that DEMOCRATS are guilty of..

    They are reporting how Trump was running around Mar-Lard-Ass telling everyone that “something big was gonna happen soon” the day before the assassination of the Iranian general. He’s getting terrified about being impeached and facing criminal prosecution and he probably thinks a war with Iran will cause the public to say that we cannot get rid of him in the time of war..

    Facts to support??

    None?? Of course not..

    Why do you insist on spewing bullshit when you KNOW I will expose all your lies??

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm going back to sleep. Toodle-oo.

    In other words, you concede that NO SCIENTIST has claimed that humans have caused the planet's climate to change..

    I accept your concession..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    *** IRAN RETALIATES ****

    'Iran' launches cyber-attack on US government website warning 'we're always ready'

    A group claiming to be working on behalf of the Iranian government has hacked a US government website where they plastered sinister warnings

    Hackers who claim to be working for the Iranian government have hacked a US government website in a "revenge" attack.

    In a brutal take-down of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) the hackers warned this first move was “only a small part of Iran’s cyber ability”.

    The hackers posted: "This is message from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-iran-launches-cyber-attack-21216337

    OH MY GODS!!!

    What EVER will Americans do without the FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM!!!

    "Oh my god, what a fucking nightmare!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Ya'all look pretty silly and ridiculous right now with all your bullshit fear mongering.. :D

    Iran won't escalate things because they know that, unlike that wimp candy-ass Obama, President Trump is MORE than willing to take it to the next level and inflict more massive pain than Iran could EVER hope to inflict on the US..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    He’s getting terrified about being impeached

    The facts clearly indicate that it's DEMOCRATS who are terrified of impeachment.

    What else explains Pelosi's bone head play not to send over the Articles of Impeachment?

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    11,000 scientists sign declaration of global climate emergency
    Humans could endure "untold suffering" if massive changes aren't made.
    By
    Julia Jacobo
    November 5, 2019, 7:48 PM

    Thousands of scientists from around the world have mobilized to warn people of an impending global climate emergency if levels of greenhouse gas emissions are not significantly reduced.

    More than 11,000 scientists have signed a declaration stating "clearly and unequivocally" that humans could endure "untold suffering" if massive changes aren't made to the biosphere, according to an article published in the scientific journal Bioscience on Tuesday, exactly 40 years after the First World Climate Conference was held in Geneva.

    At that conference, scientists from 50 nations agreed that alarming trends tied to climate change required urgent action, and since then, similar warnings have been made at the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, according to the article, which claims that the world has conducted "business as usual" since then and has largely failed to address the issue.

    Despite the explicit warnings, greenhouse gas emissions are still "rapidly rising" and continuing to damage the climate at increasing rates, according to the article.

    "Troubling" human activities that contribute to Earth's rising temperature include sustained increases in both human and ruminant livestock population, per-capita meat production, the world's gross domestic product, global tree cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of people traveling via air transportation and carbon dioxide emissions, the article states.

    The impacts from the rising global surface temperatures include rapidly disappearing ice, such as Arctic sea ice, ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic and the thickness of glaciers worldwide. Rising sea levels, the ocean's heat content and acidity, the amount of area burned in the U.S. and extreme weather and the costs associated with it are also "disturbing" trends seen from rising temperatures, according to the article.

    What the scientists find "especially worrisome" is a potentially irreversible climate tipping point that could lead to a catastrophic "hothouse Earth," beyond the control of humans.

    "These issues highlight the urgent need for action," the article states.

    However, some "encouraging signs" of progress include decreases in global birth rates, decelerated deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, increases in the consumption of solar and wind power, institutional fossil fuel divestment of more than $7 trillion and the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions covered by carbon pricing, according to the article.

    To create the changes necessary, the scientists recommend:

    • Implementing massive energy efficiency and conservation practices to replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables.

    • Promptly reducing emissions of short-term pollutants, such as methane and black carbon.

    • Protecting and restoring Earth's ecosystems.

    • Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products while also drastically reducing the "enormous" amount of food waste around the world.

    • Curtailing the excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems driven by economic growth.

    • Stabilizing, and, ideally, gradually reducing population growth "within a time frame that ensures social integrity."

    Will 11,000 do?

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see nothing in there that those scientists claim that humans have caused the planet's climate to change..

    And none of the scientists are named or quoted..

    In other words.. You just have propaganda.. No facts..

    So, your comment is a 3 time EPIC fail...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask you something, Balthy..

    The planet is BILLIONS of years old.. The planet's climate has been changing for all of that time.

    Humans on this planet?? Oh, the last 100,000 years or so...

    Industrialized humans?? The last 60 years..

    So, I have to ask..

    If humans cause the planet's climate to change and the planet's climate has been changing for billions of years and humans have only be industrialized for 60 of that billions of years...

    This begs the question.

    WHAT caused the planet's climate to change where there WERE NO HUMANS???

    That is why your entire theory is bullshit..

  69. [69] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'm finally catching up with CW.com due to extensive 2020 upgrades to my home electronics: refurbished vintage pre-amp, new monitor to support more simultaneous apps, plus better and more secure (cat resistant)cabling.

    Anyway, the foreign policy part of preamble to this week's FTP really stole the show from the talking points themselves IMHOP.

    "Is there even a plan? Are there even projections? Does anyone at the Pentagon or the C.I.A. or in the White House really know what our ultimate objective really is, at this point? Are there a few contingency plans lying around for what could happen next? It'd be nice to hear some answers to those questions, to reassure America that Trump didn't just decide to do this in some hissy fit with no regard for the consequences."

    In order of the above questions, I would wager:

    1) Plan? - A work in progress
    2) Objective? - Nothing beyond the Fox News Cycle
    3) Contingency plans? The usual - Just wing it
    4) Hissy fit? Bingo!

    Immediately prior to the operational briefing, did Trump even know the name of the guy he was whacking? Could he recall the name now without a cue card? Does he know what QUDS capabilities are?

