More people from the Trump administration have been indicted, prosecuted, and convicted than any administration since Nixon (or more than his as well?). Most of the investigations are just getting started. The Mueller report comes out saying, on two particular specific counts, he's apparently innocent on one, and not enough evidence to prosecute on the other. This was the description of it, anyway, from the Trump-appointed AG. When an administration is 10x dirtier than any other (going by indictments, prosecutions, convictions, known provable lies, etc), your reaction is to denigrate people calling him out, acting like they're being overly alarmed. That's the real trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter what he does, or what the people under his command do, some people somehow make an excuse to try to defend him. Sorry, that toy is slowly losing its shine.
Except the ref did make the call. The AG that the Senate only just confirmed. Declined to prosecute. End of story.
So the Trump-appointed AG decided not to prosecute. That's certainly not the end of the story. There's tons of investigations still ongoing. And even the AG admits there's plenty of evidence in support of prosecution, for each and every incident that Mueller investigated. They just made a judgement call that they wouldn't prosecute. They're pretty much saying, ya, there's plenty of shenanigans here, but we're making the decision to only prosecute if we have a slam-dunk case, which we don't at this time. I think the FBI can always reopen a case if more evidence comes to light. The ref specifically did not exonerate, and did not find enough evidence to prosecute. It's a no-call at this time.
Sure the House can still impeach if that is what they want to do....
And all of those indictments had nothing to do with Trump.
Lololol, half of those people were directly appointed by Trump. You don't get any closer of a relationship than personal lawyer for decades, or the very top campaign director. I love the calldown sheet, this is just like when the Trump tower meeting was first speculated. Trump says
1. "There was no meeting at Trump tower! Absolutely none!!!" Then records of a meeting surface...
2. "It was only between 2 people!" Then 3 people are named...
3. "It was only 3!!" Then 5 people are named, and one of them a known informant to the Kremlin.
4. "Just 5 I swear!! And nobody of any high rank in my org!"... 8 people, including Don Jr.
How in the world does anyone believe anybody who just repeatedly, serially, redundantly lies like this??
It was all dirty and shady things those people did on their own. Trump hired a lot of veteran beltway types for his campaign.
Ya, and mob bosses hire dirty thugs all the time. It shouldn't make them innocent. Even without direct orders, leadership style and tactics have a way of filtering down an organization. A one-off, low-level, dirty employee doesn't necessarily say much. But when you're seeing 10x as many prosecutions as the next company (or administration), then you know the top level apples are rotten. Heh, and it's easy to see good leadership in action. When one employee screws up, real leaders actually take responsibility. If nothing else, they at least say, "Ok, we've identified some illegal activity. We're going to launch our own investigation and/or learn from the incident, and ensure this never happens again." Trumps answer? "Nothing bad happened, you're imagining it!!! Baaaaa!"
As for why Trump fired Comey and why is isn't obstruction, I'm no legal expert. But if I had to guess, it may be because as Mueller's findings show there was nothing to it and it was a waste of time. It was also built upon a lie, the dossier made by Steele, a foreign agent by the way.
Ok, you're no longer making any sense at all. Nothing to it? The 'it' is Trump admitted he fired the FBI director over the Russia investigation. Waste of time? See previous mentions of all the prosecutions. Built on a lie? How is Trump admitting obstruction built on a lie? You're saying Trump lied? Lol this convo makes no sense I'm done.
You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.
If you include foreign nationals, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President regardless of party except Nixon. And we're only 2 years in.
Trump admitted to firing the lead investigator, specifically because of this Russia issue. I don't understand how Mueller decided that wasn't obstruction of justice (or was he saying sure, but there's not enough evidence to prosecute and win the case?). But then I realize there were 3 people involved in this decision, and they were all appointed by Trump himself (Barr, Rosenstein, Mueller). Hrm. Mueller didn't even interview the subject of the investigation (after what he admitted to). How can you come to the conclusion the accused is innocent without even interviewing them? Whatever. The point is, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President in the last 40 years. And we're only 2 years in. This investigation was not fruitless by any stretch of the imagination.
