The Right Side of the News

The only reasons I'm seeing for removing Lee's statues is because he was "racist". I don't know of any evidence that Lee himself supported the maintaining of slavery after he surrendered the South's position. But for business owners in the North, decades after the war to refuse service to any black person, doesn't show me any less racism than anything Lee ever promoted, yet there is no call to get even with them or their descendants. Why target Lee, why now?

Your wish is my command. House votes to support illegal immigrant voting in local elections - Washington TimesYou simply can't mask today's Democrats intention to recruit immigrant's votes. They have no special rights in the U.S. concerning their "native language".

Then why are they denied the right and duty to refuse to enforce unfunded government mandates of auto emissions testing which will certainly harm their economies? Error 404

It's relevant because Washington and Jefferson WERE NOT socialists. And they did dictate a LOT of things to future generations. In order to reduce to irrelevance who they were and what they did, their monuments and references must be scaled way back. Gotta get lesser historic figures like Lee out of the way first. That wasn't the question. Moved to another setting, discussed and explained, then removed from there? Incrementalism is alive and well in liberal thinking. The line that divides two countries, both of which have rules about those who attempt to cross it, is a barrier. If a poll were taken among land owners at the border, I think it would be pretty lopsided, concerning who favors, or doesn't favor, more border security including the wall. That was the second big change, the first was the north meddling in something that wasn't their business. The north not recognizing state's rights. Like northern troops with guns refusing to leave Fort Sumter, a place deep in southern territory?

But he seems to have been remembered differently when the statue was erected. What changed? His actual actions, or our memories? After the war was over? If so, reference please. As were many northerners - who really thought that blacks in the late 1800's were informed enough to vote, considering the short length of time they'd been here and their lack of education?

Just like no smoking laws on airline flights of 2 hours or less wasn't a total smoking ban on all airline flights. It took 12 more years to get the total ban. Democrats love incrementalism.

I agree, but there were others who were men of their time and place. Two that immediately come to mind for me are (more recent than Lee) past Democrats Robert Byrd, a long-time senator, and Hugo Black, the supreme court justice who was influential in the "separation of church and state" decision. Both were Ku Klux Klan members. Both have had memorials erected for them, other than their graves. Here is a list of places in West Virginia honoring Robert Byrd, nothing in the news about efforts to tear them down or re-name them. I agree with that also - I think the time they've been in existence as well as who erected them, should be an important factor in deciding if they should be removed or not. I have no respect at all for actions taken in the last several decades by rag-tag groups of wannabe tough guys that call themselves the Klan. These probably have little resemblance to the Klan of the 20's, 30's, and 40's, of which Byrd and Black were members. That was a different time - I have no strong opinion on justifying whatever the Klan was doing in the 20's, the time of it's largest membership. It must be remembered that the U.S. government, federal, state and local, were all microscopic in size, in comparison to today, and I can understand a desire of people from that time period to feel the need to organize and influence political issues that they felt the government at that time didn't address at all.

Hi Percy, this lowlife WHITE rural American has a little time to play tonight. In reading through your link, it looks to me like the between-the-lines implication is that these circumstances are party, or completely because of conservatism / Trump. But are they really, were they pretty close to the same when Obama was president?There were a few things in that article that pointed to possibilities of increasing impoverishment;

quote:

---

One of the biggest natural gas companies in the area, Houston-based Southwestern Energy, stopped paying taxes to the counties here, arguing that the rates were unfair.

---

and;

quote:

---

Many rural counties are also experiencing declines in whatever industries were once the major employers. In Appalachia, this is coal;

