Slashdot Mirror

What next, people freaking out that out in the desert somewhere, the military is practicing with guns, bombs, rockets, and other weapons that can kill large numbers of people?

Actually, and sadly, yes.

Every claim he made in the above post was true.

Nope, in fact they were quite refutable. Not only that, you do realize it was trying to defend another post, with yet more falsehoods, don't you?

If you can't see that the Republicans cleaned house this election, you are mathematically challenged.

Unlike you, I can pay attention to the data, not just make the conclusions I want to believe are true, so recognizing that turnout was down, the actual numbers were relatively close, and only the distorting effect of gerrymandering and malappoirtionment misleads certain people into thinking that there's actually a substantial gap.

The "more people voted for Clinton" argument only shows your ignorance of our election system.

The argument, in case you don't remember, was regarding the American people, thus your denial of that factor shows your ignorance of the conversation. We're not talking about the electoral system. We never were. We're talking about something else. Your defensive deflection underscores the weakness of your argument, because you are desperately trying to evade the rebuttal of the original point being made.

Either that, or you are just innocently confused and mistaken. I doubt it.

I'm sure Trump's average golf score is lower than Hillary's but if Trump lost the election you wouldn't see me bringing his golf score up. You care to know why? Because both golf scores and number of votes mean fuck all in our election.

Indeed, I don't care how he scores on the Golf Course. I do, however, care that he rushes off to the Golf Course at the cost of millions of dollars, even after proclaiming that he wouldn't do that, nosiree, he'd stay on the job.

Of course, if he had lost the election, he'd be screaming tirades to get attention, but at least it'd be on his own dime.

The only thing that matters is electoral votes and Trump is better at scooping those up.

No, that doesn't really matter in this conversation, we were actually discussing something else in this post and you're merely trying to derail the conversation since factually this defense was mistaken, as pointed out already.

Cry about the game all you want but both parties knew the rules to the game before election day. If you can't understand this, please stick to spreading cream on your sore butt hole and bugger off with the "Hillary had more votes" line.

Cry about the electoral college all you want, but the rules of that broken, flawed, system, were known to be so long before election day in 2016. In fact, you might review a little history instead of trying to emulate a certain fool who can't even admit he lost the popular vote but has to proclaim without evidence, that the election system was broken enough to allow millions of illegal votes.

Which, of course, would invalidate his election, as well as the thousands of others on that day, but do you think he thinks about that? He still lies about a landslide.

Sorry, you lost again

Every claim he made in the above post was true.

Nope, in fact they were quite refutable. Not only that, you do realize it was trying to defend another post, with yet more falsehoods, don't you?

If you can't see that the Republicans cleaned house this election, you are mathematically challenged.

Unlike you, I can pay attention to the data, not just make the conclusions I want to believe are true, so recognizing that turnout was down, the actual numbers were relatively close, and only the distorting effect of gerrymandering and malappoirtionment misleads certain people into thinking that there's actually a substantial gap.

The "more people voted for Clinton" argument only shows your ignorance of our election system.

The argument, in case you don't remember, was regarding the American people, thus your denial of that factor shows your ignorance of the conversation. We're not talking about the electoral system. We never were. We're talking about something else. Your defensive deflection underscores the weakness of your argument, because you are desperately trying to evade the rebuttal of the original point being made.

Either that, or you are just innocently confused and mistaken. I doubt it.

I'm sure Trump's average golf score is lower than Hillary's but if Trump lost the election you wouldn't see me bringing his golf score up. You care to know why? Because both golf scores and number of votes mean fuck all in our election.

Indeed, I don't care how he scores on the Golf Course. I do, however, care that he rushes off to the Golf Course at the cost of millions of dollars, even after proclaiming that he wouldn't do that, nosiree, he'd stay on the job.

Of course, if he had lost the election, he'd be screaming tirades to get attention, but at least it'd be on his own dime.

The only thing that matters is electoral votes and Trump is better at scooping those up.

No, that doesn't really matter in this conversation, we were actually discussing something else in this post and you're merely trying to derail the conversation since factually this defense was mistaken, as pointed out already.

Cry about the game all you want but both parties knew the rules to the game before election day. If you can't understand this, please stick to spreading cream on your sore butt hole and bugger off with the "Hillary had more votes" line.