No, they pointed out that Clinton is a big-time globalist. She would have been 'the president from Goldman-Sachs'. A clearly bought-out 'centrist' Democrat.
If Clinton was president right now, we would be mired in a land war in Syria. Which, mind you, is all about US energy interests wanting a natural gas pipeline across Syria that Assad will not give them. Nothing more.
Ya, trump has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs. I just wish people would remove their heads from, and realize what are obvious good & bad decisions for the economy. Taking advice from experts in the field? No problem. Giving tax cuts to the super rich during economic good times? Dumb, because that's when you're supposed to be saving for the bad times.
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
"While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."
The goal post is there, in the same place it always has been, the ball is near it, possibly still rolling, and the ref didn't made a call yet on this one. Not sure how so many people are misinterpreting this.
Also note, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said, I just wana see evidence, and filling in other reasons. I have no way of really knowing which reasons are more important, but the ones I listed I thought were more obvious.
So you think the part of the equation that changed is China realized they were not getting legal IP transfer they expected.
I personally think what changed is Trump 1) threw out global political norms, and 2) started a trade war. So 1) increased cyber warfare wouldn't be noticed as much, and 2) In world opinion (soft power), they have an excuse/defense for the times they're caught.
I have tons of evidence to back up my opinion. I'd guess you have a lot less, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
I'm pretty sure that's you Seth Myers. I just want to say, on behalf of the intelligent world, don't beat yourself up; we understand and appreciate you were doing what we all thought was the right thing.
Beyond that, you do not address the idea that partisan operatives and people in power would seek to use 'fact-checkers' to their own ends. That's an important consideration, is it not?
Yes, you're right - I can agree it's an important consideration. Just how important depends on what we're talking about, I'll keep rambling below.
I said his position requires 'x', not that he said 'x'.
I still disagree with the requirement, but maybe we're both reading more into his words. The implication is that he, and I, have seen "way too much" chat online about people distrusting snopes. I have seen almost no evidence of a reason not to trust them. In fact, I don't know of a single org that claims to be fact-checking, that seems dishonest. I've only really used fact-check.org, politifact, open secrets, and snopes. But they all seem completely up-and-up, and I would really doubt that any substantial percentage of their work could be tainted by partisan operatives. At this point, it would take a very large amount of quality evidence to make me really question them. Don't get me wrong, it'd be interesting. But in an age where so many people are incurious as I described, combined with the number of people I feel might be intelligent, but overly ready to believe in conspiracy theories, I'd call it irresponsible to publicly call for the questioning of the fact-checking orgs. In other words, sure, you're right in theory, stuff happens every once in a while. But 99% of the time, people should trust those fact-checking orgs over what the latest Facebook post is making them feel.
If we respond to every thread about fact-checking orgs with reminders to question them, then we are just doing the job of the people that want everyone to question them. "Plant doubt" And those people are exactly the kind of partisan operatives you describe.
The first rule that those wishing to spread misinformation, fake news, etc, must follow is to first destroy the credibility of the fact checkers.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers.
ZombieCat said no such thing. Maybe I understand it more clearly since I see this all the time and feel the same. You don't trust a source because it tells you to trust it. Claiming to be a fact-checking organization is just the first step. You can tell a lot by how much verifiable detail is in a report. You can then look some or all of it up. You can compare it to other sources, use logic like extraordinary claims and Occam's razor, and over time, you understand which sources are more reliable. The comparison is often so easy it's mind-boggling that people actually trust Fox, and distrust Snopes, "just because it claims to be fact-checking organization"?! That's not a reason to trust an org without any other reasoning, but it's definitely not a reason to explicitly distrust it. Especially compared to outlets started by the guy that invented the "tabloid". I've never met someone who both trusted Fox, and was curious enough to occasionally look up sources and do further research. After a bit of arguing, they usually admit 'ok, fine, I don't actually really care about the facts, I just have a gut feeling about this.'
I can't believe you haven't received 20 responses saying thank you for eloquently sharing your knowledge, experiences, and well-informed opinions. And thank you for making Android more secure, and thank you for entertaining some of these imo misguided responses.
Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
If Trump really wanted to actually do anything, why in the world didn't he when R's controlled everything?