---

"Unfair" tax rates for business, the war on coal by environmentalists? You're right, this is not the fault of these Trump voters, or Trump himself. Yes, the ones who say; "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15. The ones who are also sympathetic to little foreign girls who hate U.S. productivity. Or those who place a higher priority in meddling with the fossil fuel industry than actually helping people. A LOT of intensity and diversity. They just understand facts and logic that sympathetic Democrats tend to forget and ignore. Like our $22 trillion, and growing national debt. Like recent increases in homeless communities in California that make their own lifestyles seem pretty good. And Democrat politicians (Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, anyone?) who show no concern about it. That's it - and facts and logic are involved. What I can't understand is how the mainstream media and Democrats are getting by with this, why it isn't trumpeted by Republicans just how fake it really is. Biden is NOT a political opponent of Trump's, because he's not been named as the 2020 Democrat candidate yet. The election is over a year away, while Biden is the front runner, front runners this far out are often not the candidate. Biden would take office at age 78 if elected. Even some Democrats would agree that there's too much likelihood of his death, or serious medical problems, for it to be good for the country. His chances or being the nominee are very small.26 - is that the number of Democrats who are, or were running for the 2020 nomination? Does that mean that all of them, upon their announcement as a candidate, are suddenly immune to questioning by a sitting president for possible crimes involving foreign governments any time in the past? To think that Trump is scared of the 76 year old Biden 14 months before the upcoming election is laughable. It's very believable when he says his phone call had nothing to do with the upcoming election.But back to your link;

quote:

---

Economic appeals are not going to sway any Trump voters, who view anyone who is trying to increase government spending, especially to help other people, with disdain, even if it ultimately helps them, too.

---

In this economy, you can be sure "economic appeals" aren't going to sway any Trump voters. The left will never understand it, but it's a simple fact that "Trump voters" often find more value in being left alone more than getting free stuff.

quote:

---

And Trump voters are carrying the day here in Van Buren County. They see Mr. Trump’s slashing of the national safety net and withdrawal from the international stage as necessities these things reflect their own impulse writ large.

​

They believe every tax dollar spent now is wasteful and foolish and they will have to pay for it later. It is as if there will be a nationwide scramble to cover the shortfall just as there was here with the library. As long as Democrats make promises to make their lives better with free college and Medicare for all sound like they include government spending, these voters will turn to Trump again and it won’t matter how many scandals he’s been tarnished by.

---

His "scandals", most all of them greatly magnified by the Democrat news media, are microscopic compared to the current national debt, or rural America's knowledge of the disastrous results of many past socialist experiments worldwide.

Trump is only one man, the fountain of hate from Democrats and their lapdogs in the news media is much bigger. CNN has a policy statement that claims to report news factually and honestly, and yet it's president has been exposed by staffers at CNN to put his personal vendetta against Trump far above that. Trump has a lawyer that's suing, but it probably won't get anywhere, largely because what CNN is doing is commonplace all throughout the news media and Democrat party.

quote:

---

Project Veritas released part 1 through 3 of its #ExposeCNN series this week exposing Jeff Zucker’s personal vendetta against Trump.

​

CNN insider Cary Poarch blew the whistle on the Trump-hating news network and told Project Veritas, I want to chase the facts, like the motto that CNN put out earlier this year, ‘the facts first,’ that’s what I want the news to be. That’s what it should be. That’s what it used to be.

​

And CNN staffers agree with Cary Poarch.

​

Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: I hate seeing what we were and what we could be and what we’ve become. It’s just awfulI mean, we could be so much better than what we areAnd the buck stops with him (Zucker).

---

Trump Campaign to Sue CNN - Demands 'Substantial' Damages From Bias Following O'Keefe Undercover Video Expos

I don't agree that there is an "economic decline of rural America" but that that is is a political statement, not necessarily a factual one. It goes with the age old Democrat claim; "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer". The poor in today's America have it better than probably 95% of the people that have ever lived on this earth since the beginning of the human race.I think the case can be made that the rich get richer as the poor also get richer. Life is more complicated today, and I understand that it's easier to make a mess of one's economic life today, with the desires and availability of pleasures and toys, (illegal drugs, credit cards, cell phones) but problems arising from those things aren't an economic decline. I'd rather not beat the dead gun-control-horse here right now, but my reference to O'Rourke's statement was intended to show the similarity to his, and other Democrat's arrogance to the arrogance displayed by the King of England to the colonists 250 years ago. I'm sure that a small, but probably significant part of the American population at that time didn't agree with the framers of our constitution, and wanted to stay loyal to that king because he cared for them and gave them free stuff. It's about the POLITICAL exploitation of children, represented at this point in time by that little monster Greta Thunburg. No one in the news media who've made her famous, or the Democrat party have made it clear they're against that. Yes and yes. It's a scientific fact that the climate has always been changing, its changes in the past happened before there was any chance that human activity could have caused it. Therefore it's also a fact that it could be changing today due to other factors (sunspots) that have nothing to do with human activity. There's too much actual scientific uncertainty to pinpoint exactly what could be causing it today, and what that does is make the government/scientific community completely unaccountable for any future successes/failures from their political action to address it. Here's a link to the "green new deal";Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThere is NOTHING listed there that isn't simply vague political jargon, not one defined, nuts-and-bolts plan of action to achieve a defined goal. And in the recent Democrat debates, the subject is not coming up. There are a few of them who would like to discuss it, but other, more powerful Democrats know better. They know that there are a lot more Americans who have been scared into believing that political action must be taken against climate change, than there are Americans who are willing to pay anything for it. When they start talking about details about what they propose, they'll scare a LOT of their formally solid Democrat base over to Republicans. Let's look at a couple of lines from the green new deal;

