Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3435 of 5796 (866666)
11-14-2019 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3431 by Faith
11-14-2019 9:07 AM


Re: Left is an ideology
Casting insults of "naivite" and "no sense of history" and "head in the clouds" is no way to make your case.
Liberalism (government to improve people's lives) is not Marxism (state ownership of industry and business), and conservatism (minimal government) is not fascism (authoritarian government control of both the economic and social spheres).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3431 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3448 of 5796 (866739)
11-15-2019 9:12 AM


The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
The Washington Post (and all other news outlets) today report that https://www.washingtonpost.com/...92-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html. Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3452 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 12:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3454 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 1:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3482 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 9:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3457 of 5796 (866772)
11-15-2019 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3454 by Faith
11-15-2019 1:40 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
How is this:
Faith writes:
[Trump] has no legal obligation to release his tax returns and I'm glad he's sticking to it.
Consistent with this:
MAY ALL THE TRUTH COME OUT...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3454 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 1:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3458 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 3:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3461 of 5796 (866778)
11-15-2019 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3423 by Percy
11-13-2019 10:05 AM


Re: Another Insulting Trump Tweet
More attacks from Trump:
Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress. Who is Trump accusing Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, James Clapper, Adam Schiff, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Daniel Steele and "all of the others" of lying to, and what were those lies?
The question is rhetorical of course. Trump is just making it up. When he feels threatened his instincts are to lash out without any regard for the truth. It's ironic that Trump is lying about other people lying.
Here Trump attacks former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch:
Here Trump attacks speaker Nancy Pelosi:
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 19; Democrats: 0
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3423 by Percy, posted 11-13-2019 10:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3493 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 11:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3463 of 5796 (866816)
11-16-2019 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
marc9000 writes:
This is all true, but us Constitutionalists believe it's not a reason for the government to increase its involvement in domestic economics.
Right in the very preamble of the Constitution it says that the purpose is to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." If you're against that then you're not a constitutionalist.
How does current rural America being better off than past rural America justify abandoning them to live an impoverished life?
Different people have different definitions of what the word "impoverished" means.
You can't define declining rural economic vitality away.
As far as "abandoning" them goes, I think the answer lies in my previous reference to just how past presidents interpreted the authority given by the constitution for benevolence.
You're just making up cryptic excuses for abandoning rural America.
They're not unhappy because they're comparing themselves with the wealthy but with people just like themselves who happen to live in more prosperous regions, mostly urban and suburban areas.
They could very well be making the mistake of not appreciating NOT having some of the complications in their lives that people in urban and suburban areas often have, like increased likelihood of crime, stress, traffic jams, more stringent zoning laws, city taxes and other higher taxes etc.
City life also has its advantages, but if rural folk were really so happy about rural economic decline, if it really resulted in more happiness and less stress, then rural American wouldn't have a higher suicide rate than urban America.
In any case, it's not the government's business.
Regions in economic decline and in emotional distress are very much the government's business. Read the Constitution's preamble again.
Internationally the approach has been to get nations to voluntarily commit to certain emissions/pollutant targets by a certain date.
When a nation considers increasing its size and scope to achieve any goal, it has nothing to do with the word "voluntarily".
Assuming the nations you're thinking of have representative governments, then their government's actions on the international stage represent the will of the people.
Your use of this word seems to be an attempt to sugar-coat increases in government power. It's exactly like saying "Hitler voluntarily killed 6 million Jews to make the world a better place."
Godwin's law strikes again, plus this makes little sense. What is true is that as the world's wealth has grown the ability of government to do good with that wealth (as opposed to billionaires soaking up wealth by purchasing political power) has also grown. It would much more accurately be called an increase in government's recognition and acceptance of its responsibilities.
A number of cities will sink beneath the waves in the next 20 or 30 years, for example Alexandria, Egypt, and Miami Beach, Florida.
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
Just a moment...
This bears no relevance to climate science. Here's an article from today's news: Venice's devastating floods are the 'canary in a coal mine' for coastal cities worldwide
marc9000 writes:
How much climate change happens due to human activity is a big debate today,...
Keep telling yourself that.
I could load you up with links, but it would just result in a lot of well poisoning, so I won't bother.
Loading up with links isn't an effective persuasive technique. Enter the evidence and arguments into the discussion in your own words and only use links as references.
marc9000 writes:
..but it's clear to everyone that climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity.
Sure, but not this time.
Not this time? Everything has changed now, all those other sources have stopped and have no chance of happening again, and humans are now the only cause?
Read your own words again. You said, "Climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity," and I said not this time. Spelling it out, the climate change we're experiencing now is definitely not "completely unrelated to human activity."
