This is good info and details - thank you. I see it's the 2nd most important reason. But I also remember when they were beating the drums, I was thinking, 'Compared to the US, this is a relatively poor country. Don't they have intelligence on the ground? Those were the best pics they could get?' As Cheney said years earlier on MTP, they knew the risks. Including the surrounding violence that Iraq had contributed to, we are talking about over 1 million deaths. A million. The soft power that we lost. The advantage we gave Iran, Al Queda, Isis would have been Hussein's enemy. Is it worth waiting for real intelligence? Yes. If they were invading us, different story. But we were the aggressor. We controlled the timetable. Don't go in unless we're at least close to sure, and we were not. I read Bush At War, where he questioned (this from my memory) Rumsfield, 'Get me the intelligence pointing to Iraq' 'But we don't have good intelligence showing that' 'I saaid, get me intelligence pointing to Iraq.' To this day, I want to know what was in Bush's head or ear when he made that decision. It couldn't have been just WMD, or even oil, imo.
California, the nation's most populous state with an economy only eclipsed by a handful of nations.
Good. Cram all the democrat politicians into one or two small areas, and leave the rest of the country for the adults who have work to do.
Heh, wouldn't the area with a bigger economy be doing more work? I mean, it's not like this can be easily tracked. Cali is right there near the top of hard workers while the "welfare queen" states are NM, Mississippi, StateOfPalin, LA, WV, ND, Alabama, SD, Kentuky, Virginia, etc. Even Texas, with all the oil and oil refining we do, isn't as productive as CA. How the heck?
Taiwan spends 1/6 as much percentage of GDP as we do on health care. 1/6th. I've been to a Taiwanese hospital, and as a non-tax-paying foreigner, they charged me $10 to see the doc. I thought he was fine, even compared to American docs (of course he had an accent - but he even spoke english). I was expecting 3rd worldish service, and I was very surprised. But think about it - 1 / 6th!
Can you imagine taking what you pay between medical bills, insurance, your employers' insurance, and taxes, dividing that number by 6, and then paying that amount in taxes only? Sounds amazingly awesome... for a pragmatist. But if you're conservative or Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work - because I used the word "taxes". That's the definition of an ideologue, you don't believe it could ever work, despite the proof of it working right there in Taiwan. Your not willing to try to improve something because there's a hard line of ideology - anything involving taxes must be bad, and we can't try to work in that direction at all (officially, I wouldn't necessarily want to try to go as far as Taiwan, but it seems obvious we should at least be picking out what could work for us, and go in that direction).
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
Sorry, you're wrong. And you're conservative. I know not just because of personal experience (I fight with Dems all the time about everything - out of fun - because we like to think both sides of issues - and we usually agree we should end up doing the most pragmatic thing - but that's my personal biased view) but they did a real study on this, and these were the common answers in a survey, separated by party:
"Republicans tend to emphasize what they view as ideological disagreement between the parties:
Democrats “want the government to run everything and they think the government can fix everything.” Republicans “want people to be personally responsible for their own lives.”
The Democratic Party “promotes big government, secularism, elitism and collectivism.” The Republican Party “pushes for cutting the size of the federal government.”
Democrats are “quite socialistic, [giving] way too much power to the government.” Republicans are for “fiscal responsibility and conservatism . . . less government, more power to the states, encouraging jobs . . . with less dependency on the federal government.”
Democrats tend to describe a clash between competing group interests:
Democrats “support the poor and middle class.” Republicans “look out for the rich and don’t care about the poor and middle class.”
Democrats have “concern for the working class . . . [and have] always worked to help women.” Republicans’ “concern is for people who have money.”
Democrats are “the party of the common man.” Republicans are “for rich, mainly white older folks who tend to be quite judgmental, narrow-minded and unconcerned for their fellow Americans.”
One party is battling for an ideology; the other is battling for groups of people. They’re fighting, in other words, over different things. This pattern has endured for decades."
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
“...I am one of the political prisoners who was arrested in 1988, but life was better in Saddam’s days, compared with now.”...
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government.
...
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
No, the biggest problem was the invasion. I'm not saying you're completely wrong. But to pick out one mistake out of so many is misleading. To begin with the war was based on a lie. So if not WMD, what were the real reasons for going to war? If Jack shoots himself with a gun, then doesn't dress the wound properly, the reason Jack died was because he shot himself.
But anyway, after the invasion, Col. Ted Spain was the guy in charge of law & order, he seems like a great resource to list all the mistakes:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s deployment plans. They didn’t include an adequate number of military police to control the routes during the ground war, and then we didn’t have sufficient military police to control the streets after the ground war.
Law and order was not given sufficient attention in the pre-war planning. This failed to provide a police system to provide security to the Iraqi citizenry and to instill a sense of trust in our Army.
