The Right Side of the News

Wouldn't that mean that in your upside down bizarro world where liberals are fascists that Republicans are more fascist than Democrats?In your world, are negative numbers to the right on the number line? Do objects fall up? Is doublethink the primary cognitive framework? Do you need to destroy the village in order to save it? Is knowledge gained by cutting yourself off from information? Shall we play the Twitter game again where I list critical/insulting/attacking Trump tweets and you list those from Democrats in Congress? I'll start: Who is putting restrictions on you and telling you what to do? Please be specific. What restrictions are they putting on you and what are they telling you to do? Please be specific. Please try to avoid being ridiculous or absurd. What American freedoms are being threatened by liberals? Do liberals want to take away the freedom to do what you want with your body? No, that would be the conservatives. The freedom to marry who you please? No, the conservatives again. The freedom to cast votes if you're poor, disadvantaged, or moved and forgot to reregister? No, it's again the conservatives who are threatening that. The freedom to seek a better life in a new land? No, the conservatives again. The freedom to trade freely with other nations? Again, the conservatives.One freedom liberals would like to place reasonable constraints on is the right to own guns without licensing, registration, training requirements and testing, and on the right to store them unsafely, and on the right to carry them anywhere you want. My state's particularly bad - there are very few gun laws, and none specific to minors. What form does this tyranny take? Please be specific. What conformity is being demanded of you. Please be specific. Please try to avoid being ridiculous or absurd. Again, please support this claim. Here's another recent Trump tweet, please match it with one from a Democrat. Doesn't have to be a tweet, could be a news item or a short segment of a video (if you provide a video please queue it up to the exact right spot as described in the dBCode help): I don't think any president who believes Article II says he can do whatever he wants is likely to be operating within constitutional constraints. Trump is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of justice, as was Nixon (he resigned before the articles could be voted on). Bill Clinton was also charged with obstruction of justice.Here is the number of documents and witnesses Trump approved for the impeachment investigation: Zero. That's a first. No other president under impeachment investigation has been so blatantly obstructive. Your derogatory labels are unsupported by any facts and so carry no weight. Bringing facts and rational arguments to discussions is what is important. It is the meat of the discussion that occurs after the initial statements of opinion. An endless series of posts of aspersions and denigrations does not qualify as participation in a discussion, and constantly reminding people of your emotional barometer is numbingly repetitive and unnecessary.For some reason known only to yourself you've chosen liberalism and Democrats as your bogeyman and conservatism and Republicans as your savior. Both are neither.--Percy

Just a minor point. In my view both trickle up and trickle down are real phenomena, but trickle up is far more significant.Trickle down isn't that significant because even though the rich control a huge proportion of the wealth, there are not that many of them, and they can only buy so many houses, boats and planes, only throw so many parties, only buy so much jewelry and designer clothing.Trickle up is very significant because wealth is built by creating products and/or services that have broad appeal across the population. You can even make a fortune selling something commonplace like pizza (e.g., John Schnatter, aka Papa John's, recent issues notwithstanding).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Overuse of pronouns.

I drive a Prius Prime right now, which can hold about 30 miles of charge, fine for me since almost all my driving is local. I only fill up maybe 5 or 6 times a year, about 7 gallons each time. The engine has to run part of the time in the winter to provide heat.But my wife's gas-powered car, our trip car, is getting on in years, and sometime this year we plan to trade it in. Right now we're looking at the Tesla Model 3. I'm curious what options you're considering.--Percy

This is the "Everyone else is throwing their thrash on the ground, so I will, too" argument. This argument reflects such a profound lack of math proficiency that there would be no point attempting a remedy. Same thing.The ultimate endpoint of your argument is that China should set a goal of releasing no more pollutants than Lichtenstein. The absurdity of this might help you see that your argument requires a little work.--Percy

