The actual winner spends a far portion of each and every day sabotaging himself. No one needs to help Trump, and it's all the Republicans can do just to keep up with him and try to cover for him.
The 4 billion year history of Earth cannot be used to determine what the effects on 10,000 year old history of human civilization can tolerate. I have to believe you're just repeating some moronic meme you heard, and are not in fact a fucking moron yourself.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic means fuck all for the tolerable levels of CO2 for human civilization.
The irony here is that many corporations, even some of the major fossil fuel companies, actually want the US to remain in the Accord, as much as anything because they fear that China and Europe are going to use US's exit as a stick to beat the US with, and create any number of disadvantages for US products.
While the US remains in the Accord, it has some means to shape it. The money being laid is the price one pays for admission. But outside of the Accord, by and large the US will, through commercial and local interests, try to abide by it, but will no longer have a Federal government capable of speaking for US interests. It is a surrender of authority and power, and for what exactly, a dying coal industry that won't survive no matter what happens?
"Carbon-based components of fuels". My oh my, what a clever choice of words.
CO2 has the properties it has, and belching large amounts of it into the atmosphere is going to increase the amount of solar radiation absorbed in the lower atmosphere and the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans, both of which is very bad, and going to get worse. We should be doing everything possible to minimize and eventually eliminate the burning of hydrocarbons, not trying to find new and clever weasel words to disguise the damage we're doing.
Generally in the US criminal law is a state matter. However, the Federal Government, via the Supremacy Clause, can create its own criminal statutes. Hate crimes, in particular, grew out of the civil rights issues of the 1950s and 1960s, and gave the FBI and Federal prosecutors the power to pursue criminal charges against accused individuals who were often either given excessively lenient sentences, if they were even charged, tried and convicted at all, for attacks on African-Americans in certain southern states. Without those laws and without Federal law enforcement involved, it's likely that KKK and other white supremacist attacks and terrorizing of African-Americans would have continued unabated, simply because state law enforcement, prosecution and even judges and juries seemed quite happy to allow the terrorizing and murder of black American citizens.
The entire Anglo-American judicial system has been built on the idea that there are simply situations where there's no universal principle to be applied, that it is up to a court (judge and/or jury) to decide on the specifics of the case, and I think that is critical. Yes, it does give judges and juries a helluva lot of effective power, but in general, and providing they abide by general constitutional principles, legislatures can alter laws where they feel the courts are going wrong, and even prosecutors have some latitude in whether to pursue charges against an accused, if they feel the case may be too weak for a strong likelihood of conviction.
Huh? Motive is at the very heart of a criminal prosecution. Judges and/or juries are supposed to have latitude in findings of guilt, or findings of guilt on a range of charges, or even of differential sentencing, depending upon motive. I realize that some here have a hard time grasping that the world isn't black and white, but there's always nuance. Some serial killer who gets his jollies killing people is inevitably going to get a far harsher sentence than someone who killed the person who molested their child, and it's down to motive and state of mind.
The reason Federal hate crimes were created to begin with so that where a state's law enforcement, prosecution or courts would refuse to charge, prosecute or convict some mouth-breathing KKKer for lynching someone, they would still see justice. Do you have a problem with that?
And yet to me the SNP's beating is probably, in the long-term, one of the most significant parts of this election. It really does mean that the Nats hit the high water mark over the last few years, but Brexit or No Brexit, the Scots have no intention of voting themselves out of the UK.
Except the SNP was clobbered in this election, demonstrating that the Scots have no desire for independence. This election is bad news for the Tories, but very good news for the Union . Alex Salmond, the Big Daddy of Scottish independence lost his seat, for goodness sake.
The entire source of the problem is the 1922 Committee and other hard right Tory factions who have been the bane of Tory leaders since the 1970s. Sooner or later they were going to force a Tory leaders to make an EU referendum a part of their manifesto.
I think his statements today go some way towards explaining his treatment of the DNC leak, and a lot of it has to do with Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac.
I think Comey is just one unlucky fucking bastard, who got stuck being director of the FBI during an election year when both candidates were pretty damned dubious individuals and the Russians were trying to fuck things over.