    The Iranians will probably have a much better planned counter response. Mafia Donald thinks he understands the game, but he's just a failed Real Estate Punk with Mafia Connections and Mafia-esque aspirations. Trump's chaos loving base is happy enough with that sort of President. I suspect Trump's corporate backers didn't see this one coming and are reaching for their antacids - or some thing stronger. Higher oil prices could knee cap the economy and end the Good Times.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthy...

    Funny thing about those 11,000 "scientists"..

    One of them was named "Mouse, Mickey"...

    Another one was Albus Dumbledore whose job was listed as HEADMASTER AT HOGWARTS

    Still another "scientist" who signed on was Araminta Aardvark from the UNIVERSITY OF NEASDEN

    Climate Depot’s Marc Morano noted that the alliance posted a similar declaration in 2017, and that both were spearheaded by OSU forestry professor William J. Ripple, but that the previous petition was signed by 15,000 “world scientists.”

    “Here we go again: The same organization is attempting to recycle their non-scientific commentary about a ‘climate emergency’ with a heavy dose of grad students, social workers, psychologists, veterinarians, librarians, and of course, Disney’s famous mouse character,” said Mr. Morano in an email.

    Cracked Breitbart’s James Delingpole: “Now they’re down to just 11,000. Presumably, this time, Professors Donald Duck, Minnie Mouse, Pluto, the Little Mermaid, the Seven Dwarfs and the 101 Dalmatians just weren’t available.”

    Australian climate blogger JoNova pointed out that none of the world’s leading climate scientists, including Penn State’s Michael Mann and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, signed the article.

    “Strangely, the world’s about to die and yet none of the top climate scientists are willing to put their name on the list,” she said.

    And here I thought you wanted to discuss this issue SERIOUSLY... :eyeroll:

    Tell Professor Mickey Mouse to shove it..

    There is no "climate emergency"..

    Even if their was, humans lack the technological capability to do anything about to stop it.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Iranians will probably have a much better planned counter response.

    And TS declares his undying devotion to Iran..

    "The hate is strong with this one"

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Higher oil prices could knee cap the economy and end the Good Times.

    Except, of course, the facts prove that the US is not dependent on foreign as it once was...

    Thanx to President Trump..

    So, yer just spewing nothing but hate-based bullshit..

    Again, I have to ask..

    Why do ya'all continue to spew yer bullshit lies when you know I will call ya'all on them??

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Derangement Syndrome Skyrockets Over Soleimani

    Remember “politics ends at the water’s edge”?

    In the Trump era, that patriotic phrase is not only dead, it’s decomposed.

    And ironically so, since the latest manifestation of this decomposition is over the termination of Qasem Soleimani, the terror mastermind who was, on analysis, even more dangerous to the United States and the world than bin Laden and al-Baghdadi, monumentally evil as they were.

    Neither bin Laden, nor al-Baghdadi ever had remotely the power at their disposals—even when the latter controlled his caliphate—Soleimani did as the military leader of by far the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. They were not even close to him who was head of Iran’s Quds force and the second most powerful person in that country of eighty plus million, with all its attendant weaponry and technology and ties to China and Russia.

    Besides the thousands of Americans who either died or were maimed for life because of Soleimani, hundreds of thousands across the Middle East have met their fates at least in part through this man’s ministrations.

    Yet the supposedly liberal and progressive Democrats are all in a dither about the assassination of Soleimani. After all, Trump did it. It has to be wrong.

    Not only would these same Democrats obviously have applauded the action if it had been done by one of their own, equally obviously many of them would have attacked Trump even if had he assassinated Hitler in 1940, blaming the president for escalating the conflict.

    It’s that simple—and nauseating—and every honest person in America knows it, especially the vets almost all of whom have friends incinerated by one of Soleimani’s roadside bombs, if they are not themselves walking around on prosthetic devices.

    And this leaves aside whatever Qasem’s plans were that constituted the proximate cause of the assassination. If past performance is any indication, he had many.

    Meanwhile the Democratic candidates are demonstrating uniform cowardice in the face of the action. Is there one of them you would want to have beside you in a foxhole?
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-derangement-syndrome-skyrockets-over-soleimani_3193863.html

    If Democrats wanted a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, they would have supported President Trump to the hilt..

    As it stands now, with the Democrats siding with Iran, it's all but guaranteed that lose the House..

    The presidency?? It's a given that President Trump will be re-elected..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would seem to have been impossible, but as bad as it has been for the last three years, Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached unforeseen levels.

    But a deeper cause of this increased derangement may stem from events that began September 11, 2012—the Obama administration’s behavior in the aftermath of the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

    As most will recall, the administration sent Susan Rice to inform the nation that the lethal terror attack occurred because of a spontaneous emotional reaction to an amateur anti-Islamic video that barely anyone had ever watched. It was not a planned attack by a terror group, Rice said. That was a despicable lie.

    Kenneth Timmerman wrote in the NY Post in June 2014: “My sources, meanwhile, say Suleymani [sic] was involved in an even more direct attack on the U.S.—the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.”

    Timmerman goes on to detail a complicated and clever plot behind Benghazi worthy of the evil mastermind Qasem Soleimani. (Read it here.)

    If this is true—and it seems vastly more likely than Susan Rice’s “explanation”—then what just occurred at Baghdad Airport is a prime, and highly-justified, example of that old saw: what goes around comes around.

    So.. It turns out that President Trump finally got revenge for Benghazi..

    Once again, the Odumbo Administration dropped the ball and Americans paid with their lives..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now we come to learn that Obama ALLIED himself and this country with Qasem Soleimani...

    The shadowy Iranian spy chief who helped plan Benghazi

    As Kenneth R. Timmerman reveals in his new book, “Dark Forces,” Suleymani was even the shadowy figure behind the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.

    He’s the Wizard of Oz of Iranian terror, the most dreaded and most effective terrorist alive.

    He is Qassem Suleymani, the head of the Quds Force, an organization that acts as a combination CIA and Green Berets for Iran, and a man who has orchestrated a campaign of chaos against the United States around the world.

    Today, the Obama Administration has allied itself with Suleymani to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    In this case, Iran’s goals — a Shi’ite-friendly government in Iraq — coincides with America’s hope that the country doesn’t fall apart.