quote:

---

A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

---

Why don't the Democrat candidates want to tell us where they're going to start? The main culprit is of course, fossil fuels. There's no question that Democrat think tanks have carefully analyzed all the different uses of fossil fuels. Cars and trucks, (old and new). Trains, planes, lawnmowers, chainsaws, farm equipment, construction equipment, home heating units, several other things. A sizable percentage of Americans either have a livelihood or hobby directly involved with fossil fuels. Who is proposed to be first?In their analyzation of fossil fuel use, there's no question they've divided that use into "necessary" and "unnecessary" uses. Or "severe" and "non-severe" releases of greenhouse gas emissions. Are they going to start with new laws and mandates that immediately affect the majority of the population, or are they going to go for minorities at first, like hobbyists, or users of older equipment?Every bite of food that goes into Greta Thunberg's mouth comes courtesy of fossil fuels, I wonder if her programmers have ever told her that?Another line from the green new deal;

quote:

---

to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;

---

What kinds of jobs? Environmental police? New vehicle emissions testing agents? When people who'd rather not accept free government stuff without knowing what surprises might be in the trade-offs see this type of thing, they can be reminded of this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence;

quote:

---

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance

---

That is true, it's such a complex problem that it's not going to be fixed overnight. But lessening government regulations, unfettering job creators with lower taxes, and other things that Trump has done to lower unemployment and create more enthusiasm for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness seems to a lot of people like a good place to start. The government is too small, that's the reason for homelessness? Could a decrease in work ethic, morality, and illegal drugs have something to do with it also? Most of what you're calling disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.

quote:

---

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

​

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

---

I don't see fear in those tweets. It's just Trump being Trump - a lot of people who didn't vote for him, and some who held their nose and voted for him not knowing what they were going to get, admire the way he has held up to the hate. Many others would have resigned the presidency by now. And he's probably right, assuming there will be no earthshaking political events happen in the next year. He should be able to use the successful Reagan line; "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" But his margin of victory won't be as comfortable as Reagans was in 1984, because the fake news does have power. I continue to monitor ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT most evenings, and am constantly amazed at their dishonesty. The out-of-context, often outdated snips, the pictures of Trump caught at just the right moment to make him look bad, prefixing the word "but" in their responses at just about everything he says, etc. The way they describe him as "lashing out", as being "brazen", while never describing Democrats with those words, even when they fit very well. The viewers of that "most watched" newscast, if they don't have any other news sources, have very little idea of what's actually going on. A large part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for some people is self reliance. I know you don't understand it, and I'm not attempting to encourage you to understand it, I'm just asking that you try to accept it. I'm a country guy, lived in the country all my life, love the outdoors. Yet I'll never understand how anyone can get pleasure out of hunting and fishing. They're just not my thing. But I accept that others like to do those things. I was thinking more of Venezuela, or Mexico, but Europe fits also. I don't see a mass exodus of Americans heading to Europe for a better life these days.