Cry about the electoral college all you want, but the rules of that broken, flawed, system, were known to be so long before election day in 2016. In fact, you might review a little history instead of trying to emulate a certain fool who can't even admit he lost the popular vote but has to proclaim without evidence, that the election system was broken enough to allow millions of illegal votes.

Which, of course, would invalidate his election, as well as the thousands of others on that day, but do you think he thinks about that? He still lies about a landslide.

Sorry, you lost again

not as long as lenders discrimnate against equally qualified minorities.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

http://www.denverpost.com/2016...

and refuse to even call back equally qualified minorities for rentals and leases.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

Living in US, my concern is the fact-checking effort from Facebook, Google, Twitter.... https://www.usatoday.com/story... It sounds good on the surface. In the end, it won't be rosy. In a democratic society, the ultimate way to prevent fabricated facts is education. However, our public education system is ...?!

3 LSU sports pays for all school sports teams and facility + puts millions into the general fund.

http://www.theadvocate.com/bat...

NCCA
http://sports.usatoday.com/nca...

Actually, SpankTone, you're showing your true colors by your lying with statistics again, as you're asserting a claim about gun ownership that's untrue. In actuality, gun ownership has dropped. Yes, Breitbart lied and portrayed it otherwise, but you know, that's Breitbart for you, just yesterday I pointed out to havilar how they were lying about political donations by federal employees.

Sorry, there's no point in conversing with you due to your lack of intellectual rigor, you're too obvious in your tendency to lie, you're not even ignorant, you're just outright fraudulent as you deliberately concoct an imaginary scenario as you spout your hysterical demagoguery.

But it's ok, the fact that you lie, says all that we need to know. Now you just need to sputter and fume, and show your rage that you got caught lying once again.

Never change. I don't want to get a new compass.

You have to read very closely, but unintended fatal shootings in the US from 2005-2010 resulted in 3800 deaths, or roughly 760 per year.

You need to read more carefully as there are known flaws with the reports.

As a frame of reference, approximately 250,000 people die from medical mistakes at hospitals every year, yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors.

WTF man? Banning hospitals wouldn't solve the problem, but instead create a whole new one (not that Trump isn't willing to cause hospitals to shut down, mind you..) and there's a shitload of regulation of doctors. Including programs to reduce medical mistakes.

(as evidenced by the fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but accidental shootings are at nearly the lowest they have been ever).

Sorry dude, we don't have any rigorous data collection on that. Sure, there's Gunfail, but its author notes the lack of actual substantive reporting.

Instead, the errors are well known.

As with any tool in this imperfect world, there are accidents, misuse and abuse, but we must weigh the cost vs benefit of guns, something that the fascist progressives and Dims refuse to do (and have prevented the FBI from collecting statistics on; there is a very cynical reason that you can't find statistics on incidents where citizens save lives or property using their lawfully owned firearm, you can only find "gun deaths").

Nope, it's actually something that the Republicans and the NRA are known to make up numbers/a> about, and furthermore, it's well known that they refuse to let data be collected on gun injuries.

Maybe if you didn't lie so much, you wouldn't have so many problems.

A corp's primary goal is profit. Your idea would just become a "race to the bottom" going all the way to "zero corporate taxes", and then into the negative with various tax breaks. There are already several corps that manage to pay no income tax in 2015.

The story is a rip off of this http://www.businessinsider.com...

The problem with this theory is that electricity is only 20% of mankinds energy consumption https://www.iea.org/publicatio... each panel requires 20 grams of silver to build https://www.usatoday.com/story... so to build this solar farm would require 7.2 times all the silver on planet earth.... https://www.nationaleconomicse...

But Elon Musk, who's claim to fame is that he has fleeced more taxpayer dollars than any person in the history of mankind said it, so it must be true, right?

if the people of Havana overthrew their government that would not be [an invasion].

How is the Cuban people's hypothetical uprising relevant to whether or not American action is an invasion or not?

If Cuba was overthrown by anti US rebels that were busy murdering US citizens the US would reinforce Guantanamo.

If that were to happen, the US would've evacuated the endangered citizens. If an invasion were necessary to conduct such an evacuation, they would've invaded. They would not have annexed the country, however — certainly not with a hasty fake referendum. For example, Puerto Rico conducts a referendum every 10 years on whether to remain an American protectorate, to become fully independent, or to join the US as the 51st state...