    But don’t be fooled: It’s only a partnership of convenience, and one that won’t last.
    https://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny thing about those 11,000 "scientists"..

    One of them was named "Mouse, Mickey"...

    Another one was Albus Dumbledore whose job was listed as HEADMASTER AT HOGWARTS

    Still another "scientist" who signed on was Araminta Aardvark from the UNIVERSITY OF NEASDEN

    You see, this is EXACTLY the problem with most of ya'all..

    Ya'all have absolutely NO CRITICAL THINKING skills.

    You buy into ANY bullshit spewage that comes down the road as long as it fits your hate and bigoted agenda..

    It's why ya'all (NEN) always lose debates with me..

    You bring hysterical nonsense to the debate.. I bring facts and reality..

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, for Christ's sake. Read the article.

    I see nothing in there that those scientists claim that humans have caused the planet's climate to change..

    ..stating "clearly and unequivocally" that humans could endure "untold suffering" if massive changes aren't made to the biosphere. . .

    And none of the scientists are named or quoted.

    All 11,000 of them? And there are lots of quotes.

    You just have propaganda.. No facts..

    That's more than propaganda. If you can't see that

    You're Sociopathic.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..stating "clearly and unequivocally" that humans could endure "untold suffering" if massive changes aren't made to the biosphere. . .

    Which says NOTHING about humans causing the planet's climate to change..

    THINK, Balthy..

    If humans could really control the climate, as you claim, we could deflect hurricanes.. hell.. We could ELIMINATE hurricanes.. No more tornados...

    HUMANS CANNOT CONTROL THE PLANET'S CLIMATE...

    Anyone who thinks that humans CAN control the planet's climate is ignorant or a moron..

    All 11,000 of them? And there are lots of quotes.

    From who?? Mickey Mouse?? Or Dundledorf??

    That's more than propaganda.

    It's really not.. It's a single guy who releases the same bullshit year after year and simply updates it for the current year..

    It's BLATANT propaganda..

    You're Sociopathic.

    If, by "sociopathic" you mean dead on ballz factually accurate...

    Why yes.. Yes I am..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    You forgot one, Balthy..

    If humans cause the planet's climate to change and the planet's climate has been changing for billions of years and humans have only be industrialized for 60 of that billions of years...

    This begs the question.

    WHAT caused the planet's climate to change where there WERE NO HUMANS???

    How did the planet's climate change in the past with no humans around to do it??

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really simple, Balthy..

    Humans cannot cause the climate to change...

    Humans cannot STOP the climate from changing..

    Once you accept those two facts and the reality then you will be well on your way to understanding the utter con that is the Global Warming religion..

    If you don't see the con, if you still believe in the con, then you should immediately cease all use of electronics and combustion engines.. Because, when you use those things you are part of the problem you claim exists..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Graham gives Pelosi ultimatum, proposes Senate rule change to remove her from impeachment process
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-gives-pelosi-ultimatum-proposes-senate-rule-change-to-remove-her-from-impeachment-process

    And **BOOM**...

    Pelosi is rendered impotent...

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If you don't see the con, if you still believe in the con, then you should immediately cease all use of electronics and combustion engines.. Because, when you use those things you are part of the problem you claim exists..

    How do all electronics contribute to the problem that you claim doesn’t exist? And if combustion engines have no effect on things like the air we breathe, then by all means go into your garage, close the door, and crank up your car! Prove us wrong!

    Idiots like you were crowing about how there were no studies that PROVED cigarette smoking CAUSED cancer for decades no matter how many were put before you.

    Either you have such a fragile ego that you cannot handle the idea of admitting that for years, a corporation that you trusted tricked you into believing their bullshit claims that their products are completely safe; or you blame your lack of education for your crappy life and that resentment is why you feel the need to disagree with any science the Republicans tell you is wrong — or maybe I was wrong about you being too smart to believe Trump’s claim of being a genius who just feels that climate change is fake based on the fact that he had an uncle who worked in the physics department at MIT.

    Point is, no matter what your reason for parroting the oil companies’ misinformation campaigns: you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and while you may enjoy saying this crap just to get a rise out of liberals, at the end of the day you know that you are just a corporate pimp’s sex slave — getting used and humiliated by them on a daily basis! Seriously, I am sure most people here find you frustrating, at most, but I cannot imagine how much you must hate yourself to knowingly parrot people who use you and could not care less about you!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice rant, Russ..

    But your problem is it's ya'all global warming fear mongering fanatics who have been wrong.

    EVERY Prediction... WRONG

    EVERY Model... WRONG

    The planet is under NO THREAT of destruction in our lifetimes and in our children's children's lifetime..

    This hysterical fear mongering is just you and your fellow Dumbocrats way to push an agenda..

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If humans cause the planet's climate to change and the planet's climate has been changing for billions of years and humans have only be industrialized for 60 of that billions of years...

    This begs the question.

    WHAT caused the planet's climate to change where there WERE NO HUMANS???

    How did the planet's climate change in the past with no humans around to do it??

    That’s a great question for YOU to answer, Michale!

    How did the planet’s climate change in the past before man showed up?

    Are you suggesting that the climate never changes?

    And if it does change on its own, what causes those changes to occur? Do major volcanic eruptions have any effect on climate change?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Humans cannot cause the climate to change...

    Humans cannot STOP the climate from changing..

    These are facts.. Indisputable facts..

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This hysterical fear mongering is just you and your fellow Dumbocrats way to push an agenda..

    Says the Republican parrot! Here is the problem with this line of (not)thinking by you:

    This is NOT simply part of the Democrats’ agenda, every country in the world but us and one or two dictatorships agree that this problem exists! But again, you trust those good people at Big Oil to tell you the REAL truth. What reason do THEY have to lie to u$?

    Look at it this way:

    If we are wrong, then nothing happens that could harm us!

    If you...I should not say “you” because we know that you aren’t the one coming up with this crap, “YOU” just repeat it like a good parrot...if THEY are wrong, then we face disasters on a global scale and they face lawsuits demanding that they pay for damages they helped cause.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we are wrong, then nothing happens that could harm us!

    No.. If you are wrong, you will have totally wrecked whole entire economies..