Currently, the government agents (along with the scientific community) who wish to issue mandates about reductions in fossil fuel use need to specify just how many fewer hurricanes the globe is going to have, how many fewer drastic swings in temperatures the world is going to have in each of the coming 10 years. Not 100 years from now. With details that will clearly show the public how much success their mandates had with the climate. If they turn out to be wrong, then a reversal of their mandates should be a major political issue, and not covered up or forgotten about by the mainstream news media.
You've just proposed an experiment where reductions in the production of greenhouse gases (you said fossil fuels, but it's better to be more general) would be mandated and the results tabulated every ten years. I think that's a great idea. But don't forget that all the climate models say that even if we reduced greenhouse gas production to zero right now that it would take decades and more before the climate change momentum that has already built up would peak and begin reversing.
That means that no matter what we do, citiies like Miami Beach and Alexandria and Venice are already doomed.
You're just repeating a fake argument Trump made up. California has been experiencing longer, hotter fire seasons, diminishing snowpack, and longer droughts, and that's why the trend has been more fires and more dangerous fires.
Why has only California been experiencing them, why not Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana?
You've named states that are mostly north of California, but the entire west has been trending toward increasing numbers and intensities of wildfires. Even Washington, a relatively wet state, has not escaped this trend. California is notable only because that's where the problem first became severe.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the news media would interview some forest management officials of the above states and ask them why their states have far fewer wildfires than California? They'd probably get an earful, one that they'd rather keep covered up.
A more interesting question would ask how fast the wildfire problem in their states is worsening - it's getting worse all across the west.
That California has a forest management problem is a Trump-invented myth. Here's a picture from Paradise, California, the town that was wiped out. Notice that most of the trees survived but all the houses burned. If California has a problem it's with town planning, not forest management:
marc9000 writes:
The climate change debate is reaching a fever pitch, probably almost to the point of the slavery debate in about 1858. The big difference is the MONEY involved - climate change action involves untold billions in corruption and bribes.
Really? And you know this how?
Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires,...
Who?
...and is only a tiny part of what could happen.
I have no doubt that all the foibles of human nature will be on display in all human endeavors, including dealing with climate change.
Several big corporations are very interested in getting involved in the politics of climate change.
That big corporations so easily and successfully lobby government, and that conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled that unlimited corporate political participation is allowed under the Freedom of Speech amendment of the constitution, is a separate problem.
quote:
That’s why it’s big news that 13 major companies have now joined four nonprofit organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund, to form the core of a new effort to push for climate policy. The CEO Climate Dialogue initiative involves major food brands, powerful utilities, and one of the nation’s leading car companies. Our goal is to turn the power of the marketplace towards addressing this crisis.
http://business.edf.org/...ate-climate-legislation-heres-why
This seems like a good thing. Publicly owned corporations have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, so undoubtedly there would be profits. Things that make money are more likely to happen, so if there are profits to be had in fighting climate change then that is a good thing.
Unfortunately it is usually easier to make money by ignoring the impact on the environment, for example coal or power companies that dump slag or ash into huge ponds that pollute groundwater and leave towns with enormous cleanup bills.
Isn't that heartwarming, these big corporations care about us so much? Their "turning the power of the marketplace" couldn't possibly have anything to do with increasing their profits, could it?
Why are you suddenly badmouthing the profit motive? Aren't you a capitalist? Is it just that you don't like to see companies making money on something you don't believe is real?
I was talking to a GM employee 15 or so years ago, and he told me that $2000.00 of the price of every new GM vehicle at that time went for NOTHING but past employees retirement.
Your arguments are all over the place and don't really bear on the point you're trying to make, but addressing this anyway and without checking your numbers, yes, the transportation industry has some huge pension commitments, among them car manufacturers and the Teamster's Union. As of 2016 General Motors had a global pension obligation of $92.9 billion and was underfunded by $18.3 billion. This means that their pensioners are already receiving notices that place them into one of several categories according to age: a) their pensions will not be affected (the oldest pensioners); b) their pensions will be reduced by around 20% sometime in the next 10 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the next oldest pensioners); c) their pensions will be reduced by substantial but currently unknown amounts sometime in the next 10 to 20 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the youngest pensioners).
This has nothing to do with climate change.
It's obviously similar to the other two, they've all been in business for over 100 years, often dealing with the same unions. Isn't it wonderful that they now have the luxury of caring about us, of expending effort to combat global warming? Like maybe helping get useful, older cars banned so they can sell more new ones?
You sound very anti-business, very untypical for a conservative. There's no need to get older cars banned - the national car fleet turns over too fast for that to be necessary.
The possibilities for out-of-control corruption in the politics of climate change are unlimited.
This is true of all money making opportunities. One of the responsibilities of government, at least before Trump, was providing oversight to prevent abuses.
You don't have to guess. The actions that are within our power to take have already been identified: a) reduce our reliance on power generation that produces greenhouse gases;
Still nothing specific.