There was no invasion, it did not happen.

Foreign troops, that weren't in a country before, went in there to take over the country's infrastructure, government buildings, and military installations. Khm, if only we had a term that describes such an action... Oh wait, I know! English has a word for this: "invasion".

If Russia left they would be out of work and overrun by Svoboda Nazis.

Dude, you are too embarrassing even for a Russian... You can not — not in the same post, anyway — deny the very fact of invasion and explain, how it protected people.

There was no fake referendum

A referendum on loyalty to the occupying power is meaningless — unless you also accept 100% of North Koreans adoring Kim and 100% of Iraqis electing Hussein. Moreover, the "referendum" took place mid-March, whereas the invasion began at the end of February. Even if we were, contrary to all precedent, grant the populace the power to decide to switch countries and accepted the "referendum" as genuine, Russia's action was still an invasion because it took place before this "expression of popular will".

But do remember this conversation, when polite German-speaking blonds without insignia organize theirs in Königsberg and (just as polite) Asian-looking men — in Kurills. Oh, and Tahanrog would, no doubt, elect to return to Ukraine, when polite guys from the Right Sector take it over.

Why would you think that Russian troops would be needed to invade a Russian population?

Troops don't invade populations. "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!" Troops invade countries. In 2014 Russian troops invaded Ukraine. That was the beginning of the end of Russia as we knew it. Good riddance. After centuries of Orda-induced hiatus, Kyiv is once again rising as the center of Eastern European Slavs. Brush up on your Ukrainian, you'll need it.

The billions of dollars of student debt is directly attributable to the Republican insistence on cutting taxes and support for state Universities.

In 1975 states paid for approximately 75% of an education at a State University with the student contributing the other 25%, meaning the majority of students could pay for college with a summer job and working part-time during the school year, maybe with some help from family. Additional financial assistance was available for truly needy students. The taxpayer accepted their part of the social compact to provide a higher education to the youth and support the large Public Research and Land Grant universities. Universities that were established and funded by our founding fathers that valued higher education for all youth.

Fast forward to today, the percentages are reversed 75% student/25% state funding with the gap made up by even public university students going into debt that will take decades to pay off. The conservative Republicans that insist on paying as little in taxes is short-changing today's youth and repudiating the vision of the founders as the the value of higher educations.

I wonder how much of the rising costs is actually due to the runaway costs of varsity athletic programs with high dollar coaches and stadiums.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

I think there are already plans afoot to get rid of private prisons in this country. Private prisons are being phased out... at least for now, unless Trump or a later President decides to reverse that decision.

Are you nuts? While it's not really true Jeff sessions owns private prisons it most certainly is true private prisons lobbied trump lavishly, and he accepted the money including over 250k usd for just the inauguration. Further Trumps cleansing of America of immigrants requires a detainment period at, you guessed it, prison of which many are private. It's no wonder Sessions is bringing back 1960s hystaria around marijuana and minor offenses either, the shitshow of how private prisons are run in the USA needs to end but is instead expanding.

Sure thing!

This video shows the architect of the affordable health care act making fun of his supporters for being stupid. You may not have known this because it was not widely covered in the liberal press.

Here is a story from USA Today that describes how several of what you would think of as trusted news sources altered information and made up facts to create a story line in the Trayvon Martin Case.

Do you know the recent one about how Clapper out right lied about the Russian hacking thing, or do I have to go dig out a link you there too?

So yeah, since I am informed unlike you, I can provide links. Since you are of limited intelligence, you might not understand that you do not have to believe everything you read from a news source, wether it's Fox News or ABC news. They all have bias and agendas. But, by keeping an open mind, you just might grow up enough to learn that the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Each side generally displays a version of the truth. You gain greater clarity by seeing all sides. Only children listen to one thing and believe they understand the world.

Lastly, I criticize "liberal" sources because they have long ago given up any semblance of trying to tell the truth, and instead of become an arm of a political party. The irony is that if you understood liberalism at all, you would understand this is the antithesis of liberal thought. Sadly, I don't think you do understand this.

Btw, its interesting you got modded up to 2 in each post, even though you no defended ideas or well constructed arguments. Self modding is gauche.

So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use, a product that is responsible for over 85% of all date rapes and is the 4th largest cause of death in the U.S?