    And it's very relevant that, to date, you and your fellow global warming fanatics have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong..

    if THEY are wrong, then we face disasters on a global scale and they face lawsuits demanding that they pay for damages they helped cause.

    Using that childish reasoning, you should never leave your house because of what *MIGHT* happen..

    You and your fellow fanatics have been promising the end of the world for decades now..

    Occasional Cortex is the latest moron with her "12 years" bullshit.

    And ya'all have ALWAYS been wrong..

    You morons can only cry wolf so many times before you become a laughing stock..

    And that's where ya'all are now..

    A laughing stock..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Public Safety Officer Jackson Winkeler
    Florence Regional Airport Department of Public Safety, South Carolina
    End of Watch: Sunday, January 5, 2020

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    HUMANS CANNOT CONTROL THE PLANET'S CLIMATE...

    Anyone who thinks that humans CAN control the planet's climate is ignorant or a moron..

    Again, you are the only person claiming this. So I guess that means that you intentionally being dishonest is now called “semantics”, is that it?

    Everyone who causes a fire to start is able to control that fire? Children who die in fires that they accidentally caused were actually suicidal? Why do we have what is referred to as “controlled fires” if all fire is under man’s control?

    How frustrating it must get for you! I mean it takes work to spin so many lies, yet they never fool anyone...you always get caught up in your own lies.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, you are the only person claiming this. So I guess that means that you intentionally being dishonest is now called “semantics”, is that it?

    Apparently, you haven't read any of Blathy's comments.. :eyeroll:

    Everyone who causes a fire to start is able to control that fire? Children who die in fires that they accidentally caused were actually suicidal? Why do we have what is referred to as “controlled fires” if all fire is under man’s control?

    Yea... Cuz a fire is equivalent to an entire planet's climate...

    You know how I know when I have you???

    When you start making utterly bullshit and ridiculous comments like that one..

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

  91. [91] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    No.. If you are wrong, you will have totally wrecked whole entire economies..

    So this is all about the fear of some people losing money! And your proof of this being what results from fighting climate change? Lemme guess... it comes from an organization funded by the Cock...I meant, Koch brothers? Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    “Whole entire economies” being wrecked? Are you sure it wouldn’t be “partially entire economies” that might be hurt? Or just the profits of a few major corporations?

    Funny, the growth of the alternative energy sector has already been a huge benefit to the economy. Yes, places like Russia that have their entire economy riding on a single export and refuse to diversify their markets will suffer economically, so you ignoring the truth in favor of parroting their propaganda shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    In fact, fighting climate change creates far more jobs and income than ignoring it would. Seriously, you must get awfully sore being used by these oil companies day after day!

  92. [92] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    Humans cannot cause the climate to change...

    Humans cannot STOP the climate from changing..

    So tell me what does cause the climate to change? If mankind plays no role, what does?

  93. [93] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [92]

    Obviously, first and foremost, the big bonfire in the sky, plus lesser influences such as orbital fluctuations.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats still delusional about Trump even after Qassem Soleimani death

    The calendar turns and a decade begins, but there is nothing new under the sun in Washington. Even the killing of an Iranian mass murderer is cause for more partisan strife.

    In a sane country, which America used to be, there would be shared sober satisfaction over the elimination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Yet Democrats apparently outsourced their reactions to robots, whose script called for conceding that the departed was a very bad man, but prohibited approval of President Trump’s decision to take him out.

    Instead, the quibblers’ chorus raised questions of timing and expressed fear of escalation and retaliation. In the context of Iran’s military aggression and Soleimani’s bloody hands, there is another word for that fear: appeasement.

    HHPTDS

    It's not pretty...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    So tell me what does cause the climate to change? If mankind plays no role, what does?

    I'll answer your question with a question..

    The planet's climate has been changing for billions of years..

    What caused the planet's climate to change all those billions of years before humans became industrialized??

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously, first and foremost, the big bonfire in the sky, plus lesser influences such as orbital fluctuations.

    Apparently not so obvious to those who use fear-mongering to pursue a detrimental agenda..

  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yea... Cuz a fire is equivalent to an entire planet's climate...

    Even you are not this dumb! We were discussing your apparent claim that “Cause” and “Control” share the same definition since you believe you they are interchangeable without altering the meaning of the statement.

    God you suck at this! Your attempts at mental gymnastics and twisting words to try to hide having your lies called out is really pathetic. In the end, we both know that you are wrong and you know it!

    Honestly, I believe that our country’s only hope for survival is to be rid of people who choose to lie constantly for whatever reason they want to try to justify their dishonesty. You cannot be reasoned with. You refuse to reside in a reality that values truth or honesty above personal gain. You are toxic and we don’t need you or want you. Fortunately, your time here is almost over. How sad that the generation that followed the “Greatest Generation” would wind up being remembered as the “WORST Generation”!

  98. [98] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's really simple, Balthy..

    Humans cannot cause the climate to change...

    Humans cannot STOP the climate from changing..

    Once you accept those two facts and the reality then you will be well on your way to understanding the utter con that is the Global Warming religion..

    If you don't see the con, if you still believe in the con, then you should immediately cease all use of electronics and combustion engines.. Because, when you use those things you are part of the problem you claim exists..

    You've been pawning this BS for a couple of decades now without ever backing it up. But since you are unwilling or unable to do so, lets look at it through the lens of Occam's razor: what's the simpler explanation, a world wide conspiracy of every nation on earth's scientific community or a self professed knuckle dragger just doesn't, or for political purposes refuses, to understand basic science?

  99. [99] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Obviously, first and foremost, the big bonfire in the sky, plus lesser influences such as orbital fluctuations.

    OK, but in what ways does the sun effect climate change? How does it cause change? Increased amounts of radiation hitting the earth?

  100. [100] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Bashi,

    But since you are unwilling or unable to do so, lets look at it through the lens of Occam's razor: what's the simpler explanation, a world wide conspiracy of every nation on earth's scientific community or a self professed knuckle dragger just doesn't, or for political purposes refuses, to understand basic science?

    BINGO! We have a winner!

    Well said!

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The planet's climate has been changing for billions of years..