I was just very specific: reduce our reliance on power generation that produces greenhouse gases. That means fewer coal-fired plants (China has plans to build nearly 400 coal-fired power plants over the next decade, which is very bad) and more wind farms, solar cells, geothermal, nuclear (which needs improved technology), etc.
Right now, power generation and use is done completely by individual choice, (freedom) and the choice of organizations / businesses. To "reduce our reliance" on it, someone has to lose that freedom. Who's first?
No freedom is unlimited. Your freedom to extend your arm ends at my nose. Corporations' right to pollute the air also ends at my nose.
That's the big problem. The U.S. (the world actually) RUNS on fossil fuel. Many / most products everyone uses is manufactured using fossil fuels, and even those that aren't are transported in trucks that use it. So everyone is "guilty", yet there is no way to equally divide the penalties, the mandates, that come with government attempts to lessen it. Obviously, idle people are less afraid of mandates than are productive people.
You seem to be saying that solving climate change will be a difficult problem, and that the costs might not be borne equally. Agreed.
Antique cars are a negligible proportion of the national motor vehicle fleet, its rare that they're driven many miles, and they'll continue to be grandfathered.
They were not grandfathered in any way in my area in the early 2000's when auto emission testing was being done.
Of course they were grandfathered. All states hold automobiles to the emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
Mileages weren't considered,...
Of course mileage wasn't considered. What do you think grandfathered means? Do you think it means that the standards for a given vehicle lessen over time? If so then you'll just have to recognize that that isn't so. A couple years ago I traded in a car that I'd owned for 20 years. It was held to the same emission standards in year 1 as in year 20.
Reducing emissions isn't hard. Today I own a hybrid vehicle with recharging capability. While the range for all-electric miles is small (around 30), since I mostly make short trips I almost never use the engine, mostly in the winter when the battery capacity drops by about 20% and the engine is needed to provide heat. I fill up the tank maybe 6 times a year.
...they passed or they were denied registration.
Yes, of course, based upon the emissions standards in place when the vehicle was manufactured.
There are never any guarantees on whose lives will or won't be destroyed by climate change mandates. Antique car owners are a small voting minority, they are among the most vulnerable.
By mandates I assume you mean things like increasing the fuel efficiency of the nation's car fleet, strengthening pollution standards for manufacturing and power generation, and so forth. This has the potential for increasing costs, both of energy and things produced. The impact is more likely reduced living standards than lives destroyed, but the alternative is losing cities beneath the waves, which *will* completely destroy the lives of the former residents and represent a significant cost to the nation.
As I type this, David Muir is sensationalizing the latest school shooting. By children who are increasingly told that they only have 12 years to live because of climate change. But it's the guns fault!!!
From climate change to guns? Are you in some kind of free association mode? Turn off the TV and focus on the topic. I'm ignoring this.
First you say these "disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.," and now you're dismissing them as just labels?
Why did you put quotes around the word "disparaging"? I never used that term. I was referring to small government attitudes.
I didn't put quotes around the word "disparaging." I put quotes abound what you said in Message 3217 where you used the word "disparaging":
marc9000 in Message 3217 writes:
Most of what you're calling disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.
Moving on:
So when people exhibit racism, calling them racist is name calling? What if managers at a Buffalo Wings restaurant ask a large party that includes black patrons to move because one of the other patrons sitting nearby is racist? Is calling their actions racist just name calling?
It is if there is a double standard. An incident like you mention above is often big national news, yet if white people in a black neighborhood are disrespected or even physically abused, it's never a big deal.
You're living in your imagination. Physical abuse, i.e., assault, is a pretty big deal, and blacks are arrested for assaulting white people all the time. A disproportionate amount of the time, one might say, given the growing evidence of arrests of blacks who have committed no crime.
How do I know you ask? Sometimes I see a quick mention of that kind of thing on local news, but it never seems to make national news.
Again, how do you know "climate change action involves untold billions in corruption and bribes"?
Hearkening back to an even earlier time only reinforces how out of step you are with modern views on equality.
People are smarter today than they were in the past?
I would say people in general are less medieval today, perhaps you could call it more enlightened. When Grover Cleveland was president women didn't have the vote, the first antitrust laws were brand new, and Jim Crow laws were rampant. We've already come a long way, but we still have far to go.
Again, this isn't a Democrat/Republican issue or a left/right issue. Racism is wrong. Fortunately we're a less racist nation than a hundred years ago, but not as much as we could wish. And the further you go from the cities into the country the more you encounter racism. Them's just facts.
The recent Baltimore riots weren't racist? Elijah Cummings, or Don Lemon of CNN are never racists?