Only? Okay, guess we have to leave that there. But really, if Trump's "crude" tweets and language are a big part of the opposition to him, it seems you don't have much, because there has been plenty of crude tweets and language from his opposition, like Rashida Tlaib's selling of "Impeach the MF" tee shirts. Crudeness and bluntness IS politics today - back and fourths on just that don't accomplish much IMO. But I did show it, in Message 3213. Was only one reference not enough? Accusations and threats that are verifiable and proven. Equally, I have ABC World News Tonight in context. David Muir, Cecilia Vega and Jonathon Karl are a left wing activist group. They use deceptively edited videos and commentary, and omission of much relevant news, to make it clear they're a Democrat disinformation outfit. And yet they masquerade as an unbiased news source, unlike Project Veritas. I don't need any scholars to tell me that, I can easily see it for myself. I did. I'm too busy these days to chase goalposts. If I can find the time, but ABC news is my main focus for now. Of course the mainstream media has to mention the big news items like the Baghdadi raid, because it's all over other sources of information. ABC spent about 3 minutes on it the other evening, then, back to impeachment, and their endless sensationalism about the weather, with plenty of "climate change" between the lines.

Your "economic decline of rural America" comments have inspired me to some reading on the internet of the analysis and commentary on some of today's hardships in rural America, including commentary of some of those residents. There's no question that in simpler times, rural America consisted largely of small and medium sized farms, and the supporting businesses and activity that supplemented them have since dried up. But when all the immigrants were coming into the U.S. in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and made lives for themselves outside of cities, they didn't exactly have it easy. Again, today's residents of rural America have it pretty good compared to past generations. I did notice a touch of jealousy in some of the rural American's comments, and that's a large part of the problem. They'd be a lot happier if they'd just live their own lives, and not compare themselves to wealthier people. I've seen evidences of very happy and productive poor people, and some very unhappy rich people.The Bible says not to covet, the Apostle Peter, when told what he had to do, said, "what about him?" referring to John. Jesus said, "what is that to Thee?" Covetousness and jealousy are bigger problems today than many realize. Oh no, I'm still waiting to see what the "action" is going to be. There's a difference between clever political jargon and actual action. When I hear some, I'll let you know. How much climate change happens due to human activity is a big debate today, but it's clear to everyone that climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity. What that means is that any attempts of man to improve or control climate change can't have target goals or accountability, since other occurrences can interfere, sunspots as one example, and those occurrences aren't predictable or controllable.ABC News describes the California wildfires as "erupting", and "escalating rapidly". They seldom say that it takes a spark to ignite a fire, and fuel for it to burn. The climate change activists seem to be trying to claim that the slight increase in global temperatures is causing the underbrush to be drier, therefore these fires are the result of climate change. But California's liberal forest management? Seldom mentioned.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. As soon as Democrats turn loose of all their secrets about just what is going to be banned and whose lives are gong to be destroyed, the cry of "how dare you" is going to be met with "don't tread on me", and we're likely to see another very bloody internal war.A rational guess is that one of the first climate change actions is for the government to analyze the most severe, and "least necessary" sources of fossil fuel use. If I remember right, our very own RAZD, some years ago, made some reference to an old vehicle that he was working on/ restoring, somewhere in one of the more casual discussions here. It genuinely makes me wonder, does he think he'll get a special pass because he supports global warming activism, or will he gladly stand aside and watch jack-booted thugs come and seize it? Those are your labels, but if labeled differently, like a realization that the U.S. wasn't founded automatically, and isn't sustained automatically, and some safeguards and understanding of human nature are required to avoid a collapse of our society, (like Venezuela) then it could be that tradition is a more solid mindset than your modern day name calling. Here's one from Grover Cleveland;

quote:

---

"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

---

(bolded mine)http://www.liberalinstitute.com/...erGovernmentFunction.htmlThere are some more of his quotes, and quotes from other past presidents as well at this link.The "sturdiness of our national character" of 100 years ago is just about gone. The Democrat party of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" is completely gone. Insecure? One of the reasons he's hated so much is because he has demonstrated confidence and a thick skin far beyond the expectations of many who voted for him in 2016. ?? Very few Trump voters are going to vote against him in the 2020 election because of the economy. That is true, largely because of urban area debt.

quote:

---

This year, the study found that 64 cities do not have enough money to pay all of their bills, and in total, the cities have racked up $335.4 billion in unfunded municipal debt. The study ranks the cities according to their Taxpayer Burden or Surplus, which is each taxpayer's share of city bills after available assets have been tapped.

---

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/...tate-of-the-cities-2016 Doesn't make a lot of sense to everyone.

quote:

---

A recent poll showed 43% of Americans think more socialism would be a good thing. What do these people not know?