    What caused the planet's climate to change all those billions of years before humans became industrialized??

    Everything I have claimed can effect climate change you have argued is utterly false! So obviously I do not know. But since you know what does not effect it, you should be able to say what does. Let’s hear it!

  102. [102] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Obviously, first and foremost, the big bonfire in the sky, plus lesser influences such as orbital fluctuations.

    Actually the effect of the Sun is known and not a strong driver in climate change. For example we are and have been for a few years heading toward the solar minimum (possibly a grand minimum) and yet global temperatures are still going up. Orbital fluctuations do have an effect on the climate, more than solar fluctuations, but not enough to account for current warming.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, but in what ways does the sun effect climate change? How does it cause change? Increased amounts of radiation hitting the earth?

    Just because we don't know those answers doesn't mean it's not happening..

    Only a raging moron would think that the sun has NO EFFECT on the planet's climate..

    A position you seem to be advocating..

    Everything I have claimed can effect climate change you have argued is utterly false! So obviously I do not know.

    OK... You don't know WHAT changed the climate before humans were industrialized, but you do concede that the planet's climate WAS changing before humans were industrialized..

    So... Even if we don't know exactly what was changing the planet's climate, SOMETHING was..

    It's logical to infer that whatever changed the planet's climate BEFORE humans were industrialized is still active and STILL having an effect on the planet, causing the climate to change..

    Is that not rational???

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    yet global temperatures are still going up.

    Bullshit..

    Only the tweaked and massaged temps are going up..

    The accurate untouched raw temp data shows a slight decline in global temps..

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I swear.. Debating with ya'all on the con that is global warming is like trying to debate a religious fanatic on the existence of god..

    No amount of logic or facts or reality will convince them.. They simply HAVE to have their god of global warming, no matter HOW WRONG each and every prediction has been...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit..

    Only the tweaked and massaged temps are going up..

    The accurate untouched raw temp data shows a slight decline in global temps..

    In other words, it's only in the data where so-called "scientists" played "Hide The Decline".. THAT data shows an increase.. But that data is falsified and not factually accurate..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Born in Mexico, this new American is voting for Donald Trump

    Martha Doss, who was naturalized in 2017, is an example of the complexities of Texas’ political landscape amid the immigration debate.

    On the day Martha Doss became a U.S. citizen in 2017, she couldn’t stop thinking of her mother.

    “She wanted to desperately be an American,” she said, remembering the woman who brought her and her twin sister from Mexico to the United States when they were children in the mid-1980s.

    Becoming a citizen meant her mother’s dream of a better life for her children had, in some way, been fulfilled.

    It also meant that in 2020, Martha could vote in what will likely be one of the most contentious and hard-fought presidential elections.

    And on that day in 2017 when Martha pledged to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” she knew exactly whom she would vote for: Donald Trump.
    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2020/01/05/born-in-mexico-this-new-american-is-voting-for-donald-trump/

    Remind me again how minorities don't like President Trump??

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

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Bashi,

    You've been pawning this BS for a couple of decades now without ever backing it up.

    Sorry, son.. The ball's in your court.. You claimed you can find an accurate prediction or model..

    You usually leave on hiatus after I ask you about it again and again and again...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Bashi,

    Maybe you can talk to Balthy's 11,000 scientists..

    I think Mickey Mouse might be available for you to talk to...

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  110. [110] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Sorry, son.. The ball's in your court.. You claimed you can find an accurate prediction or model..

    Already did, and you acknowledged it at the time. Nice try buddy...

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why did Martha Doss vote for Trump and do you think she'll vote that way again?

  112. [112] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [99]

    I can give you the what, but the how is above my pay grade.

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    After having read a lot of comments at this site in its comments sections over the years if not decades, I believe a primer on the science of climate change is in order.

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I mean that sincerely … I'm not trying to be facetious, here ...

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Is there anyone out there!"

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    I can give you the what, but the how is above my pay grade.

    I do not understand why people who freely admit that they have no idea how climate change occurs feel so confident that man cannot influence it or effect it in any way!

    I wonder if maybe people aren’t literally in denial when they deny climate change; because admitting that man has triggered this emergency would cause such feelings of guilt for unknowingly harming the world their kids and grandkids will have to live with. People need to realize that we all share in the blame for causing us to be where we are today. They should only feel guilt if they choose to deny the truth now that we know what how damaging our CO2 footprints have been over the decades...because they deserve to be blamed at that point.

    Seniors feel like they have been blamed for lots of our nation’s past sins. White guilt is already a sensitive subject for a large part of the senior population, and feeling blamed for screwing the climate up would only pile on the guilt and make them feel even worse!

    Oil companies are finally publicly admitting to the harms that their products have played a role in when it comes to climate change. This is great, but they are also still funding the lobbyists who are pushing out misinformation and getting politicians to continue in their denial of the truth. Why would an oil company lie and admit to the harm of CO2 if it weren’t true? There are plenty of reasons to lie and deny it is harmful, but no one claims that their product is harmful if it isn’t...their profits would suffer.

    People need to know that it is OK to feel foolish when they realize they have been lied to by corporations and politicians that they put their trust in — no one enjoys admitting that they were taken advantage of. This is where we have to tell seniors to “man up” and get over the hurt to their egos...climate change is a real threat that demands our attention now! If you aren’t gonna be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. It’s their choice how they choose to be remembered!

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Bashi

    Already did, and you acknowledged it at the time. Nice try buddy...

    Prove it.. You can't because it only happened in your Trump/America hating addled brain..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Why did Martha Doss vote for Trump and do you think she'll vote that way again?

    I don't read her mind but, based on the article, she is voting President Trump for several reasons..

    She is sick and tired of Democrats and their identity politics.. If your black or hispanic or LBGQTVABC you HAVE to be a Democart...

    She is Christian and simply doesn't like the Democrats anti-Christian attitudes..

    But most of all, she understands that for her and for people like here, Democrats take her for granted and President Trump takes care of her and people like her..

    A perfect example of this is the *FACT* that hispanic American unemployment is at it's lowest point it's been EVER...

    All those reasons (and I am sure a lot more) are why hispanic Americans are moving to President Trump by the millions..