And I keep thinking of the easy problems to solve. Legalize drugs, and you kill the Cartels, generate tax revenue, everyone is happy. Every state or country that does it turns out fine and saves tons of money.
We don't really need a vast system to predict and quell protests. That way leads on right down a path probably more like Communist China or possibly North Korea, though the shear number of guns in this country limits how far that is likely to go.
If most of the gun owners think the same way, and they're easily duped, they could be convinced into becoming the ruling communist party. They'd need to be really hierarchy-oriented though, and willing to follow a strongman. Good thing we don't have that in America.
It's not that Trump is the same as Bush (so far, Bush was far worse). It's that a lot of left-wing people are reacting with the same sort of derangement, detached from reality.
I can see the argument for Bush being worse because he got us into a needless war (I call it needless not just because there were no nukes, but also because I've read the conversations between GW and Rumsfield as reported by themselves). And this war can literally be argued to have brought the death of over 1 million people (debatable numbers I'm sure). I don't remember being afraid of elections being cancelled, but if a group of people can cause such a huge needless war, with so much death and literally $trillions being spent, then I don't blame people for being a little over-alarmed. The truth is most people are under-alarmed.
I agree with you that Bush didn't present a realistic threat of dictatorship. But the argument for Trump being worse is the example set by another populist machismo president. Someone who could "shoot someone on 5th avenue" and not get in trouble, attack the free press, change the laws, etc. Someone who can find scapegoats (it's those elites and foreigners!) for all the common man's problems, and get waves of support. So far, Trump has been pretty ineffective in his goals, except for appointing a couple Supreme Court justices that will increase executive power. But it might take just one change - the midterms - to become effective. There's a bunch of anti-trump republicans retiring, because they know they'll lose re-election to pro-trumpers. I believe almost everyone running Republican is showing a pro-trump ad. There's a thin line between civilization and anarchy. Ask Venezuela. I'm not saying it'll happen - I'm surprised and thankful for a minuscule bit of decency shown by white house staff recently (which is completely unprecedented and shows you just how bad it is), but I don't blame people for being a little over-alarmed.
This. For 20 years, Republicans have been using the good times to pay off the rich with tax cuts. That's when you're supposed to be saving up to have a rainy day fund for the bad times. Clinton actually balanced the budget, and Obama got a giant recession we were trying to get out of. Flame all you want, but Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility.
Nobody wants to die in car accidents, but the law requires us to buy insurance. Insurance companies and the police convince us to not drive dangerously by way of premiums, tickets for speed, seat belt, etc. This system ain't perfect, but way better than lack of a system. Nobody wants to die in car accidents but most people won't do the research and make the right choices unless the system exists. I hope there's a similar type of insurance and policing for methane release, it'd be ridiculous if not. Businesses are supposed to chase profit, so that system is even more important - it's not like drivers who have an added incentive of potential death. All that said, I'm thinking a carbon tax allows the free market to determine the most efficient way, versus micro-managing.
Of course a premium has to be paid for base load sources. But the system isn't weighted enough. Base load should be natural gas and nuclear, and afaik, new nuclear is currently frozen due being so much more expensive than everything else. The fact we're using any coal at all means we haven't gone far enough yet. Saying that's pushing for a Lebanese system is like saying seat belt laws will put all car manufacturers out of business.
I'd have to see some very convincing numbers showing that we're already changing too fast to be convinced of it. The science came in 30 years ago, and while the gas progress is great, it still feels like we're way behind where we need to be. Germany has 5x as much solar despite getting as much sun as Portland. My electric bill could double and I wouldn't bat an eye. I see apartments advertising "free electricity". We're living on borrowed pain. Our kids will pay it tenfold.
modern environmentalism... It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship
I consider myself a level-headed person who sees the world reported to me by scientific study. I think you'd call me, therefore, a rabid environmentalist, and I'd call you a dogmatic, biased, neanderthal, stuck in the past, promoting buggy-whips.