The issue of detainees. There was really was no clear guidance on the categorization of them. It was really important to me to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, but I really had to make it all up as I went.
The flaws in collecting intelligence.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve officer who commanded the military police unit at the Abu Ghraib prison. I actually opened Abu Ghraib prison and handed it over to her in 2003. And I explain that she was the wrong leader at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who was the top commander in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004 and replaced Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace. General Sanchez was in over his head, and he continued fighting the ground war long after it was over.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, under the leadership of L. Paul Bremer III, dismantled the Iraqi Army, and the highest level of the Baath Party. Under Saddam Hussein, the highest ranks could only belong to Baath Party members, so we lost some of the most experienced personnel that were so vital in putting Iraq back together again.
The mistakes of the former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik. He was focused on padding his résumé and getting as much camera time as he could.
The Iraqi police and the fact that I was pressured to focus more on quantity as opposed to quality.
President George W. Bush’s coalition of the willing. The fact is, those countries had less than 50 people in there. There really was not a coalition other than the United Kingdom.
The common ground between a physiologist, psychologist, and feng shui expert would be sunlight. I've felt it most as I entered a tiny bathroom in the middle of a dingy building, and all of a sudden I felt great. I looked everywhere for what could explain my mood change and finally realized the light above me was from a small solar tube. It happened a 2nd time in a different building and I've been wondering ever since why they're not everywhere, if the architecture doesn't design it in to begin with.
Today's English lesson: just shorten it to "guestimate", comrade.
"just who the fuck do you survey, everyone??"
Yes, the evil American intelligence is the ultimate evil, always... surveying. Mother russia is a white snowflake princess. The free press in Russia would definitely report any government abuses.
... whinging... Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.
Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?
Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.
And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?
And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?
And is that also why Trump fired Attorney General Yates, after she started speaking out about the Flynn fiasco?
And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally resigned from the Justice Department’s Russia investigation?
And is that also why Trump fired FBI Director Comey, 2 years into a normally 10-year term "because of Russia" (-Trump)
When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.
... whinging... Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.
Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?
Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.
And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?
And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?
And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally recused himself from the Justice Department’s Russia-related investigations of Trump?
When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.
Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).
Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..
My point stands.
Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).
Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?
Ha!, no Trump spoke out FOR the Iraq war, and Hillary as a New York politician was politically forced to make a bad decision, one she open admits to regretting - something that honest people do. The vote was for giving the President a big stick, and he abused that power. This is a reason why we should always take all the evidence into consideration. In this case, there was plenty of evidence the White House put forward that would later be proven untrue. Nothing close to as obnixious as the current pres, but lies nonetheless.
"Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.
The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?
Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.
My point stands.
Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,
This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.
Silly. Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.
AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,
Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.
You missed the point - renewables are the economic powerhouse of the [present and] future. Backasswards in coal and oil (I'm looking at you Russia) are in trouble, and are going to miss the boat if you don't start working on it, instead of spending your country's resources on astroturfing the internet.
but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.
Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'gett
I think you're right. In the US at least, the right has moved so far over, libertarians are closer to the left than they are to the right. Being on the left in America feels centrist everywhere else.
There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.
WaPo didn't have to go to any great lengths to find factual information that made Trump look bad, and that info is interesting enough to sell copy, so don't hold your breath for it to stop.
Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet). Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths). "Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole, and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich. Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich, AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs, but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.
Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).
FTFY
I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.
But you did miss these from the same citation:
April or May The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).
May 10 Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).
May 11 In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).
May 12 Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).
May 17 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation
And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.
If you launch from a plane you can use a much smaller rocket - hence the cost savings.
If you can reuse the rocket, it doesn't matter much if it's bigger.... save about 5% by launching from a plane.... Add the cost of the plane itself, the more complicated launch, plus the fact that you'll be limited to small rockets and payloads....
I think both are right - the Musk route solved the larger general problem, while Balmer is filling a niche of smaller payloads with more aggressive deadlines (see more convenient launch windows due to location and weather already mentioned elsewhere). Kudos to both and the free market:)
Bullshit. The last Democrat national politician to support legalization was Carter. He dropped it in his first year. Since then, nothing.
And the last libertarian national politician to win office was the spaghetti monster. Sorry for the reality, but Dems are the only ones who will effectively fight your fight. It'd be in your interest to support your libertarian candidate until you find they don't have a chance to win, and at that point switch to the Dem. The last two Democratic Presidents famously smoked. The last Rep one? Never happened. The last Libertarian? Same.
Liberal Democrats even go up to 78%, which is the highest among any group.
Unfortunately, these don't compare directly liberals to libertarians. While I agree libertarian number should be higher, you can't say liberals aren't pro-weed, or "they never supported it, still don't".