Was this not mentioned because you are friends with Mia Vice Izafine and Bee Cuz Ilikait?

I would be willing to bet the literacy rate of coal mining areas of WV is quite a bit higher than parts of Chicago.

Sure, there are parts of Chicago that have day-cares with lots of infants.

Selective manipulation of data sets lets you get far ahead.

But sorry, Bartles, we're already there. CPS knows what's up, downstaters don't mind ruining things for people in the big city.

It's just like Christie in New Jersey. Beach for him, no beach for anybody else.

Yeah? A citation should be easy to provide, then.

And it is of course Richard Branson has clearly spoken about it from personal knowledge. This has also been confirmed by Trump's friends like Omarosa Manigault. In fact if you just do a Google search for "Trump enemy list" you will quickly find out that he actively seems to want to publicise the idea. The only question is, given it's so easy, why didn't you search yourself?

MTOW is already affecting airlines that squeeze in too many seats. Norwegian had to cancel its summer route to Las Vegas because there were too many days over 104 degrees. Beyond that temperature they cannot get their insanely dense packed planes of the ground.

How is this different from the Koch brothers?

Oh...right...it's not.

Yeah, the Kochs don't like Trump either.
Koch network slams Trump immigrant ban
Koch network to Trump administration: "You are never going to win the war on drugs. Drugs won."

OMG, you people get so fucking worked up against Trump that you fail to realize that the ban would already be over if it had been allowed to go into effect. It was only supposed to be for 90 days. Stop your whining already. And don't start with the bullshit argument that they should have their vetting plan in place, DHS has been blocked from doing so.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Meanwhile, all the false flag, false report, and literal violent bullshit has been coming out of the left.

Nope!

Nope!

Nope!

I will grant this did though.

But but muh conservatives! But but his tax returns!

And shadowy business dealings. He can't even keep his promises, note how he claimed he wasn't going to take money from foreigners staying at his hotels? oops

Sure man, and that's why the legislature of Tennessee had a fit over a Muslim foot bath, oh wait, no, it was a mop sink.

It's just a bogeyman, another of the things that riles up the base in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Alabama, and the like, fears of the dreaded "Sharia" law while simultaneously lamenting how they can't do things the "Christian" way, as the Constitution intended.

I was being half-snarky... the GOP health bill hasn't passed yet.
But for real, the Canada thing simply means that a cop is empowered to DO something if he sees a driver with a cell phone in his/her hand while driving, and the driver can't weasel out of it simply by claiming it was turned off, requiring the cop to prove he could tell whether it was on or off from the vantage point of his cruiser.

It's just a legal attempt, democratically passed, to get around the fact that cell phones impair drivers as much as being rip-roaring drunk, but there's no blood-alcohol test they can run on a texter to prove that he was actually texting and not just allegedly holding a switched-off phone while driving (yeah, right), particularly if the texter ditched or destroyed his phone at or just after being pulled-over or engaging in an accident.

That's right, some damn fool can kill your sister, but by raising his hand swearing in court that his phone was off just before it was thrown from his car and destroyed, there's reasonable doubt to that vehicular manslaughter charge.

Yeah, maybe there's evidence out there in cyberland, but what's to compel that knucklehead to serve up his Facebook password? Does the district have the money to subpoena the carrier, the provider, Facebook, and to carry out the cyber-forensics to prove he was texting, and not just ordinary driver careless oh gosh I didn't see the light change. Accidents happen, sorry about your sister, think of how my insurance is gonna go up and thank god my airbag worked right.

So, given that the risk of being T-Boned and instantly transformed into a quadriplegic by an asshole texter is very fucking real, please do enumerate the hardships and dangers of the so-called "nanny-state" that outweigh this attempt to put some teeth into no-texting-while-driving laws, particularly with respect to Canada.
I mean, is there evidence of waves of depressed Molson-drinking immigrants flooding over from the great North, thirsting for the Freedom to text and drive without oppression from storm-trooping Mounties?
I don't think so, I haven't seen it.
But maybe I'm wrong. Any Canadians in slashdot-land want to weigh in? Any youse guys feeling repressed up North up there? or are you guys just so chill you can live fine with your hands off your phones while driving?

Because the majority of the voters want the Iraq war and the War on Drugs (I'm with you, by the way, on those items), but the majority of voters don't want "free" health care because they're smart enough to understand that health care isn't actually free.