But just in case you're capable of discussing topics like grownups, here's some real commentary:
I want to say thanks for opening my eyes a little about shale gas. I previously only knew that it probably caused local environmental damage like minor earthquakes and some correlation to flammable sink water. However, I'm not sure those effects are large-scale enough to dismiss the technology, given the real costly gorilla issue: climate change. Your comment and those above made me think more about it and look it up. I found, so far, that the real thing to consider with shale gas is methane leakage. The latest study I found says if it's kept below 3.2%, it's better than coal, and a 2009 study says it was at 2.4%, so I'm already on board with using shale to replace coal. I wonder if anyone can reply with more recent and definitive data.
However, "better than coal" is not necessarily good enough. I've lived through Hurricane Harvey. If that's indicating what the future holds, then the current cost of any fossil fuel is way higher than we think, we're just not paying for it yet. I therefore believe the best idea I've heard, is that we have to try and estimate that cost, and actually charge it so that we know what we're getting. A carbon tax that is calculated to cost less than 3% of GDP sounds right to me. I'm not mad if gas companies accidentally release methane, as long as they're paying the appropriate price for it.
all the suggestions about what to do about it are pointless and not being adopted anyway...liberals bad.......I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right - never stated but always assumed by people trying to force partisan bullshit down my throat.
Liberals want to make laws protecting people that you don't care about, so what? Conservatives (read oil industry lobbyists) want you to ignore climate change. Believe or not believe, they really don't care, they spout FUD trying to get everyone to ignore the issue for their short-term profits. Do nothing. Don't vote. You're already picking a side.
I agree with the frustration. I've used the Taiwanese health care system, and their $(1/6) health care was equivalent anecdotally (realistically, we could move in that direction, not copy). Lol, vaccines facepalm. Fox is creating a nation of 45% idiocracy pushers, and calmly repeating scientific findings has got us absolutely nowhere. What are we supposed to do?
I do relate to DCFusor. In Europe, I'm a conservative. In America, I'm acrimonious because I think the risk of stopping or changing the freaking ocean currents might be dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
More people from the Trump administration have been indicted, prosecuted, and convicted than any administration since Nixon (or more than his as well?). Most of the investigations are just getting started. The Mueller report comes out saying, on two particular specific counts, he's apparently innocent on one, and not enough evidence to prosecute on the other. This was the description of it, anyway, from the Trump-appointed AG. When an administration is 10x dirtier than any other (going by indictments, prosecutions, convictions, known provable lies, etc), your reaction is to denigrate people calling him out, acting like they're being overly alarmed. That's the real trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter what he does, or what the people under his command do, some people somehow make an excuse to try to defend him. Sorry, that toy is slowly losing its shine.
Ditto.
Except the ref did make the call. The AG that the Senate only just confirmed. Declined to prosecute. End of story.
So the Trump-appointed AG decided not to prosecute. That's certainly not the end of the story. There's tons of investigations still ongoing. And even the AG admits there's plenty of evidence in support of prosecution, for each and every incident that Mueller investigated. They just made a judgement call that they wouldn't prosecute. They're pretty much saying, ya, there's plenty of shenanigans here, but we're making the decision to only prosecute if we have a slam-dunk case, which we don't at this time. I think the FBI can always reopen a case if more evidence comes to light. The ref specifically did not exonerate, and did not find enough evidence to prosecute. It's a no-call at this time.
Sure the House can still impeach if that is what they want to do....
For the rest, I actually somewhat agree.
And all of those indictments had nothing to do with Trump.
Lololol, half of those people were directly appointed by Trump. You don't get any closer of a relationship than personal lawyer for decades, or the very top campaign director. I love the calldown sheet, this is just like when the Trump tower meeting was first speculated. Trump says
How in the world does anyone believe anybody who just repeatedly, serially, redundantly lies like this??
It was all dirty and shady things those people did on their own. Trump hired a lot of veteran beltway types for his campaign.
Ya, and mob bosses hire dirty thugs all the time. It shouldn't make them innocent. Even without direct orders, leadership style and tactics have a way of filtering down an organization. A one-off, low-level, dirty employee doesn't necessarily say much. But when you're seeing 10x as many prosecutions as the next company (or administration), then you know the top level apples are rotten. Heh, and it's easy to see good leadership in action. When one employee screws up, real leaders actually take responsibility. If nothing else, they at least say, "Ok, we've identified some illegal activity. We're going to launch our own investigation and/or learn from the incident, and ensure this never happens again." Trumps answer? "Nothing bad happened, you're imagining it!!! Baaaaa!"