    Democrats don't stand a chance in 2020...

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    After having read a lot of comments at this site in its comments sections over the years if not decades, I believe a primer on the science of climate change is in order.

    I completely agree..

    And at the TOP of EVERY page of that primer, it should say...

    IF YOU HAVE A THEORY AND ALL YOUR PREDICTIONS AND MODEL ON THAT THEORY ARE WRONG... IT'S TIME TO GET A NEW THEORY...

    REAL science doesn't need focus groups or "tweaking" of the data...

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do not understand why people who freely admit that they have no idea how climate change occurs feel so confident that man cannot influence it or effect it in any way!

    And once again, you are responding to an argument that no one has made..

    No one has claimed that man cannot influence climate in any way..

    I wonder if maybe people aren’t literally in denial when they deny climate change;

    And again.. You are arguing a point that no one has made..

    Of course the climate is changing.. It's been changing long, long, LONG before humans were on the seen.. It'll be changing long after humans have left the planet..

    If you aren’t gonna be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

    And, if you continue to use modern conveniences you too are "part of the problem".. Get a bicycle, get rid of all your electronic devices, grow your own food..

    If you TRULY believe there is an imminent threat to the planet, then you MUST give up all your modern conveniences..

    Anything less and yer nothing but a hypocrite.. A Chicken Little hypocrite..

  121. [121] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Just because we don't know those answers doesn't mean it's not happening..

    But science DOES know, and you simply refuse to listen when we tell you this!

    Only a raging moron would think that the sun has NO EFFECT on the planet's climate..

    I could not agree more with this comment!

    A position you seem to be advocating..

    WRONG! Find me one place where I have even suggested such ignorance — you cannot, because I have not! The sun heats our planet, so it is definitely playing a role in climate change.

    OK... You don't know WHAT changed the climate before humans were industrialized, but you do concede that the planet's climate WAS changing before humans were industrialized..

    So... Even if we don't know exactly what was changing the planet's climate, SOMETHING was..

    Actually, we have known what causes climate change for decades! You just refuse to accept the main one, even though anyone who has ever walked into a greenhouse knows how it works: It is caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere! Seriously, a greenhouse is just a mini eco-system that we create to grow certain plants. Green houses don’t have insulation in their walls because they do not need it...the added levels of CO2 in the air traps the heated air that the sunlight created. Heck, in winter time, the sun may not shine bright enough or long enough to heat the air in a greenhouse, but man made heaters can be used to mimic the sunlight’s effect on the CO2 in the greenhouse.

    Climate change is always happening and has always been happening since the earth was formed! It isn’t a creation of man, but man has definitely done things to influence climate change. Before man, natural disasters were the main influencers of climate change. Major volcano eruptions are always big influencers to climate change, but instead of trapping the heat in like with CO2, the volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere prevents the sunlight from heating up the air in the lower atmosphere...welcome to the ice age!

    Do you agree that volcanic eruptions can cause climate change? I got more, but it’s not worth discussing if we cannot agree on the basics.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    *** NEWSFLASH!!!! IRAN RETALIATES AGAIN!!! ***

    At least two rockets hit near US embassy in Baghdad: witnesses..

    Baghdad (AFP) - Two rockets hit near the US embassy in Iraq's capital Sunday, witnesses told AFP, hours after the ambassador was summoned over a US strike that killed top Iraqi and Iranian commanders.

    Sunday's attack was the second night in a row that the Green Zone was hit and the 14th time over the last two months that US installations have been targeted.

    A third rocket simultaneously hit a family home outside the Green Zone, wounding four, medical sources told AFP.
    https://news.yahoo.com/least-two-rockets-hit-near-us-embassy-baghdad-000726339.html

    Apparently, Iran is THE COUNTRY THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT.. :^/

    THIS is what ya'all are hysterically fear-mongering about???

    :D

    You people crack me up.. Only one person here, besides me, has the integrity to give President Trump the credit he deserves for taking out that terrorist scumbag who has brutally murdered hundreds of Americans..

    I am honestly shocked that the Trump/America haters would actually stoop THIS low in supporting the scumbag terrorist over their own President..

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I am about done with trying to have an honest debate with you because of shit like this:

    And once again, you are responding to an argument that no one has made..

    No one has claimed that man cannot influence climate in any way..

    REALLY?!?! You are gonna try this bullshit?

    From [49], you wrote:

    The planet's climate is going to change regardless of what ignorant and arrogant humans (such as yerself) do or say..

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    But science DOES know, and you simply refuse to listen when we tell you this!

    And yet, there are PLENTY of real scientists that dispute your theory...

    Why don't you address all those scientists??

    You can't..

    WRONG! Find me one place where I have even suggested such ignorance — you cannot, because I have not! The sun heats our planet, so it is definitely playing a role in climate change.

    You said HUMANS causes the planet's climate to change..

    Now yer backpedaling and say other factors are in play..

    Make up your mind..

    Actually, we have known what causes climate change for decades!

    Bullshit... Facts to support??

    Of course not..

    Scientists.. REAL scientists acknowledge that we have barely scratched the surface of what drives and moves the planet's climate.. We're barely beginning to know what we don't even know about the planet's climate..

    Climate change is always happening and has always been happening since the earth was formed!

    Exactly.. So, humans CAN'T be the cause of climate change because there were no humans when the planet's climate started changing..

    Major volcano eruptions are always big influencers to climate change, but instead of trapping the heat in like with CO2, the volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere prevents the sunlight from heating up the air in the lower atmosphere...welcome to the ice age!

    Exactly.. ALL without a single input from humans and industrialization..

    So, now it sounds like you agree with me that humans don't cause climate change, that there are MANY other factors involved and that humans, if they are impacting the planet's climate at all, are simply one of a multitude of factors impacting the planet's climate.. And NOT the most important factor... The sun is the most important factor in the planet's climate..

    If you agree with that, then we have nothing left to debate..

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    And once again, you are responding to an argument that no one has made..

    No one has claimed that man cannot influence climate in any way..

    REALLY?!?! You are gonna try this bullshit?