Well, if your only defense is that because Comey won't tell Congress in a public hearing what the evidence is, good luck to you. If that makes you feel better, then all I can say is must be wonderful to be so easily pleased and placated. It sure looks like Trump has his own group of sheeple now.
If Trump goes down, I think Pence will be joining him. Comey implicated Pence in this as well. An impeachment will likely lead to President Ryan, not President Pence.
You understand, I trust, that the other portion of the testimony will not be public. So this idea that you can just simply declare "the FBI has no evidence of Russian interference" is a load of horse shit. He stated Russia interfered with the election, he demurred when asked specific questions on the investigations and evidence that lead him to that conclusion, so what you're doing is basically taking his inability to publicly reveal what he knows as some sort of evidence that there is no evidence.
And why he begged Sessions to prevent any further one-on-one meetings with the President.
How exactly people make Comey look like the bad guy here is beyond me. The fact is, for both the the Trump and Clinton campaigns, the poor bastard found himself standing knee deep in his then-boss's and his future boss's steaming lakes of shit.
I dunno, what part of the FBI manual permitted Mark Felt to reveal to Bob Woodward Nixon's abuses of power? I'm fascinated by the desire to shoot the messenger, as if the precise legality of the leaker (if what Comey did was a leak at all) is the most important issue. Do you spare some outrage for the fact that the President of the United States attempted to obstruct justice, or is the President to be let off the hook will you erect the gallows for the man who revealed that abuse?
He openly stated Russia interfered with the election, and will continue to do so, so fuck off with this nonsense. Russia is an enemy of the West, and will remain so.
Comey's testimony savages both sides, but ultimately, Clinton lost, so it scarcely matters now, save as a means by which Trump supporters hope to deflect any criticisms of the President.
Slashdot Mirror
The actual winner spends a far portion of each and every day sabotaging himself. No one needs to help Trump, and it's all the Republicans can do just to keep up with him and try to cover for him.
I read this interesting article about how conspiracy theorists tend to be narcissists. I'm beginning to suspect it's true.
The 4 billion year history of Earth cannot be used to determine what the effects on 10,000 year old history of human civilization can tolerate. I have to believe you're just repeating some moronic meme you heard, and are not in fact a fucking moron yourself.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic means fuck all for the tolerable levels of CO2 for human civilization.
Why would believability be contingent on what environmental activists say or do?
The irony here is that many corporations, even some of the major fossil fuel companies, actually want the US to remain in the Accord, as much as anything because they fear that China and Europe are going to use US's exit as a stick to beat the US with, and create any number of disadvantages for US products.
While the US remains in the Accord, it has some means to shape it. The money being laid is the price one pays for admission. But outside of the Accord, by and large the US will, through commercial and local interests, try to abide by it, but will no longer have a Federal government capable of speaking for US interests. It is a surrender of authority and power, and for what exactly, a dying coal industry that won't survive no matter what happens?
"Carbon-based components of fuels". My oh my, what a clever choice of words.
CO2 has the properties it has, and belching large amounts of it into the atmosphere is going to increase the amount of solar radiation absorbed in the lower atmosphere and the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans, both of which is very bad, and going to get worse. We should be doing everything possible to minimize and eventually eliminate the burning of hydrocarbons, not trying to find new and clever weasel words to disguise the damage we're doing.
Generally in the US criminal law is a state matter. However, the Federal Government, via the Supremacy Clause, can create its own criminal statutes. Hate crimes, in particular, grew out of the civil rights issues of the 1950s and 1960s, and gave the FBI and Federal prosecutors the power to pursue criminal charges against accused individuals who were often either given excessively lenient sentences, if they were even charged, tried and convicted at all, for attacks on African-Americans in certain southern states. Without those laws and without Federal law enforcement involved, it's likely that KKK and other white supremacist attacks and terrorizing of African-Americans would have continued unabated, simply because state law enforcement, prosecution and even judges and juries seemed quite happy to allow the terrorizing and murder of black American citizens.