As for why Trump fired Comey and why is isn't obstruction, I'm no legal expert. But if I had to guess, it may be because as Mueller's findings show there was nothing to it and it was a waste of time. It was also built upon a lie, the dossier made by Steele, a foreign agent by the way.
Ok, you're no longer making any sense at all. Nothing to it? The 'it' is Trump admitted he fired the FBI director over the Russia investigation. Waste of time? See previous mentions of all the prosecutions. Built on a lie? How is Trump admitting obstruction built on a lie? You're saying Trump lied? Lol this convo makes no sense I'm done.
You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.
If you include foreign nationals, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President regardless of party except Nixon. And we're only 2 years in.
Trump admitted to firing the lead investigator, specifically because of this Russia issue. I don't understand how Mueller decided that wasn't obstruction of justice (or was he saying sure, but there's not enough evidence to prosecute and win the case?). But then I realize there were 3 people involved in this decision, and they were all appointed by Trump himself (Barr, Rosenstein, Mueller). Hrm. Mueller didn't even interview the subject of the investigation (after what he admitted to). How can you come to the conclusion the accused is innocent without even interviewing them? Whatever. The point is, the Trump camp has more indictments than any other President in the last 40 years. And we're only 2 years in. This investigation was not fruitless by any stretch of the imagination.
No, they pointed out that Clinton is a big-time globalist. She would have been 'the president from Goldman-Sachs'. A clearly bought-out 'centrist' Democrat.
If Clinton was president right now, we would be mired in a land war in Syria. Which, mind you, is all about US energy interests wanting a natural gas pipeline across Syria that Assad will not give them. Nothing more.
Ya, trump has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs. I just wish people would remove their heads from, and realize what are obvious good & bad decisions for the economy. Taking advice from experts in the field? No problem. Giving tax cuts to the super rich during economic good times? Dumb, because that's when you're supposed to be saving for the bad times.
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
"While the ball did not go through the goal posts, it clearly would have if the goal posts had been somewhere else instead."
The goal post is there, in the same place it always has been, the ball is near it, possibly still rolling, and the ref didn't made a call yet on this one. Not sure how so many people are misinterpreting this.
DST was originally to benefit farmers whose workday was dictated by daylight hours.
Surprisingly, nope. Farmers were vociferously against DST for a long time. Apparently, their intense opposition got them associated with it.
s/legal/espionage or via Chinese law/
Also note, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said, I just wana see evidence, and filling in other reasons. I have no way of really knowing which reasons are more important, but the ones I listed I thought were more obvious.
So you think the part of the equation that changed is China realized they were not getting legal IP transfer they expected.
I personally think what changed is Trump 1) threw out global political norms, and 2) started a trade war. So 1) increased cyber warfare wouldn't be noticed as much, and 2) In world opinion (soft power), they have an excuse/defense for the times they're caught.
I have tons of evidence to back up my opinion. I'd guess you have a lot less, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
I'm pretty sure that's you Seth Myers. I just want to say, on behalf of the intelligent world, don't beat yourself up; we understand and appreciate you were doing what we all thought was the right thing.
Yes! This sounds like a great investment!
Fight aliens and foreign countries that are attacking our satellites: $many_trillions
Fight election interference: $0
Beyond that, you do not address the idea that partisan operatives and people in power would seek to use 'fact-checkers' to their own ends. That's an important consideration, is it not?
Yes, you're right - I can agree it's an important consideration. Just how important depends on what we're talking about, I'll keep rambling below.
I said his position requires 'x', not that he said 'x'.