You're not going to make any headway arguing that racism is greater in the cities than rural areas because it just isn't true. See, for example, The black-white and urban-rural divides in perceptions of racial fairness | Pew Research Center, which has a chart at the top indicating that racist attitudes are greater in rural than urban areas by every measure across the board.
You've lost the plot. What you originally said in Message 2969 was that economic appeals will not sway any Trump voters, and I pointed out that Trump has often stated that the strong economy is why he'll be reelected. In other words, to make this painfully obvious, even Trump believes that Trump voters are particularly receptive to economic appeals.
It's a logical thing to be receptive to,...
Yes, of course it is, so why did you originally deny it?
...much more than Trump haters being receptive to emotion, like climate change and racism. Societies can't function on emotion.
You think people who are concerned about climate change and racism are just emotional "Trump haters"? That is a bald, biased and weird accusation. Concerns about climate change and racism long predated Trump's election. The efforts against climate change and racism are perhaps much more visible today because of Trump's pollution-favoring policies and obvious racist attitudes.
By socialism we're only talking about social programs, not the public ownership of business and industry or the nationalization of major industries.
You trust the government to only grow so much, then suddenly stop growing?
I didn't comment on the growth of government. It was a comment that when liberals mention socialism that they're only talking about social programs, not the public ownership of business and industry or the nationalization of major industries.
If government has a responsibility for the general welfare as laid out in the Constitution's preamble then government should be as big as necessary to fulfill that responsibility. Nations have nterpreted that responsibility more liberally over time as wealth has increased.
I seldom have much time for Fox News, but when I catch some of their discussion shows, impeachment is often the main topic,...
I'm not talking about Hannity/Carlson/Ingraham/Pirro/etc. opinion shows. You've made accusations of bias in the mainstream news media, and it just doesn't hold up. The biggest news in Washington this past week has been the public impeachment hearings, but looking at the Fox News webpage right now there isn't a single article on impeachment there. The closest any article comes to approaching impeachment is Attorney General Barr accuses the left of systemic 'sabotage' of Trump administration | Fox News. It has long been obvious that he lied during his confirmation hearings and is representing Trump personally rather than upholding the ideals and principles of the Constitution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3483 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 11:01 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3494 by marc9000, posted 11-19-2019 8:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 3464 of 5796 (866820)
11-16-2019 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3458 by Faith
11-15-2019 3:27 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
The courts have already ruled that he's legally require to provide his tax returns. That's why he's filed appeals with the Supreme Court.
But you didn't address your central inconsistency. How is it consistent to demand that all the truth come out while arguing that Trump be allowed to keep his tax returns secret and order everyone in his administration to refuse to testify at the impeachment hearings. You sound like someone who only wants the truth she likes to come out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3458 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3467 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 5:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3476 of 5796 (866881)
11-16-2019 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3467 by Faith
11-16-2019 5:06 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
Faith writes:
Percy writes:
The courts have already ruled that he's legally require to provide his tax returns. That's why he's filed appeals with the Supreme Court.
What courts in connection with what issue?
Have you not been following the news? Read this: Trump Taxes: Appeals Court Rules President Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns - The New York Times
As a private citizen Trump is not required to reveal his tax returns merely for the sake of a curious Congress.
Under federal tax law 26 U.S. Code 6103, Congress may request copies of anyone's tax returns:
quote:
Upon written request by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish him with any return or return information specified in such request. Such Chief of Staff may submit such return or return information to any committee described in paragraph (1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
They have no legal reason to ask for them, just as the Mueller debacle had no reason for existing in the first place because it had no legal reason for doing an investigation.
The FBI began an investigation based upon reports of Trump campaign contacts with Russian agents, Trump fired Comey to halt the Russia investigation, and Sessions properly recused himself and appointed Mueller to continue the investigation. All according to the book.
So you are going to have to do better at justifying this supposed court order.
Not this court order. These court orders. Trump lost two court cases, not one. He's appealed both to the Supreme Court.
For all I know it's just another leftist court perverting the Constitution for political purposes.
The 2nd Circuit where Trump lost his appeal related to hush money payments has 13 active judges. Eight were appointed by Republicans, five by Democrats.
In the other request for tax information, a three-judge panel rejected Trumps arguments in a 2-1 ruling. Trump requested a hearing before the full DC Court of Appeals and lost 8-3. I don't have information about who appointed them.
And of course the words that clearly define the criminal mentality as leftist are the ones you censor. I wonder why that might be?