Gallup polls: 55% support the ACA

Quinnipiac University: 17% support Obamacare repeal.

USA Today: 51% of those surveyed said they would prefer to keep and work to improve ACA. Another 7% said they wanted to keep the health care law as is.

Keep in mind that many "approval" numbers for the ACA appear low because there is a percentage of people who will not approve of the ACA when they call it "Obamacare." Second there is also a percentage that is against the ACA because it does not for them go far enough. They want single-payer.

There is absolutely no evidence beyond right-wing sound bites that indicate that government involvement in health care is unpopular.

Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.

You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....

That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:

College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds

...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;

Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.

so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.

This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.

You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.

As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.

Oh absolutely! Who could possibly notice the infringement of rights .. which never happen?
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
Top Ten Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain Spotlighted in New Report
Wichita State University: Student Government Denies Recognition to Libertarian Group Because It Defends Free Speech
Part of D.C. Gun Carry Law Struck Down in Federal Court

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someo

AC lets go down your list
Your https://www.usatoday.com/story... is just saying the 17 intelligence agencies released a report.
Your http://theduran.com/this-is-th... has 17 intelligence agencies released a report. With the NSA been moderately confident.
"the FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers"
"analytical judgment" " CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment"
Lets keep reading
Note the link to "Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report" in your listed links AC (March 24, 2017)
https://www.voanews.com/a/cybe...

this has been extensively reported on. if you decide to ignore all of these sources, and instead make a decision based on some other unknown source (i.e. internal circle jerk), you might as well be a flat-earther, bigfoot hunter, UFO spotter, and loch ness fisherman. you put an unreachably high bar of evidence on things you don't want to believe, while putting a very low bar of evidence on things you want to believe. you have become that nutcase.

Its so nice that the professional Russian trolls have moved onto other targets, so that I can again read "+5 Insightful" comments like this one that are actually insightful. I think they are busy today protecting Putin at home. Probably won't last, but I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.

This mindless parroting needs to be put on ice. Trump's team has been under a counterintelligence investigation, but not Trump himself. That's what his comment was about.

There is also, now, the collusion investigation, which Mueller has taken over. That is what Trump is being investigated for. Believe it or not, our intelligence community can handle more than one investigation at once. And I wouldn't expect any of them to tell the subject of their investigation that they're under investigation.

All that said, when people talk about what they're investigation and it's in a public forum, don't expect know everything. I never make this assumption, and none of us should either imho - we don't have security clearance. Still, if you want to cling to that line about 'Comey told Trump 3 times', well, go ahead - it doesn't mean anything and Beetlejuice ain't comin' either.

That's the Republican response, not the Christian one. And it's not a strawman if they actually think that way. https://www.usatoday.com/story... Hence our predicament.

On the other hand, Not Just Pope Francis: Evangelicals Praise Paris Climate Talks

How about obstruction of justice, for one? Unless you think Comey was lying in his sworn testimony today, Trump has already committed the same offenses that Nixon was accused of, and resigned rather than be impeached over.

How about violation of the constitutional prohibition on emoluments? Here's just one example of his businesses taking money directly from foreign governments - the profits on which goes to him.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, and not even getting into some of the shadier stuff that may involve Russia.

Sort of like these sites... Pay for each bid... everybody loses, as even the winner will often end up paying more than product value.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.co...

The President is under no obligation to listen to you. Ignoring constituents is rather poor form, but it's not illegal or unconstitutional, any more than it is illegal or unconstitutional for current or past Presidents to ignore emails, phone calls, or written correspondence.

He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like. It's not like the question has not come up before in other contexts. Mike Pence even ran into the buzzsaw.

Public officials can either accept comments or not, but they can't selectively curate their audience and the audience's comments to assuage their fragile egos.

Believe it or not, USA is NOT the only contributor to the Paris Agreement, the USA contribution is only 3% of the total figure. So you want to pollute and let everyone else clear up the mess. We all have responsibilities to this planet.
"Per capita, however, the U.S. pumped out more CO2 than China and India combined in 2015. On average, each individual living in the United States contributed 16.07 tons to the country’s total. But each individual living in China and India contributed 7.73 and 1.87 tons on average, respectively." quote from https://www.usatoday.com/story...