I still disagree with the requirement, but maybe we're both reading more into his words. The implication is that he, and I, have seen "way too much" chat online about people distrusting snopes. I have seen almost no evidence of a reason not to trust them. In fact, I don't know of a single org that claims to be fact-checking, that seems dishonest. I've only really used fact-check.org, politifact, open secrets, and snopes. But they all seem completely up-and-up, and I would really doubt that any substantial percentage of their work could be tainted by partisan operatives. At this point, it would take a very large amount of quality evidence to make me really question them. Don't get me wrong, it'd be interesting. But in an age where so many people are incurious as I described, combined with the number of people I feel might be intelligent, but overly ready to believe in conspiracy theories, I'd call it irresponsible to publicly call for the questioning of the fact-checking orgs. In other words, sure, you're right in theory, stuff happens every once in a while. But 99% of the time, people should trust those fact-checking orgs over what the latest Facebook post is making them feel.
If we respond to every thread about fact-checking orgs with reminders to question them, then we are just doing the job of the people that want everyone to question them. "Plant doubt" And those people are exactly the kind of partisan operatives you describe.
The first rule that those wishing to spread misinformation, fake news, etc, must follow is to first destroy the credibility of the fact checkers.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers.
ZombieCat said no such thing. Maybe I understand it more clearly since I see this all the time and feel the same. You don't trust a source because it tells you to trust it. Claiming to be a fact-checking organization is just the first step. You can tell a lot by how much verifiable detail is in a report. You can then look some or all of it up. You can compare it to other sources, use logic like extraordinary claims and Occam's razor, and over time, you understand which sources are more reliable. The comparison is often so easy it's mind-boggling that people actually trust Fox, and distrust Snopes, "just because it claims to be fact-checking organization"?! That's not a reason to trust an org without any other reasoning, but it's definitely not a reason to explicitly distrust it. Especially compared to outlets started by the guy that invented the "tabloid". I've never met someone who both trusted Fox, and was curious enough to occasionally look up sources and do further research. After a bit of arguing, they usually admit 'ok, fine, I don't actually really care about the facts, I just have a gut feeling about this.'
I can't believe you haven't received 20 responses saying thank you for eloquently sharing your knowledge, experiences, and well-informed opinions. And thank you for making Android more secure, and thank you for entertaining some of these imo misguided responses.
Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
If Trump really wanted to actually do anything, why in the world didn't he when R's controlled everything?
And I keep thinking of the easy problems to solve. Legalize drugs, and you kill the Cartels, generate tax revenue, everyone is happy. Every state or country that does it turns out fine and saves tons of money.
We don't really need a vast system to predict and quell protests. That way leads on right down a path probably more like Communist China or possibly North Korea, though the shear number of guns in this country limits how far that is likely to go.
If most of the gun owners think the same way, and they're easily duped, they could be convinced into becoming the ruling communist party. They'd need to be really hierarchy-oriented though, and willing to follow a strongman. Good thing we don't have that in America.
It's not that Trump is the same as Bush (so far, Bush was far worse). It's that a lot of left-wing people are reacting with the same sort of derangement, detached from reality.
I can see the argument for Bush being worse because he got us into a needless war (I call it needless not just because there were no nukes, but also because I've read the conversations between GW and Rumsfield as reported by themselves). And this war can literally be argued to have brought the death of over 1 million people (debatable numbers I'm sure). I don't remember being afraid of elections being cancelled, but if a group of people can cause such a huge needless war, with so much death and literally $trillions being spent, then I don't blame people for being a little over-alarmed. The truth is most people are under-alarmed.
I agree with you that Bush didn't present a realistic threat of dictatorship. But the argument for Trump being worse is the example set by another populist machismo president. Someone who could "shoot someone on 5th avenue" and not get in trouble, attack the free press, change the laws, etc. Someone who can find scapegoats (it's those elites and foreigners!) for all the common man's problems, and get waves of support. So far, Trump has been pretty ineffective in his goals, except for appointing a couple Supreme Court justices that will increase executive power. But it might take just one change - the midterms - to become effective. There's a bunch of anti-trump republicans retiring, because they know they'll lose re-election to pro-trumpers. I believe almost everyone running Republican is showing a pro-trump ad. There's a thin line between civilization and anarchy. Ask Venezuela. I'm not saying it'll happen - I'm surprised and thankful for a minuscule bit of decency shown by white house staff recently (which is completely unprecedented and shows you just how bad it is), but I don't blame people for being a little over-alarmed.