    From [49], you wrote:

    The planet's climate is going to change regardless of what ignorant and arrogant humans (such as yerself) do or say..

    It would help if you actually posted YOUR ARGUMENT, because that's what I was responding to..

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am gonna take a stab and operate under the assumption that THIS was your argument.

    I do not understand why people who freely admit that they have no idea how climate change occurs feel so confident that man cannot influence it or effect it in any way!

    And I stand by my response...

    NO ONE is arguing that humans can't have an impact/influence/effect on the planet's climate..

    The debate is can humans CAUSE the planet's climate to change..

    And the answer to that is NO... We do not have the technology to change our planet's climate to what we would wish it to be..

    Personally, I think the impact humans have on the planet is negligible as, say, compared to the sun..

    But regardless of the AMOUNT of impact humans have on the planet's climate....

    Humans cannot CAUSE the planet's climate to change..

    THAT is the debate under way..

    You have taken Balthy's position that Humans (not only can but) ARE causing climate change..

    This is not a factual position to take..

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Let the American people understand something. The speaker got up there and gave this grand show of being solemn and it’s our duty and it’s our conscious vote, but yet the minute after she forced them into this impeachment vote on the weakest case in history, she went out and then basically turned it into a political document.”

    Yep.. That about sums things up..

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats’ Strange Reaction to the Death of Qassem Soleimani

    Or maybe it’s not so strange, given the Obama crowd’s unending Iran Deal treachery.

    Which brings us to the recent drone strike on Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Force (“IRGC”) and his top ally in Iraq, militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani commanded the IRGC’s Quds Force which is primarily responsible for military and clandestine operations outside Iran. As reported extensively elsewhere, he was responsible for deployment of Iranian designed and manufactured IEDs that caused the deaths and wounding of thousands of American military personnel during the Iraq War.

    Despite Soleimani’s bloody record, the drone strike that killed him, carried out at the direction of President Trump, has been bitterly denounced by Democrat office holders and their wholly-owned mainstream media subsidiary. To hear them tell it, by authorizing the killing of Soleimani without first consulting Congress, Trump has acted illegally and heedlessly and unnecessarily risked all-out war with Iran.

    While Democrat and media criticism of Trump is hardly news, the context and vehemence of this latest condemnation raise interesting questions regarding the Democrats’ true motives which, as will be discussed below, appear to be nefarious and corrupt.
    https://spectator.org/the-democrats-strange-reaction-to-the-death-of-qassem-soleimani/

    By not rally'ing around the President, Democrats are alienating the vast majority of Americans who support the President's decision..

    As I said before, it's like Democrats WANT to lose big in 2020.....

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a recent interview with the American Enterprise Institute, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated flatly that former officials of the Obama administration are continuing to meet with Iranian leaders in an effort to undermine President Trump’s Iran policies.

    “I’ll be straight up with you,” Pompeo said, “you have folks who served in the previous administration who are telling the Iranian leaders today, ‘Just hang on. President Trump will lose in the election in November, and we’ll go back to appeasement. America will write you a big check, we’ll underwrite your terror campaign around the world, we’ll give you a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon system. Just wait until the Trump administration is finished.’”

    As cited in the AEI interview, this is not the first time that Pompeo has raised this spectre. In September 2018, he specifically criticized former Secretary of State John Kerry, for “actively undermining” U.S. Middle East policy by engaging in secret talks with Iran’s foreign minister in which Kerry advised “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” to “wait out” the Trump administration. According to the AEI, Pompeo’s criticism was confirmed by Iran’s Fars News agency which reported in May 2018 that private citizen Kerry had conferred with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in an attempt to salvage the nuclear deal.

    Democrats.. Still hurting America and American interests...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why, you may ask, is the Obama shadow government continuing its efforts to resurrect the atrocious and inexplicably deleterious Iran nuclear deal? The answer to that question may lie in the following May 8, 2018 Tweet by one Raman Ghavami (@Raman_Ghavami) which was made following Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and imposition of trading sanctions. Citing the senior adviser to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, Ghavami’s Tweet reads in full as follows:

    H.J. Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: ‘If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.’ That would be interesting.

    Can this be true? Were western politicians — including members of the Obama administration — paid by Iran to enter into the idiotic and dangerous Iran nuclear deal? Could this also explain why, as found by the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations, the Obama administration lied to Congress to gain approval of the deal while it worked behind the scenes to allow Iran access to U.S. financial markets? Could it be that officials of the Obama administration were and continue to be motivated by Iranian payoffs to sell out America?

    And the facts finally come out..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi: House to vote on resolution limiting Trump's actions against Iran
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/476881-pelosi-house-to-vote-on-resolution-limiting-trumps-actions-against-iran

    BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Like I said.. Democrats are TRYING to lose big in Nov... :D

  132. [132] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [116]

    I would never deny that humans could have some inpact on climate, but after observing climate where I live for 80 plus yrs, I just have to conclude that the human impact is minimal.

    Also, it occurs to me from hearing from geologists that the history of the planet has been an unbroken series of alternating cycles of global warming/global cooling, to wonder if you guys have any valid reason for assuming that where the climate is at this moment actually happens to be the most optimum?

    As a life-long hobby gardner, I've witnessed a slight extension of the growing season where I live. Compared to the 1950's, I currently get an average of three to four weeks of home-grown, vine-ripened tomatoes every summer. Believe me, if that is the down-side of global warming, I say send me more global warming!!

    When I say that, my kids say what'll you do when CA sinks under the waves from global warming-caused sea level rise.?

    I respond, "they'll just have to drown, 'cause we wont lem 'em in!"

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would never deny that humans could have some inpact on climate, but after observing climate where I live for 80 plus yrs, I just have to conclude that the human impact is minimal.

    Yup... It's as far away from casual as is possible..

    Also, it occurs to me from hearing from geologists that the history of the planet has been an unbroken series of alternating cycles of global warming/global cooling, to wonder if you guys have any valid reason for assuming that where the climate is at this moment actually happens to be the most optimum?

    That's always been my question..

    If the yahoo fanatics don't LIKE the current climate, what do they want to "change" it to??