This isn't about pollution. It's about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere - which is the primary acceleration factor for global warming.

The key point is this: human beings are dumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere above and beyond that produced naturally by the environment. This has to have an impact, and reduction of human contributions also has to lower or slow the rate of impact.

You can't escape the laws of physics. We have been accelerating the factor of greenhouse warming since the dawn of the industrial era, and therefore decreasing the time we have available to deal with the effects that are already impacting us. We can argue all day about the primary cause of the warming - increased output of the sun, etc...but you can't argue that what we are doing has no effect.

Some examples of related impacts that are accelerating and affecting human populations today:

The number of severe weather events has increased significantly and steadily year over year since the 1950s.

Sea level rise is real, and related subsidence of coastal areas is also real (e.g. Miami Florida, and Norfolk Virginia sea level impacts). Indications are this increase in speed of sea level rise is related to the thinning and breakup of the floating ice in Antarctica that serves to slow the march of land based glaciers into the Southern Ocean. Glaciers there are recorded as dropping 4 meters per year. And, Larsen B is getting ready to break off and form the largest iceberg in recorded history sometime very soon (June/July). A similar speedup of glacial movement and subsidence is also being measured in Greenland as well as other ice sheets around the world.

Water sheds are being impacted all over the world due to loss of glaciers, both in terms of availability of water in the event of drought, and in terms of record levels of melt water flooding - most recently seen in the Oroville California dam overflow and resultant damage to the aging infrastructure, and flooding this year in Peru.

Crops are already being impacted by heat and drought conditions, and some Northern areas are starting to consider using seeds normally reserved for more Southerly climates, while those in the South are looking into modifications to make their plants more hardy in drought stressed conditions.

Permafrost is not only melting more frequently and in larger areas across the world, but is also causing ground subsidence - with massive evidence of this in Siberia.

By doing nothing - we accept that the major human population centers will be faced with existential problems sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile I cannot find any examples of what you are talking about in Trump's actual speech

It took me a whole 5 seconds, I guess it was "I alone" instead of "Only I", but I was paraphrasing: Donald Trump accepts GOP nomination, says 'I alone can fix' system

It would be nice if you statist supporters would refrain from outright lying at least once... But I guess that is asking way too much of integrity you completely lack. What a shame that every single post from your kind has to be corrected lest the lies spread.

*sigh* Statist supporter? Did you even notice my sig? I've been voting Libertarian for the past 20 years.

Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did. She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college. If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.

Wrong.

Democrats didn't get blindsided by Wisconsin and Michigan going for Trump.

Remember Obama was in Michigan campaigning for Hillary the day before the election. So Hillary losing those states was not a surprise to Democrats - they knew they were in play.

And they deliberately kept Hillary out of them.

Hillary didn't campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan because every time she went there she lost votes - she's that horrible a candidate.

I'm skeptical that these companies lobbying the government of Texas would cause them to change their mind. But if the NCAA does in Texas what they did in North Carolina, and announces that due to the actions of these government officials in supporting this bill that the seven (American) football bowl games currently scheduled to be held in various Texas stadiums in December 2017 would be moved to other venues, THAT would draw the attention of the citizens of Texas. Football is kind of a big thing in Texas.

What kind of arrogance is this?

It's the kind of arrogance Trump spoke of routinely while campaigning.

You mean "spoke with" as he demonstrated it, quite clearly. Even recently, apparently NATO is so great, if it didn't exist, he'd create it, because he's just that smart. It's nauseating, really it is.

Our elites have their heads so far up foreign asses that other nations feel entitled to receiving every deference for their concerns, and they can't help but publicly melt down if those concerns ever meet any resistance.

While our elites indeed, have their heads up some asses, it is their own, as they feel entitled to lying and bullshitting to us too, and yes, they do have a meltdown when you criticize or challenge them. Just check any corporate CEO or politician when they get caught doing something wrong, or when somebody objects to their bullshit. They whine and moan over it.

Or sports figure. I expect Tiger to be griping shortly.

Not since Reagan pushed back on Japan (limiting motorcycle imports and establishing content requirements in auto manufacturing) has there been any resistance to the destruction of the US industrial base or the displacement of the US worker.

Man, Ross Perot feels forgotten already. You gave him a sad. You did say any and he did make a case for it. Not to mention elected presidents. I guess you can't even bother to remember things that actually happened.