This is true. For example, the Charles and Hudson Rivers (Boston and New York City) used to be so polluted as to be unswimmable, but they are both much cleaner now. But while we've made progress much remains to be done. Under Trump we do not continue to "do it." Trump is rolling back environmental regulations wherever he can. It isn't the "Left's political ends." It is reacting to what the science is telling us by trying to slow and reverse our damage to the environment. It is always best to do something right the first time than to do it over or fix it later. For example, it is always much cheaper to not pollute groundwater in the first place instead of polluting the groundwater, which is a very cheap way to dispose of waste chemicals, and then paying to fix it later, which is much more costly.Most polluting companies get out from under their responsibilities to clean up their environmental messes by going bankrupt or tying things up in court for years. The officers of such companies are never held personally responsible. They go on to other companies to continue their polluting ways.Perhaps you remember Love Canal, one of the first Superfund sites. During the 1940s the site was used as a chemical dumping ground. The chemicals eventually found their way into groundwater, affecting the health of hundreds. Cleanup cost $400 million and took 21 years.Love Canal was typical. It was easier to dump the chemicals into the ground instead of disposing of them responsibly, and it would have cost much less than $400 million. The closest analog today is West Virginia (which I keep mentioning) where Trump has rolled back environmental regulations so that coal mining companies can continue polluting groundwater with impunity. It will cost a great deal to clean up the environmental disaster they are creating. We're all in this together, left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. Neither group is trying to destroy America because this is where we live. China is still signatory to the Paris Climate Accord. As of when the two year required notice expires shortly, we will no longer be signatory to the Accord.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typos.

On vacation recently one of our Uber drivers was from Central America and was studying for his citizenship test. Can you name the original 13 colonies without using the Internet? He can. So for you the national debt is a reason for not providing assistance to refugees and those granted asylum. Is it also a reason for not building the wall? Or is it actually just an excuse for not spending money on anything you're against? I guess you should stop handing out food stamps to Republican voters. Might give them the wrong idea. That's an excellent example of the importance of giving people a leg up on life, because it makes them better contributors to society for the rest of their lives. Many of those returning from WWII used the GI bill to attend trade school or college, and to obtain low-interest mortgages, and to obtain better healthcare at VA hospitals, and to receive unemployment compensation. That's why returning veterans were so successful. After the war GI benefits cost the government about a billion a year in 1945 dollars. That's $14 billion in todays dollars.Roughly 80,000 people were granted refugee status and asylum in 2017. If every single one received $5000 in government benefits that would be only $400 million, about 3% of what we spent on the GI bill in a single year (it's also about 0.1% of the amount by which Trump has increased the annual deficit since he took office, and 0.0017% of the national debt). Given the potential return on investment in the form of productive citizens it would be foolish not to spend this money. It is in our nation's best interests to have the highest quality citizens possible, so why would we not want to make an investment in those just starting out in our country who need it. Is there anyone who's not just like you about whom you won't make up disparaging falsehoods? The children of wealth have access to the best education, the best healthcare, the best contacts, and the best opportunities. Naturally they outperform the children of parents in all the lower wealth quintiles. You've run off the rails again. This is about wealth or lack thereof, not parent's sexual preferences. Let's say that your implication that children of gay parents were true (it isn't, of course). That has nothing to do with the influence of wealth on the future success of offspring. You can't even stay on topic, let alone find a statistic to support you. To you each post is just another opportunity to give voice to irrational prejudices. You're lost the plot again. The particular country isn't relevant to the point. You said that Roosevelt's rationale for not discriminating against citizens of foreign origin was that they should not have come here to escape problems in their home countries, and yet the major waves of immigration into the US from the late 1800's until the Depression were from Ireland, Italy and Eastern Europe, a period during which Roosevelt made the comment you quoted. These immigrants came to the US because of poor conditions in their home countries.Explaining anything to you causes two additional things to be misunderstood or misconstrued. Progress is never possible. Immigrants can't vote until they're citizens, which takes a minimum of five years. That being said, a 2012 Pew Research study found that 31% of Latino illegals identify as Democrat and only 4% as Republican. That breakdown has nothing to do with government benefits since illegals aren't eligible for any. It has to do with Republican hostility toward immigrants of all categories, illegals, legals and citizens. Trump's hostility toward Ilhan Omar is one very visible and extreme example. You're just one big bundle of prejudices. If climate change is false then it will be shown false by science, not by your willingness to make up nasty things about anyone who holds opinions different from yours. You're making things up again. No one is proposing "a major government takeover of energy production" and use of that energy. Using reductio ad absurdum this time, we know that nothing is immune from corruption. If you're right that the possibility of corruption is a reason for not doing something then we should never do anything. But never doing anything isn't possible. Therefore your reasoning is wrong. You are very confused. Only the first amendment is directed solely at Congress. The second and ninth apply to all three branches. The third applies to the executive branch, because that's where the Defense Department resides. The fourth and fifth also apply to the executive branch, because that's where law enforcement resides. Trump's charity had nothing to do with the government. Are you even reading what you're responding to? And you've lost the plot again. We were talking about corruption, and my point, since it apparently has to be explained, is that even well meaning entities like charities whose purpose is to lessen human suffering can be corrupt. Fortunately there's some oversight for charities, they have some reporting requirements, which is how Trump got caught. Once again you've apparently made a claim you can't support, and: Really? More gratuitous name calling? Give it a break. I think most people are concerned about the national debt. The person most responsible for driving it up over the past few years is Trump. Given that lead-in I was expecting what follows to identify a question, but you don't. You've said this before and it's been answered before. There aren't enough older ICE's around to matter. Just focusing on cars, according to Consumer Reports the average car lifetime is about eight years. It doesn't take long for older vehicles to disappear from the roads. There are around 270 million cars in the US, of which about 5 million are classified as antiques and which don't get driven much. Few if anyone is commuting to work in a Model T, a '34 Buick, or a 64-1/2 Mustang.We should continue our efforts at reducing pollution from ICE's and on reducing our reliance on them altogether. This is short term thinking. Saving Miami before the seas inundate it will cost much less than after. You've got to stop ascribing odious qualities to everyone who disagrees with you.--Percy