You should take moderation issues to the proper thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3467 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 5:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3484 of 5796 (866983)
11-18-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
It wasn't clear to me whether you accepted the reality of the hollowing out of rural America and the dramatic impacts it is having. This is from https://www.washingtonpost.com/...7d-8b867891d39d_story.html:
quote:
As hospitals and physicians continue to disappear from rural America at record rates, here is the latest attempt to fill a widening void: a telemedicine center that provides remote emergency care for 179 hospitals across 30 states. Physicians for Avera eCare work out of high-tech cubicles instead of exam rooms. They wear scrubs to look the part of traditional doctors on camera, even though they never directly see or touch their patients. They respond to more than 15,000 emergencies each year by using remote-controlled cameras and computer screens at what has become rural America’s busiest emergency room, which is in fact a virtual ER located in a suburban industrial park.
Anyone here ever been to an ER where no doctor is present, where a doctor only appears by video feed who can instruct nurses on what to do and what to look at, but cannot examine or treat the patient himself? It would be interesting to hear firsthand what that's like.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3486 by Theodoric, posted 11-18-2019 12:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3567 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2019 8:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3485 of 5796 (866984)
11-18-2019 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3295 by dwise1
11-04-2019 6:11 PM


Re: Civil Debate
dwise1 writes:
Trump was world famous in New York City...
Everybody who grew up in New York City grew up knowing about Trump and what a crook he was, which is evidenced by how few votes he got from there.
Yes, I know. I often mention that I grew up in the New York Metropolitan area and knew precisely the nature of Trump's character long before he became nationally known through his TV show.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3295 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2019 6:11 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3487 by Theodoric, posted 11-18-2019 12:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 3492 of 5796 (867001)
11-18-2019 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3478 by marc9000
11-17-2019 8:51 PM


Re: Civil Debate
marc9000 writes:
quote:
No Democrat in Congress or anyone in the news media is being crude or uncivil on anywhere near the scale of Trump.
is a false statement. Political opinions aside, it's simply a false statement. You say you object to Tlaib's statement, but your false statement above shows that you're not acknowledging that she made it, or that so many others associated with anti-Trump rhetoric are using similar crudeness.
You're simply wrong. I issued you a challenge to match you one-for-one on insults and attacks and have kept up a steady stream of Trump attacks/insults in a series of posts where you have not replied once. Begin at Message 3461 and follow the posts back. So far you're losing 19-0. Let's give you the Tlaib quote and call it 19-1.
That quote's not from Amazon. That's from his publisher, Simon and Schuster, the company making money off the sale of his books (as is Amazon).
I don't think Simon and Schuster made those statements...
Those words are at Simon and Schuster's website on their page about the author of The Art of the Deal, Donald J. Trump | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster. Visit that link and you'll see the words you quoted are from Simon and Schuster:
quote:
An accomplished author, Mr. Trump has authored over fifteen bestsellers and his first book, The Art of the Deal, is considered a business classic and one of the most successful business books of all time.
Moving on:
Nothing to do with crudeness and incivility, but something to do with the fact that he could have experience and abilities to be a good president.
His background and experience seem to lie almost exclusively in the areas of misrepresentation, subterfuge and chicanery and not at all in government administration, diplomacy, the military, economics or anything else.
Better than a community organizer that has authored zero books, better than a peanut farmer who authored zero books,...
Jimmy Carter authored Why Not the Best in 1975, a year before he ran for president.
...or as the best example, better than a dumbass, racist Texan who was picked as a Vice President by JFK.
What an insightful analysis of LBJ.
They didn't know what kind of president he would likely become.
He's been pretty much the same as president as when a private citizen: bumbling, impulsive, uninformed, petty, vengeful, manipulative, opportunistic, heavy handed, thin skinned, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic and profane.
He was from New York, one of the most liberal areas of the country.
Trump has changed his party affiliation five times
He didn't exactly live an anti-evolution Christian life.
Trump is the man I described above, not whatever he claims to be at any particular time.
You've just reinforced my point. Unlike Trump, other recent presidents possessed presidential demeanor.
And unlike the news media, late night comedians, Democrat congresswomen, etc etc, those people / groups possessed a civilized demeanor. They started with childish taunts and laughter when he announced, then went nuts with crudeness when he won the election.
You can make up as many excuses for Trump as you like, the fact remains that unlike other recent presidents, Trump does not possess presidential demeanor. And he admits this himself. He makes fun of presidential demeanor at all his rallies, speaking in a monotone and marching stiffly.
You claim he behaves this way because he's forced into it, but everyone else knows that that's just who he is, a rude, crude and dishonest real estate developer who's gone bankrupt multiple times, and who for these reasons is secretive in the extreme. He's even reluctant to pay his bills, even as president. He still hasn't paid bills for campaign and presidential visits to many cities, such as Burlington (VT), Lebanon (OH), Mesa (AZ), Erie (PA), Green Bay (WI), Spokane (WA), and on and on. Trump just skips town and ignores the bills, just as he always has.
This looks like tabloid jargon to me, what's your source for this?