-A white house staff member
(lol, jk)
This. For 20 years, Republicans have been using the good times to pay off the rich with tax cuts. That's when you're supposed to be saving up to have a rainy day fund for the bad times. Clinton actually balanced the budget, and Obama got a giant recession we were trying to get out of. Flame all you want, but Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility.
Your argument is so powerful, with all those research links and facts. Project much?
Nobody wants to die in car accidents, but the law requires us to buy insurance. Insurance companies and the police convince us to not drive dangerously by way of premiums, tickets for speed, seat belt, etc. This system ain't perfect, but way better than lack of a system. Nobody wants to die in car accidents but most people won't do the research and make the right choices unless the system exists. I hope there's a similar type of insurance and policing for methane release, it'd be ridiculous if not. Businesses are supposed to chase profit, so that system is even more important - it's not like drivers who have an added incentive of potential death. All that said, I'm thinking a carbon tax allows the free market to determine the most efficient way, versus micro-managing.
Of course a premium has to be paid for base load sources. But the system isn't weighted enough. Base load should be natural gas and nuclear, and afaik, new nuclear is currently frozen due being so much more expensive than everything else. The fact we're using any coal at all means we haven't gone far enough yet. Saying that's pushing for a Lebanese system is like saying seat belt laws will put all car manufacturers out of business.
I'd have to see some very convincing numbers showing that we're already changing too fast to be convinced of it. The science came in 30 years ago, and while the gas progress is great, it still feels like we're way behind where we need to be. Germany has 5x as much solar despite getting as much sun as Portland. My electric bill could double and I wouldn't bat an eye. I see apartments advertising "free electricity". We're living on borrowed pain. Our kids will pay it tenfold.
modern environmentalism ... It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship
I consider myself a level-headed person who sees the world reported to me by scientific study. I think you'd call me, therefore, a rabid environmentalist, and I'd call you a dogmatic, biased, neanderthal, stuck in the past, promoting buggy-whips.
But just in case you're capable of discussing topics like grownups, here's some real commentary:
I want to say thanks for opening my eyes a little about shale gas. I previously only knew that it probably caused local environmental damage like minor earthquakes and some correlation to flammable sink water. However, I'm not sure those effects are large-scale enough to dismiss the technology, given the real costly gorilla issue: climate change. Your comment and those above made me think more about it and look it up. I found, so far, that the real thing to consider with shale gas is methane leakage. The latest study I found says if it's kept below 3.2%, it's better than coal, and a 2009 study says it was at 2.4%, so I'm already on board with using shale to replace coal. I wonder if anyone can reply with more recent and definitive data.
However, "better than coal" is not necessarily good enough. I've lived through Hurricane Harvey. If that's indicating what the future holds, then the current cost of any fossil fuel is way higher than we think, we're just not paying for it yet. I therefore believe the best idea I've heard, is that we have to try and estimate that cost, and actually charge it so that we know what we're getting. A carbon tax that is calculated to cost less than 3% of GDP sounds right to me. I'm not mad if gas companies accidentally release methane, as long as they're paying the appropriate price for it.
all the suggestions about what to do about it are pointless and not being adopted anyway...liberals bad .......I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right - never stated but always assumed by people trying to force partisan bullshit down my throat.
Liberals want to make laws protecting people that you don't care about, so what? Conservatives (read oil industry lobbyists) want you to ignore climate change. Believe or not believe, they really don't care, they spout FUD trying to get everyone to ignore the issue for their short-term profits. Do nothing. Don't vote. You're already picking a side.
I no longer believe any assertion that contains the phrase "because of climate change."
"You made a coherent, rational point about this article, which was written because of climate change, and it makes you sound intelligent."
I agree with the frustration. I've used the Taiwanese health care system, and their $(1/6) health care was equivalent anecdotally (realistically, we could move in that direction, not copy). Lol, vaccines facepalm. Fox is creating a nation of 45% idiocracy pushers, and calmly repeating scientific findings has got us absolutely nowhere. What are we supposed to do?
I do relate to DCFusor. In Europe, I'm a conservative. In America, I'm acrimonious because I think the risk of stopping or changing the freaking ocean currents might be dangerous.