​

Socialism has killed millions, but it’s now the ideology du jour on American college campuses and among many leftists. Reintroduced by leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ideology manifests itself in starry-eyed calls for free-spending policies like Medicare-for-all and student loan forgiveness.

​

In The Case Against Socialism, Rand Paul outlines the history of socialism, from Stalin’s gulags to the current famine in Venezuela. He tackles common misconceptions about the utopia of socialist Europe. As it turns out, Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most.

​

Socialism’s return is only possible because many Americans have forgotten the true dangers of the twentieth-century’s deadliest ideology. Paul reveals the devastating truth: for every college student sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt, there’s a Venezuelan child dying of starvation. Desperate refugees flee communist Cuba to escape oppressive censorship, rationed food and squalid hospitals, not free healthcare. Socialist dictatorships like the People’s Republic of China crush freedom of speech and run massive surveillance states while masquerading as enlightened modern nations. Far from providing economic freedom, socialist governments enslave their citizens. They offer illusory promises of safety and equality while restricting personal liberty, tightening state power, sapping human enterprise and making citizens dependent on the dole.

​

If socialism takes hold in America, it will imperil the fate of the world’s freest nation, unleashing a plague of oppressive government control. The Case Against Socialism is a timely response to that threat and a call to action against the forces menacing American liberty.

---

Amazon.comI'll probably have to pick up a copy of this book. You probably should too.

quote:

---

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) vowed to help Democrats impeach President Trump just hours after being sworn into Congress on Thursday.

​

We’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherfucker! Tlaib said during a Thursday night rally in Washington, D.C. organized by MoveOn.

---

Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democratic Congresswoman, Vows to Help Impeach Trump | National Review"Hours after being sworn into Congress..." - what professionalism!Now hats and tee shirts are being sold with that phrase on them. When Trump came down the escalator in 2015 and made his presidential announcement, he was already the author of "over 15 best selling books". "The Art of the Deal, is considered a business classic and one of the most successful business books of all time." (Amazon)When he made his presidential announcement, he was blunt and direct, and undoubtedly injured some fragile feelings in politics and the news media, but he wasn't crude and uncivil. Those things STARTED from reactions to what he said. Not from Democrats and the news media, they have much more dignified ways of looking down their noses at someone they consider to not be in their lofty positions of intelligence. The late-night comedians were pretty much the ones who started it off, and it escalated from there. I'm going to have a busy week in this economy, doubt I'll have time. There are things going on in politics that are more important than insults. That's an easy one, because those past presidents weren't crudely and bluntly attacked by people who knew very little about them at the start of their campaigns yet, like Trump was. The Bush's and Reagan were reported with plenty of bias in the news during their administrations, but they remained "presidential" and just tried to ignore it. They didn't meet it head-on like Trump does, and their silence could have been to their detriment. Unlike them, Trump has the Twitter option, and has decided to use it. It gets him a lot of emotional put-downs, (which could be to his advantage, somewhat) and it also gives him an opportunity to often set the tone for news, something that could help him with everyone, except his haters of course. That was all I needed, to show actual quotes of employees at CNN, who clearly showed Zucker's objectives. I know you poisoned my well of Project Veritas, but the source doesn't matter if it contains actual, in context quotes. I know you'll say that the same is true when CNN and ABC only repeat Trumps mean tweets, but the difference is, many people don't care about the tone of his remarks, considering who he's dealing with. They only care about the point of the message. Many do (and should) care about CNN's president's bias and hate. It's a worthy news story, ABC World News Tonight viewers should know about it. But of course it's not reported. Already did. With CNN employees actual words about Zucker. That's understandable, different people's familiarity with different news casters are going to vary in every way possible. In the same way, those 3 people are the ONLY news people that a lot of busy evening news viewers are going to know. Some of them vote, and they're not very well informed. Well, the best way to do that would be to compare it to their news story of testimony from a National Security guy concerning Hillary Clinton's funding of the Steel Dossier. Let me know when you've found it, I'm not having much luck. It looks like that is ALL it's focused on, CNN seems to be focused on practically nothing but impeachment, just like some of its employees have said. Of course, wicked weather and fires caused by nothing but climate change are important too. But other things like low unemployment and an on-fire economy, not so much. The possibility that Trump's bringing those troops home was part of his strategy to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - also not near as important to report on as impeachment. But they did have a little to say about it;

quote:

---

He [Trump] relished the demise of ISIS found Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, playing the role of a ruthless commander-in-chief to silence critics of his impulsive foreign policy leadership.