But no, Reagan was quite inconsequential in those acts. Harley-Davidson needed a lot of internal reform, and they got it, though they still can't make a decent small bike. They still employ fewer people than they did though, thanks AUTOMATION!

A whole generation of foreign leaders and captains of industry have emerged that is utterly unable to imagine there being any friction with the US. It doesn't even occur to them that someone in the US might be offended by their reactions to it.

Nope, they're just acting like they ALWAYS have. It's like you don't have a clue how people behaved in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s, and somehow think something is different.

And yes, that includes American ones. Their shit never steaks, but gosh, don't even fart in their presence. Go check out the Banana Wars. Check out the US History of International oil companies. Check out the Opium Wars. The Annexation of Texas, California, and Hawaii.

I suspect you have this attitude that somehow, someway, American diplomats and advocates became weak, while the foreigners were domineering and controlling so you can justify your own posturing and resentment.

Nothing new. Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing. And James Monroe. And...well, you get the point.

You're complaining about nothing new, you're complaining about an offense the people you might ostensibly support are as guilty as any other, and while I could respect some ire over the general class of behavior among the sneering condescending boors, I find your nativist sentiments to a problem reflecting upon your bias and your own apparent ignorance as unfortunate.

Do us a favour and get with the program! YOUR electric company disasters are costing us problems here in the U.S.: "A news report says Japan's tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant was so unprepared for the disaster that workers had to bring protective gear and instruction manuals from elsewhere and borrow equipment from a contractor. The report, released by operator Tokyo Electric Company, is based on interviews of workers and plant data. It portrays chaos in a desperate and ultimately unsuccessful battle to protect the Fukushima plant from meltdown, and shows that workers struggled with unfamiliar equipment." ap.org/ - "Scientists have found traces of radioactivity in fish off the California coast that migrated from the waters off of Japan, site of the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster of 2011, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The researchers say the evidence is unequivocal. The young tuna were found to be contaminated with two radioactive forms of the element cesium from Fukushima." http://content.usatoday.com/co... - "Japanese whalers caught 2 animals along the northern coast that had traces of radiation from leaks at a damaged nuclear power plant, officials said. 2 of 17 minke whales caught off the Pacific coast of Hokkaido showed traces of radioactive cesium, both about 1/20th of the legal limit, fisheries officials said. They are the first whales thought to have been affected by radiation leaked from the Fukushima nuclear plant since it was hit by a 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami." - http://www.newser.com/story/19... http://www.newser.com/story/20... http://www.newser.com/story/17... http://www.newser.com/story/23...

It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

The corollary to that is that lawyers are 4 times less likely to be punished for improper, illegal or negligent practice.

Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

If we're using the old goose/gander cliche, shouldn't we perform medical experimentation on the lawyers that get disbarred?

It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

What's with all the Russophobia?

Common sense?

Do the Russians blow up little girls at concerts?

I certainly don't doubt that Putin would do so. The most you can say is that he won't see it as to his advantage.

Or perhaps they call for the murder of gays/lesbians?

They actually murder them

Do they advocate stoning women who don't wear tents in public?

No, they advocate throwing their enemies in the gulag.

And no, they aren't exactly good on attire, no.

Did their Prophet call for enslavement, rape, and murder of the Christians/Jews?

Russians aren't big on religious tolerance either, no.

I get it, you probably have the Russians precisely because they fight the radical Islamic terrorists. How fucking sick.

Oh so, they fight the Radical Islamic terrorists, so nothing they do can be wrong, is that it?

Maybe it's just like WW2, when Stalin and Hitler were BOTH MURDEROUS TYRANNICAL DESPOTS.

And since the Islamic terrorists don't have a tenth of Hitler's war machine, I see no reason to buddy up to Putin.

I will not give him a favorable reference in the House of Commons, the House of Representatives, or in the House of Saud.

I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.

I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.

Health insurance companies do make their money by charging premiums for policies that cover treatment. If there suddenly were no disease and no injuries, health insurance companies (and branches of companies) would go out of business, even if this were established by some magical means rather than simply wiping out humanity.

The more health care costs, the more money goes through health insurance companies, and the more money that goes through them the more they can make. Health insurance companies indeed have little fiscal motive to make people healthier. This isn't why they don't fund research, but the sentences you quoted as "not even wrong" are largely correct.