You're kidding me - this is all new information to you? Wikipedia describes the bankruptcies at Donald Trump - Wikipedia:
quote:
His hotel and casino businesses have been declared bankrupt six times between 1991 and 2009 in order to re-negotiate debt with banks and owners of stock and bonds...Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws — they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt.
Wikipedia also describes Trump's dishonesty at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia:
quote:
Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented[3] in American politics,
Fortune Magazine (among many others) describes how Trump skips out on paying bills for his rallies in cities at Trump's MAGA Rallies Cost Big Bucks and Cities Are Stuck Footing Bills | Fortune:
quote:
President Trump’s campaign rallies are racking up big bills, and he’s reportedly not paying them.
A new investigation from NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity found the Trump campaign owes city governments across the country upwards of $800,000 for police and public safety costs from his events.
The largest invoice to date comes from El Paso, Texas, where the president held a campaign rally in February. Trump still owes the city $470,417 for the event, the invoice shows.
etc...
Vanity Fair (among many others) describes how Trump stiff's contractors all the time at Trump Is Refusing to Pay Contractors for Work During the Shutdown | Vanity Fair:
quote:
The president has a long history of stiffing people who work for him.
Moving on:
marc9000 writes:
That was all I needed, to show actual quotes of employees at CNN, who clearly showed Zucker's objectives.
The only way you could know if these employees' beliefs are correct is to check the news at CNN, which you haven't done,
There are plenty of other ways I can see CNN's vendetta against Trump - their youtube videos that almost always seek to attack him,...
Uh, this is incoherent. YouTube videos of reports carried by CNN are examples of exactly what I was talking about. Since you claim to have watched YouTube videos that make your case that CNN unfairly attacks Trump, please provide them in your next post. There's a [youtube] dBCode for including YouTube videos in posts.
...the antics of their reporters like Jim Acosta,...
Here's the YouTube video of what you're calling Jim Acosta's supposed "antics":
While aggressively trying to ask Trump questions Trump issued several choice insults:
  • "Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN, and if you did it well your ratings would be much higher."
  • "CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN."
  • "You're a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way."
  • "When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people."
If you don't think there is a bias against Trump in the news media, then I have nothing more to say on that subject.
Accurately reporting on Trump's racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, unlawful and impeachable behavior is what the news media should do. If you don't like seeing news media reports about these things then you and all the other Trump supporters should make clear to him that you wish him to cease these kinds of behaviors.
Your quote has a typo that isn't in the original ("found" instead of "founder"). Did you really type that quote in from scratch instead of just cut-n-pasting?
Some web pages don't allow a highlight for a copy/paste. This one was doing something I'd never seen before, it would just let me highlight a few letters, or one word, then it would stop highlighting. I just decided to retype it and yes, I messed up one word. I didn't realize it was a big deal.
It's not a big deal, but now you're just making stuff up, which is a very big deal. Triumph over top terrorist interrupts impeachment crisis engulfing Trump | CNN Politics is just a normal CNN webpage, and there's nothing on that page that can't be copy-n-pasted.
We're talking news and you're citing an opinion piece, but in any case, didn't you watch the video of Trump's announcement that Baghdadi had been killed? If you watch this I think you have to agree with the characterization:
No time to watch this whole thing, but the first few minutes make me wonder what your point is. Was he not polite enough in how he referred to terrorists?
You quoted this from that CNN page saying it was biased:
quote:
He [Trump] relished the demise of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, playing the role of a ruthless commander-in-chief to silence critics of his impulsive foreign policy leadership.
I provided this YouTube video of Trump's announcement which makes clear that CNN's characterization was highly accurate:
Don't watch it if you don't have the time, but neither make allegations you can't support.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3478 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 8:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3574 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2019 9:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3493 of 5796 (867002)
11-18-2019 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3461 by Percy
11-15-2019 3:44 PM


More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
This is gonna be a long one folks, Trump's fingers have been very busy. Marc and Faith aren't even trying to keep up, so I'm not going to add explanatory comments with the tweets this time:
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 33; Democrats: 1
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3461 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 3:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3495 by marc9000, posted 11-19-2019 8:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3496 by Faith, posted 11-19-2019 9:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3533 by Percy, posted 11-21-2019 12:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3499 of 5796 (867074)
11-19-2019 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3483 by marc9000
11-17-2019 11:01 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
marc9000 writes:
Right in the very preamble of the Constitution it says that the purpose is to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." If you're against that then you're not a constitutionalist.
So I'm an originalist,...
Checking out the interpretation of the general welfare clause at General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the founders views varied widely. Jefferson argued as you said, but in the Federalist Papers James Madison took a very narrow view while Alexander Hamilton took a very broad view. I don't think claiming originalist status helps you in this discussion. You're going to have to make your own arguments for why the government should be laissez faire with regard to the domestic economy, healthcare, the environment, and so forth.