---

Triumph over top terrorist interrupts impeachment crisis engulfing Trump - CNNPoliticsWhat an unbiased statement from CNN!

This is all true, but us Constitutionalists believe it's not a reason for the government to increase its involvement in domestic economics. Different people have different definitions of what the word "impoverished" means. 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. 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. In any case, it's not the government's business. When a nation considers increasing its size and scope to achieve any goal, it has nothing to do with the word "voluntarily". 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." Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?Just a moment... I could load you up with links, but it would just result in a lot of well poisoning, so I won't bother. 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? Not the kind I'm talking about. 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. The news media seeks to terrify children of ALL ages, including those 10 years old and younger. Even some teenagers and adults can be brainwashed by slanted sensationalist reporting. Why has only California been experiencing them, why not Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana? 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. Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires, and is only a tiny part of what could happen. Several big corporations are very interested in getting involved in the politics of climate change.

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-whyIsn'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? There's "one of the nation's leading car companies" in there. Doesn't say which one, doesn't matter. All three of them have desperately shed at least one brand recently to help stop the bleeding (Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Mercury) 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. 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?The possibilities for out-of-control corruption in the politics of climate change are unlimited. Still nothing specific. 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?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. They were not grandfathered in any way in my area in the early 2000's when auto emission testing was being done. Mileages weren't considered, they passed or they were denied registration. 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.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!!! Why did you put quotes around the word "disparaging"? I never used that term. I was referring to small government attitudes. A good guess, it takes a lot of effort to keep the lights on, keep food store shelves full. Our leaders should focus or more things than the climate change hoax, or this amazingly childish impeachment fiasco. 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. 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. People are smarter today than they were in the past? The recent Baltimore riots weren't racist? Elijah Cummings, or Don Lemon of CNN are never racists? It's a logical thing to be receptive to, much more than Trump haters being receptive to emotion, like climate change and racism. Societies can't function on emotion. You trust the government to only grow so much, then suddenly stop growing? I seldom have much time for Fox New, but when I catch some of their discussion shows, impeachment is often the main topic, and they usually have at least one Democrat congressman, or Democrat "strategist". There's no doubt that they cover the impeachment circus as well as anyone else. I did see the black cat story at the end of ABC news the other evening.(I'll try to get to message 3293 this weekend, or early next week)

I cite that quote more than once to make clear that this statement of yours;

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. I don't think Simon and Schuster made those statements based on what they hope will happen, but largely on what has already happened, based on the sales and reviews of Trump's books. Your saying he has no negotiating skills, well, that's more of an emotional statement than a factual one. 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. Better than a community organizer that has authored zero books, better than a peanut farmer who authored zero books, or as the best example, better than a dumbass, racist Texan who was picked as a Vice President by JFK. Those things aren't necessarily polite and "presidential", but many consider[d] them to be true. But comparing them to the politeness of past presidents isn't necessarily easy, since there wasn't all the recording and documenting technology that we have today. I was a kid in the mid sixties, and my grandfather, born in 1884, told me a few things about Theodore Roosevelt that now indicate to me that Trump isn't the first assertive president this country has ever had. Trump has gotten many things done that he promised, the only reason he hasn't been able to do more is because the Democrat hate machine has been doing all it can to block him from accomplishing things that the country needs. They didn't know what kind of president he would likely become. He was from New York, one of the most liberal areas of the country. He didn't exactly live an anti-evolution Christian life. He had his picture taken with the Clintons and other liberals, was involved in political financing that wasn't necessarily extreme conservative. These characteristics should have been liberal friendly, at least enough for them to give him much more of a chance to express who he wanted to be as president. He never got that chance - the hate that immediately sprang up when he announced his candidacy wasn't necessarily from a political view, it was from a personal view, largely jealousy. 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. This looks like tabloid jargon to me, what's your source for this? There are plenty of other ways I can see CNN's vendetta against Trump - their youtube videos that almost always seek to attack him, the antics of their reporters like Jim Acosta, the list is long. 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. 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. 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?