This is a great, sane post... for the 90's. I remember back when the science was in, and we made sane, logical pleas that making the change is time sensitive. Jeez, it's been 20 years, as we watched Germany make $ hand over fist on the solar market, then China stole it from them. We've been making sane, rational arguments but the problem is that nobody has cared, except for the people who could be convinced by the outlandish claims from the oil industry. So when nobody listens, what can you do besides starting to make points that are completely true, but more alarming sounding? I appreciate any logical answers, but remember that 20 years ago, we had just a little time to debate this. The consequences just get worse with time, even if unseen immediately.
How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years?
Why did you not provide a single example? I don't think the problem is outlandish claims by the scientific community. The problem is propaganda from vested, wealthy interests. I can provide a lot of examples of that, start with the propaganda from tobacco.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree - big picture was bad, but Saddam did get what he deserved at least.
This is good info and details - thank you. I see it's the 2nd most important reason. But I also remember when they were beating the drums, I was thinking, 'Compared to the US, this is a relatively poor country. Don't they have intelligence on the ground? Those were the best pics they could get?' As Cheney said years earlier on MTP, they knew the risks. Including the surrounding violence that Iraq had contributed to, we are talking about over 1 million deaths. A million. The soft power that we lost. The advantage we gave Iran, Al Queda, Isis would have been Hussein's enemy. Is it worth waiting for real intelligence? Yes. If they were invading us, different story. But we were the aggressor. We controlled the timetable. Don't go in unless we're at least close to sure, and we were not. I read Bush At War, where he questioned (this from my memory) Rumsfield, 'Get me the intelligence pointing to Iraq' 'But we don't have good intelligence showing that' 'I saaid, get me intelligence pointing to Iraq.' To this day, I want to know what was in Bush's head or ear when he made that decision. It couldn't have been just WMD, or even oil, imo.
California, the nation's most populous state with an economy only eclipsed by a handful of nations.
Good. Cram all the democrat politicians into one or two small areas, and leave the rest of the country for the adults who have work to do.
Heh, wouldn't the area with a bigger economy be doing more work? I mean, it's not like this can be easily tracked. Cali is right there near the top of hard workers while the "welfare queen" states are NM, Mississippi, StateOfPalin, LA, WV, ND, Alabama, SD, Kentuky, Virginia, etc. Even Texas, with all the oil and oil refining we do, isn't as productive as CA. How the heck?
Here's an example.
Taiwan spends 1/6 as much percentage of GDP as we do on health care. 1/6th. I've been to a Taiwanese hospital, and as a non-tax-paying foreigner, they charged me $10 to see the doc. I thought he was fine, even compared to American docs (of course he had an accent - but he even spoke english). I was expecting 3rd worldish service, and I was very surprised. But think about it - 1 / 6th!
Can you imagine taking what you pay between medical bills, insurance, your employers' insurance, and taxes, dividing that number by 6, and then paying that amount in taxes only ? Sounds amazingly awesome ... for a pragmatist. But if you're conservative or Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work - because I used the word "taxes". That's the definition of an ideologue, you don't believe it could ever work, despite the proof of it working right there in Taiwan. Your not willing to try to improve something because there's a hard line of ideology - anything involving taxes must be bad, and we can't try to work in that direction at all (officially, I wouldn't necessarily want to try to go as far as Taiwan, but it seems obvious we should at least be picking out what could work for us, and go in that direction).
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
Sorry, you're wrong. And you're conservative. I know not just because of personal experience (I fight with Dems all the time about everything - out of fun - because we like to think both sides of issues - and we usually agree we should end up doing the most pragmatic thing - but that's my personal biased view) but they did a real study on this, and these were the common answers in a survey, separated by party:
"Republicans tend to emphasize what they view as ideological disagreement between the parties:
Democrats tend to describe a clash between competing group interests:
One party is battling for an ideology; the other is battling for groups of people. They’re fighting, in other words, over different things. This pattern has endured for decades."
Did you find yourself in there?
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
How is this even a question?
“...I am one of the political prisoners who was arrested in 1988, but life was better in Saddam’s days, compared with now.”...
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government.
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
No, the biggest problem was the invasion. I'm not saying you're completely wrong. But to pick out one mistake out of so many is misleading. To begin with the war was based on a lie. So if not WMD, what were the real reasons for going to war? If Jack shoots himself with a gun, then doesn't dress the wound properly, the reason Jack died was because he shot himself.
But anyway, after the invasion, Col. Ted Spain was the guy in charge of law & order, he seems like a great resource to list all the mistakes:
The common ground between a physiologist, psychologist, and feng shui expert would be sunlight. I've felt it most as I entered a tiny bathroom in the middle of a dingy building, and all of a sudden I felt great. I looked everywhere for what could explain my mood change and finally realized the light above me was from a small solar tube. It happened a 2nd time in a different building and I've been wondering ever since why they're not everywhere, if the architecture doesn't design it in to begin with.