    I mean, let's suppose humans COULD control the planet's climate.. What would they do with such control??

    Sunny and 72 every day??? Plants would die..

    This global warming fanaticism totally ignores logic and reality..

    As a life-long hobby gardner, I've witnessed a slight extension of the growing season where I live. Compared to the 1950's, I currently get an average of three to four weeks of home-grown, vine-ripened tomatoes every summer. Believe me, if that is the down-side of global warming, I say send me more global warming!!

    Yup x2

    With all the fear mongering hysteria, these fanatics fail to realize how BENEFICIAL global warming is...

    my kids say what'll you do when CA sinks under the waves from global warming-caused sea level rise.?

    Throw a party???? :D

    I respond, "they'll just have to drown, 'cause we wont lem 'em in!"

    That works too... :D

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yup... It's as far away from casual as is possible..

    That should read 'Yup... It's as far away from causal as is possible..'

    My bust

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    my kids say what'll you do when CA sinks under the waves from global warming-caused sea level rise.?

    Wasn't that Lex Luthor's plan??

    Didn't work out too well for him, as I recall...

    We missed our best chance to have OTIS BERG.. :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    my kids say what'll you do when CA sinks under the waves from global warming-caused sea level rise.?

    "Would ya miss it?? Huh?? Com'on.. Would ya miss it??"
    -US President, AUSTIN POWERS

    :D

  137. [137] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If the yahoo fanatics don't LIKE the current climate, what do they want to "change" it to??

    I mean, let's suppose humans COULD control the planet's climate.. What would they do with such control??

    Ohhhhhh, you are getting your info from watching the old GI Joe cartoons where Cobra was using the Weather Dominator to control the weather! Good Lord, it’s been so obvious this whole time!

    At first I thought it was odd that you now believe that people “fighting against climate change” are actually seeking to change our climate. But you lie all the time, so it isn’t that big of a stretch to think that you might actually believe someone who claims to oppose something actually supports it!

    You believe that people trying to prevent climate change are trying to control the natural climate change patterns that our planet has experienced since it was created. That is not the case! Man has caused the CO2 levels to rise over the past century much faster than would occur naturally. That CO2 has the greenhouse effect on our planet. What everyone in the world — not including those of you who openly admit to knowing nothing about this subject matter but still feel some justification in claiming everyone else is wrong — is trying to do is to lower the amount of CO2 that man is responsible for adding to our planet’s atmosphere.

    Plastics dumped in the Pacific Ocean have formed an insulating land mass that is likely responsible for the great blob of ocean water that is 2 degrees warmer than surrounding waters...and the blob keeps getting bigger, making the water unlivable for most sea life.

    Don’t support fighting climate change at your own risk. I live in the Pacific NW... long term predictions have us experiencing a climate that resembles that of So. California. Florida, or what will be left of it, will look more like AZ.

    That said, I don’t expect anything I say will change your mind, because, face it, that isn’t possible with you. I keep forgetting that you are only here to play contrarian to anything we say... congrats! You got me to fall for it again!

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don’t support fighting climate change at your own risk. I live in the Pacific NW... long term predictions have us experiencing a climate that resembles that of So. California. Florida, or what will be left of it, will look more like AZ.

    More fear mongering predictions..

    What part of YA'ALL HAVE ***ALWAYS*** BEEN WRONG do you not understand??

    Your Global Warming predictions are even MORE ridiculous and moronic as your Trump/America hate predictions..

    It's almost as if ya'all REVEL in being WRONG ALL THE TIME...

    :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I can safely ignore anything ya'all say..

    Because ya'all have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong.. :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Australia’s Catastrophic Fires Threaten to Upend the Way People Live
    At least 20 people are dead, thousands of homes have been destroyed and millions of animals killed—and blazes could continue for months

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/australias-catastrophic-fires-will-change-the-way-people-live-11578297077

    I really don't understand the issue here..

    All Australia has to do is ban fire and there won't ever be any problems... :eyeroll:

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP senators move to dismiss articles of impeachment amid battle with Pelosi

    Sen. Hawley to introduce measure to dismiss Trump impeachment if Pelosi fails to send articles to Senate
    Republican Sen. Josh Hawley tells 'Fox & Friends' that it's time for the Senate to take action to throw out the case if Democrats don't prosecute it.

    Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri joined with a host of fellow Republicans Monday to introduce a resolution allowing the chamber to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump for lack of prosecution, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delays sending the case for trial.

    The resolution specifically would update Senate rules to allow the chamber to bring a motion dismissing the articles.

    “In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right – the constitutional right, I might add -- to have those articles, those indictments, those charges dismissed," Hawley said in a speech on the Senate floor. "That is precisely the action that I am proposing today.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-senators-introduce-resolution-to-dismiss-articles-of-impeachment-amid-battle-with-pelosi

    Pelosi and the rest of the Dumbocrats lose..

    President Trump wins..

    AGAIN... :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hawley’s resolution would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution, once the House has withheld articles for 25 calendar days or more. Under the proposed rule, any senator would be able to move to dismiss the articles once the time period has elapsed. That motion would then be voted upon by the full Senate.

    At this point, Pelosi has held the articles of impeachment for 19 days. The House voted to adopt the articles on Dec. 18, 2019.

    “After three years of searching for a reason to impeach this president, Democrats in the House cannot seem to find the time to send over the articles of impeachment,” Blackburn said in a statement Monday. “If House Democrats are so confident in their findings, they ought to have no problem sending the articles over within a 25 day deadline.”

    Tick Tock, Dumbocrats... Tick Tock....

    :D

  143. [143] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    Prove it.. You can't because it only happened in your Trump/America hating addled brain..

    Not only did it in fact happen but this is the second time I have referred to it.

    If you are starting to experience memory loss and/or early onset Dementia and can't even keep your subjects straight (hint: this had nothing to do with Trump) bandying about insults like "addled brain" may not be in your best interest...

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only did it in fact happen but this is the second time I have referred to it.

    There are no facts to support this claim..

    You can refer to it all you want..

    But you have never provided me with a single model or prediction vis a vis the global warming con that was accurate..

Leave a Reply

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

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

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