The entire Anglo-American judicial system has been built on the idea that there are simply situations where there's no universal principle to be applied, that it is up to a court (judge and/or jury) to decide on the specifics of the case, and I think that is critical. Yes, it does give judges and juries a helluva lot of effective power, but in general, and providing they abide by general constitutional principles, legislatures can alter laws where they feel the courts are going wrong, and even prosecutors have some latitude in whether to pursue charges against an accused, if they feel the case may be too weak for a strong likelihood of conviction.
Huh? Motive is at the very heart of a criminal prosecution. Judges and/or juries are supposed to have latitude in findings of guilt, or findings of guilt on a range of charges, or even of differential sentencing, depending upon motive. I realize that some here have a hard time grasping that the world isn't black and white, but there's always nuance. Some serial killer who gets his jollies killing people is inevitably going to get a far harsher sentence than someone who killed the person who molested their child, and it's down to motive and state of mind.
The reason Federal hate crimes were created to begin with so that where a state's law enforcement, prosecution or courts would refuse to charge, prosecute or convict some mouth-breathing KKKer for lynching someone, they would still see justice. Do you have a problem with that?
And yet to me the SNP's beating is probably, in the long-term, one of the most significant parts of this election. It really does mean that the Nats hit the high water mark over the last few years, but Brexit or No Brexit, the Scots have no intention of voting themselves out of the UK.
Your link doesn't prove your point. For a stalker, you're pretty fucking shitty.
Go back to your cognitive therapy sessions. You really need the help/
Except the SNP was clobbered in this election, demonstrating that the Scots have no desire for independence. This election is bad news for the Tories, but very good news for the Union . Alex Salmond, the Big Daddy of Scottish independence lost his seat, for goodness sake.
The entire source of the problem is the 1922 Committee and other hard right Tory factions who have been the bane of Tory leaders since the 1970s. Sooner or later they were going to force a Tory leaders to make an EU referendum a part of their manifesto.
This is the crap you get when you hold referendums where one side feels at liberty to simply lie to win.
Make an example of him for what, exactly? Making it clear that the President of the United States was attempting to obstruct justice?
I think his statements today go some way towards explaining his treatment of the DNC leak, and a lot of it has to do with Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac.
I think Comey is just one unlucky fucking bastard, who got stuck being director of the FBI during an election year when both candidates were pretty damned dubious individuals and the Russians were trying to fuck things over.
Well, if your only defense is that because Comey won't tell Congress in a public hearing what the evidence is, good luck to you. If that makes you feel better, then all I can say is must be wonderful to be so easily pleased and placated. It sure looks like Trump has his own group of sheeple now.
If Trump goes down, I think Pence will be joining him. Comey implicated Pence in this as well. An impeachment will likely lead to President Ryan, not President Pence.
You understand, I trust, that the other portion of the testimony will not be public. So this idea that you can just simply declare "the FBI has no evidence of Russian interference" is a load of horse shit. He stated Russia interfered with the election, he demurred when asked specific questions on the investigations and evidence that lead him to that conclusion, so what you're doing is basically taking his inability to publicly reveal what he knows as some sort of evidence that there is no evidence.
Or as Paul Ryan so delightfully put it "He's learning as he goes..."
And why he begged Sessions to prevent any further one-on-one meetings with the President.
How exactly people make Comey look like the bad guy here is beyond me. The fact is, for both the the Trump and Clinton campaigns, the poor bastard found himself standing knee deep in his then-boss's and his future boss's steaming lakes of shit.
I dunno, what part of the FBI manual permitted Mark Felt to reveal to Bob Woodward Nixon's abuses of power? I'm fascinated by the desire to shoot the messenger, as if the precise legality of the leaker (if what Comey did was a leak at all) is the most important issue. Do you spare some outrage for the fact that the President of the United States attempted to obstruct justice, or is the President to be let off the hook will you erect the gallows for the man who revealed that abuse?
He openly stated Russia interfered with the election, and will continue to do so, so fuck off with this nonsense. Russia is an enemy of the West, and will remain so.
Comey's testimony savages both sides, but ultimately, Clinton lost, so it scarcely matters now, save as a means by which Trump supporters hope to deflect any criticisms of the President.