If you thought it was non sequitur, then you missed gl4ss's gillion posts attacking America and defending Russian positions (so now you know someone).
guess(estimate).
Today's English lesson: just shorten it to "guestimate", comrade.
"just who the fuck do you survey, everyone??"
Yes, the evil American intelligence is the ultimate evil, always ... surveying. Mother russia is a white snowflake princess. The free press in Russia would definitely report any government abuses.
It's official, the trump administration is officially at war with Reality!
... whinging ... Seriously, when the Russia "investigation" determines that yes, some members of the administration did talk to Russians before the election (like Hilary's team did), but that no, there's no actual "there" there, the frothing, insensate masses of the Left will have to pause for at least a moment and realize they've given him 4 more years.
Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?
Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.
And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?
And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?
And is that also why Trump fired Attorney General Yates, after she started speaking out about the Flynn fiasco?
And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally resigned from the Justice Department’s Russia investigation?
And is that also why Trump fired FBI Director Comey, 2 years into a normally 10-year term "because of Russia" (-Trump)
When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.
Oh really? Is that why close aid of 30 years Paul Manafort had to resign just before Trump took office?
Keep in mind Trump is in desperate need of people to fill so many government positions, it's the most vacant of any presidency.
And so is that also why National Security advisor Gen Flynn resigned just a month into his presidency?
And is that also why Pence had to backtrack his statements and started claiming Flynn had lied to him?
And is that also why Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General pick, after repeatedly claiming there was zero reason to recuse himself, finally recused himself from the Justice Department’s Russia-related investigations of Trump?
When someone at any of these top positions has to resign, something may be going on or maybe it's normal course of business. But when so many of them do it, so quickly, when the Administration people needs people so badly, my goodness, the Trump team themselves - they're saying there's a there there.
Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).
Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..
My point stands.
Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).
Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?
Ha!, no Trump spoke out FOR the Iraq war, and Hillary as a New York politician was politically forced to make a bad decision, one she open admits to regretting - something that honest people do. The vote was for giving the President a big stick, and he abused that power. This is a reason why we should always take all the evidence into consideration. In this case, there was plenty of evidence the White House put forward that would later be proven untrue. Nothing close to as obnixious as the current pres, but lies nonetheless.
"Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.
The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?
Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.
My point stands.
Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,
This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.
Silly. Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.
AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,
Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.
You missed the point - renewables are the economic powerhouse of the [present and] future. Backasswards in coal and oil (I'm looking at you Russia) are in trouble, and are going to miss the boat if you don't start working on it, instead of spending your country's resources on astroturfing the internet.
but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.
Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'gett
What's beer gov?
It's when you drink before voting. The US tried it last year, and look how great everything's turning out!
The solution has already been demonstrated very well, it's called restorative justice.
I think you're right. In the US at least, the right has moved so far over, libertarians are closer to the left than they are to the right. Being on the left in America feels centrist everywhere else.
There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.
WaPo didn't have to go to any great lengths to find factual information that made Trump look bad, and that info is interesting enough to sell copy, so don't hold your breath for it to stop.
Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet). Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths). "Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole, and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich. Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich, AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs, but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.
Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).
FTFY
I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.
But you did miss these from the same citation:
April or May
The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).
May 10
Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).
May 11
In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).
May 12
Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).
May 17
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation
And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.
release several soda-sized canisters of vapor tracers
Probably a few minutes-worth of pollution from your nearest chemical factory.
Fake News! It's got to be the government causing those clouds ... wait ...
If you launch from a plane you can use a much smaller rocket - hence the cost savings.
If you can reuse the rocket, it doesn't matter much if it's bigger. ... save about 5% by launching from a plane .... Add the cost of the plane itself, the more complicated launch, plus the fact that you'll be limited to small rockets and payloads ....
I think both are right - the Musk route solved the larger general problem, while Balmer is filling a niche of smaller payloads with more aggressive deadlines (see more convenient launch windows due to location and weather already mentioned elsewhere). Kudos to both and the free market :)
Bullshit. The last Democrat national politician to support legalization was Carter. He dropped it in his first year. Since then, nothing.
And the last libertarian national politician to win office was the spaghetti monster. Sorry for the reality, but Dems are the only ones who will effectively fight your fight. It'd be in your interest to support your libertarian candidate until you find they don't have a chance to win, and at that point switch to the Dem. The last two Democratic Presidents famously smoked. The last Rep one? Never happened. The last Libertarian? Same.
Liberal Democrats even go up to 78%, which is the highest among any group.
Unfortunately, these don't compare directly liberals to libertarians. While I agree libertarian number should be higher, you can't say liberals aren't pro-weed, or "they never supported it, still don't".
How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years?
Why did you not provide a single example? I don't think the problem is outlandish claims by the scientific community. The problem is propaganda from vested, wealthy interests. I can provide a lot of examples of that, start with the propaganda from tobacco.