Everything you said above also applies to doctors, hospitals, and scientists that research cures and treatments.

The fact is, insurance companies try to keep you healthier in order to reduce their own costs in the future. Both my current and previous employer reduce the coinsurance cost on my hypertension medication by half, including that for a drug I take called Bystolic that is still under patent and is quite expensive if purchased without insurance. Normally it would be subject to their premium brand copay, but since it is preventative they price it the same as a generic preventative drug.

And that's not all they do. For example, mine also offers a premium discount if you have your BMI, cholesterol, glucose, and blood pressure controlled. And if you don't, they will give you the same discount as long as you participate in an approved wellness program.

Believe it or not, most people aren't out to kill you for profit.

You guys remind me of people who think that most of the world molests children, even though it's quite rare:

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

We have no measurements at all on what any sort of fake news could of did. You cannot compare a nebulous quantity like this.

Hmm, I suspect that advertisers would disagree with you. They spent lots of money, they want results. You may not trust them, but they do have measurements.

While we have real studies on the likely number of illegals who voted. Studies that show the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

Oh really, and you can cite these studies? Sean Spicer couldn't. And I can find other reports that say numbers such as you and Trump claim are bogus.

Sorry, but actual prosecutions are so low, that you have to ask, if your allegations were true, why isn't anybody being charged? You know that does include Trump voters.

I'll believe you care when you get that woman charged. Absent that, I'll believe you don't even care.

Meanwhile, half of the votes in the recounts we did, in Hillary majority districts, could not even be recounted because of problems.

And these problems were? How many Trump votes were included? You know what I noticed about Michigan though?

2,279,543(DT) 2,268,839(HC)
2,564,569(BO) 2,115,256(MR)
2,872,579(BO) 2,048,639(JM)
2,479,183(JK) 2,313,746(GWB)

Hmm. Something odd about how the vote dropped precipitously in 2016. Perhaps you should explain that, instead of chasing a dubious phantom that is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Republican state government. Because they could have improved the voting systems if they wanted, they could have managed any errors. Mysteriously, they instead chose to gerrymander the state.

And while I suspect you don't want to admit it, if you believe there are indeed millions of unlawful voters, the you can't trust ANY election returns, there are no legally elected officials anywhere.

That means we have an illegitimate government. At all levels. Federal, state, and local.

Good luck calling for all of them to be removed.

I doubt you have the integrity to try.

The Trump administration has done nothing counter to Constitution.

That remains to be seen. There's this thing in the Constitution called the Emoluments clause that restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Trump maintains, through at least his family members and a paper-thin revocable trust, a LOT of property interests (hotels, resorts, golf courses, vacation homes) that rich foreigners can dump money into in return for a little kind attention from Herr Donald.

He still hasn't released his tax returns either (is he still being audited, not that that means anything), which might show substantial financial obligations to foreign stake-holders (there's a lot of borrowing that goes on in the real-estate business).

Then there's this little matter of involvement of a foreign power in the matter of an election, and obstruction of justice for trying to cover up any link to that foreign power.

I'm not exactly sure what would possibly satisfy you. Is USA Today sufficiently mainstream? Trump's business network reached alleged Russian mobsters.

To expand his real estate developments over the years, Donald Trump, his company and partners repeatedly turned to wealthy Russians and oligarchs from former Soviet republics — several allegedly connected to organized crime, according to a USA TODAY review of court cases, government and legal documents and an interview with a former federal prosecutor.

The president and his companies have been linked to at least 10 wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering.

Among them:

A member of the firm that developed the Trump SoHo Hotel in New York is a twice-convicted felon who spent a year in prison for stabbing a man and later scouted for Trump investments in Russia.

An investor in the SoHo project was accused by Belgian authorities in 2011 in a $55 million money-laundering scheme.

Three owners of Trump condos in Florida and Manhattan were accused in federal indictments of belonging to a Russian-American organized crime group and working for a major international crime boss based in Russia.

A former mayor from Kazakhstan was accused in a federal lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in 2014 of hiding millions of dollars looted from his city, some of which was spent on three Trump SoHo units.

A Ukrainian owner of two Trump condos in Florida was indicted in a money-laundering scheme involving a former prime minister of Ukraine.