...and you're a living constitutionalist.
I'm more a "let's work toward doing what's moral and right" type of person.
Do you agree with, or think it's good for the U.S. for Bloomberg to dedicate $100 million in 2020 ad campaigns against Trump?
This is more free association. We were talking about nations committing to voluntary pollution/emissions targets.
marc9000 writes:
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
This bears no relevance to climate science.
How were those false predictions different from today's climate science predictions?
You called them "similar types of predictions" when they weren't similar at all. They weren't about climate science, most were expressions of opinion by individuals, and none represented a scientific consensus. By contrast, there exists a very broadly accepted current scientific consensus that global warming will cause climate change on a sufficiently massive scale to flood coastal cities, hinder agriculture, change climates, and cause increasingly erratic and destructive weather. We're already seeing the effects. Depending upon where you live you've already seen some, too. Where we live in New England spring arrives two week earlier and fall two weeks later than 30 years ago.
The political motivations were identical (increase the size and scope of government) the "science" was identical (show a lot of charts and graphs that can be made to say whatever their creators want them to say) What can you show that is different between yesterdays predictions of doom versus today's predictions of doom?
You can't make a problem go away by arguing that if we deal with it then government will grow.
Read your own words again. You said, "Climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity," and I said not this time. Spelling it out, the climate change we're experiencing now is definitely not "completely unrelated to human activity."
But it is still partly unrelated to human activity,...
Possibly, but that's not something we know in any scientific way.
...and those other non-human causes / sources can't possibly be pinpointed and predicted to an accuracy that separates them from artificial changes (government mandates) to human behavior. Which solidifies my earlier claim, that the harm, or uselessness, of government mandates to reduce climate change have no accountability.
None of that is true. What we do know based upon studying historical climate change is that the rapidity of the current increase in carbon dioxide levels is unprecedented, and that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was at the level it's at now sea levels were much higher.
We know we have the ability to change things not just for the worse but also for the better, because dramatically cutting back our use of CFC's has caused the hole in the ozone layer that formed over Antarctica every winter to gradually diminish in size. As we approach the next century the ozone layer should be back to pre-1980 levels.
But don't forget that all the climate models say that even if we reduced greenhouse gas production to zero right now that it would take decades and more before the climate change momentum that has already built up would peak and begin reversing.
That means that no matter what we do, citiies like Miami Beach and Alexandria and Venice are already doomed.
Thank you, so no matter what we do, politicians who decide how much of our money and freedoms they are going to take to combat climate change don't have to worry about being accountable for what they do our freedoms, our economy. Very convenient for the politicians that the climate models work that way.
Again, that dealing with climate change might force sacrifices upon us that you don't like will not make the problem magically go away.
marc9000 writes:
Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires,...
Who?
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
No, not Al Gore. Quoting from your article, "The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient." They don't have anything to do with carbon credits, and you said that carbon credit trading has already made some millionaires. Who?
Looking this up myself, I see that one of the most successful carbon credit trading companies in the world, Ecosur Afrique, has a portfolio turnover of only around $10 million a year. Maybe the founder has made a million, maybe not, I could find out very little about him.
Most people who try to make money in carbon trading probably have an experience similar to Neil Eckert's, who supposedly was going places with carbon trading over a decade ago, but things didn't go well and he has since gotten out of the business.
This seems like a good thing. Publicly owned corporations have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, so undoubtedly there would be profits. Things that make money are more likely to happen, so if there are profits to be had in fighting climate change then that is a good thing.
I don't think profits are a good thing when those who are paying for the profits (the general public) aren't getting a defined product or service that they're willing to pay for.
I think a future for their children is something everyone is willing to pay for. We don't want to be known as the generation that fiddled while the world pushed over the edge of irreversible climate change, leaving a legacy of diminished expectations to our descendants.
I've always wondered just what environmentalists expect coal and power companies to do with their waste,...
Xongsmith had the right answer - stop producing and using fossil fuels. It eats hell out of the planet.
Why are you suddenly badmouthing the profit motive? Aren't you a capitalist? Is it just that you don't like to see companies making money on something you don't believe is real?
There is a world of difference between profits that are made in free exchange of goods and services, versus profits that are made through forcing the general public to pay money for things that they can't see, or experience.
Returning to the example of CFC's, can you see the ozone layer? No. Can you see ultraviolet radiation? No. But you understand that the ozone layer is all that protects the Earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays and the devastating effects they would have on all life.
I'm skipping your off-topic riff on corruption, the car industry, and the rest.
You sound very anti-business, very untypical for a conservative. There's no need to get older cars banned - the national car fleet turns over too fast for that to be necessary.
I can't quickly find it, but you made some reference earlier to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet, how can it be done without government mandates against the free will of the people?
This response fails to address the issue, plus the grammatical problems and what looks like a reference to something I never said leaves me very uncertain of what you're talking about. So no comment.
That's what's amazing to me, there are so many climate protests going on today, and yet no one there attempts to define what they want done.
Why do you keep saying things that are patently untrue? I expect most who accept the reality of climate change could rattle off at least several things we could do, like reduce use of fossil fuels, increase use of renewable energy, maintain ecosystems, reduce pollution, etc.
Less coal,...
Yes, absolutely. Even better: no coal. Both the production and the burning are horrible for the environment.
...more everything that needs improved technology,...
Improved technology is a good thing, but only nuclear power requires improved technology before it can be deemed safe. Solar and wind power are already at acceptable technological levels, and they continue to improve.
...which means more expense for already strapped rural America.
I'm sure how you're making this connection is a mystery to everyone.
You seem to be saying that solving climate change will be a difficult problem, and that the costs might not be borne equally. Agreed.
But we disagree on just how serious of a problem that could turn out to be. The costs could very well enrich a few, and destroy the majority. Venezuela style.
Climate change is real, and I'm sure that why you think Venezuela relevant is a mystery to everyone.
Of course they were grandfathered. All states hold automobiles to the emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
You said earlier that older cars are driven less, and are therefore less of a pollution problem. How much less they were driven was not a consideration in my area at that time.
Either you're making this up or are misremembering or mistaken. No state ever required old cars to be retrofitted to bring them into compliance with emissions standards not in effect at the time of manufacture.
How any future tests will be conducted will be strictly political. They can make tailpipe sniffer specifications anything they want.
Emission standards are set years in advance so that car manufacturers have time to develop compliant designs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3483 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 11:01 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3529 of 5796 (867151)
11-20-2019 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3494 by marc9000
11-19-2019 8:46 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
Do you think it means that the standards for a given vehicle lessen over time? If so then you'll just have to recognize that that isn't so. A couple years ago I traded in a car that I'd owned for 20 years. It was held to the same emission standards in year 1 as in year 20.
Do you think it might have been just a little less clean burning in year 20 as it was in year 1? I guess it was if the engine was freshly overhauled. Many people who have 10, 15, 20 year old cars find them useful, even if they don't have brand new engines.
Discussing this with you is like some odd combination of "The Energizer Bunny" with "Dumb and Dumber." It just keeps going and going while drifting further and further from the original point. You need to go back, find the actual issue under discussion, and address it.
Reducing emissions isn't hard. Today I own a hybrid vehicle with recharging capability. While the range for all-electric miles is small (around 30), since I mostly make short trips I almost never use the engine, mostly in the winter when the battery capacity drops by about 20% and the engine is needed to provide heat. I fill up the tank maybe 6 times a year.
It can be hard for many who live in rural America, who have a lifestyle that's much different from yours.
You drift in and out of topic. From car emissions you're suddenly back to rural America. First, of course my lifestyle is going to be unlike most rural people's. Most people's lifestyles are going to be unlike most rural people's. That's because most people don't live in rural areas, and that's been true in the U.S. for a very long time.
Second, you've forgotten your own position and have now got things backwards. It was me who argued that rural America has been in decline for over a century, and it was you who argued against that fact.
Of course it's hard for many who live in rural America. And it will continue to get worse unless the government steps in to help and the people there accept that help.
From climate change to guns? Are you in some kind of free association mode? Turn off the TV and focus on the topic. I'm ignoring this.
Oh sorry, I was mainly hoping to get a glimpse of that hottie Mary Bruce again. I believe I'd go liberal for her, if she'd ask me to.
Seriously? Bye now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3494 by marc9000, posted 11-19-2019 8:46 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3530 of 5796 (867153)
11-21-2019 12:27 AM


In case anyone was wondering what the handwriting of a very stable genius looks like, here ya go:
Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix image.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3533 of 5796 (867180)
11-21-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3493 by Percy
11-18-2019 11:25 PM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
Trump's fingers have again been busy over the past 24 hours tweeting attacks and insults. He also tweeted lies and insinuations, but that's not what this subthread is for. Again, since no one's engaging these lists of tweets I won't insert any explanatory comments, but the lack engagement clearly indicates that the claim that Trump's attacks and insults are responses to attacks and insults from Democrats is false.
Here's Trump tweeting that it's not possible to overhear a cellphone conversation that's not on speakerphone:
Is there anyone here who has never encountered a cellphone conversation where the other party was understandably audible? Sometimes it's because the cellphone volume is turned up, sometimes it's because the party on the other end just has that kind of voice, and sometimes people actually do, whether on purpose or not, enable speakerphone mode.
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 38; Democrats: 1
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Forgot to include the updated score.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3493 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 11:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3633 by Percy, posted 11-26-2019 12:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024