About a week ago I posted this in Message 4145 about Trump's claim that there were no casualties in Iran's ballistic missile attack on US military bases in Iraq. I said it was likely a lie: And what a surprise, it *was* a lie. Today we find out that there were at least eleven casualties caused by Iran's attack: 11 Americans Were Hurt in Iran Missile Strike, Military Says, Contradicting Trump - The New York TimesThose of us who have been paying attention to all Trump's lying about almost everything are bewlldered that Trumpists continue to be suckers for one of the greatest liars of all time. They're not even good lies. They have no staying power. The truth usually becomes available to anyone who wants it within a day to a week.It's fine for Trumpists to like his policies, but they should never lose sight of the fact that the man can't be trusted about anything, from what he had for breakfast to whether he paid off a porn star to claiming that windmills cause cancer and water comes out of our faucets in drips to claiming that he's the most transparent president in history. Those who embrace Trump as president should know the true nature of the man they're embracing and not construct fantasies in their head.I'll make another prediction. I have no idea what Trump will say today, maybe nothing, but if he does make any statement today I predict it will be a lie. I might be walking out on a limb, but I think the odds are well in my favor. Stay tuned.--Percy

Here's a picture after a storm of how sea levels are affecting Miami: This is how Miami will look all the time within 20 to 30 years. Shorter term effects will begin showing sooner, such as dropping real estate values for waterfront property.--Percy

I should have been more clear. The photo's not real, but the flooding depicted in the photo is about what happens when a hurricane such as Irma hits Miami, e.g.: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Wanted to respond to just a small part of this report:

quote:

---

The Koch-Fueled ALEC's "Rich States, Poor States" Paints a Happy Face on Failing State Policies | PR Watch
...
The lead author of the "Rich States, Poor States" report is economist and "ALEC scholar" Arthur Laffer. Influential in Republican circles, Laffer is considered the father of "supply side" economics—the notion of slashing taxes and government spending to spur economic growth. Adoption of Laffer's policies generated enormous federal deficits under presidents Reagan and Bush I, and have been widely dismissed as "voodoo" and "junk" economics.

---

I'm not going to look up contemporary perspectives on Arthur Laffer and supply side economics. I'm going by what I remember from living through the period. Cutting both taxes and government spending is not supply side economics. That's just mainstream conservative thinking, and the "cutting taxes" part to stimulate the economy is just Keynesian theory. I understood supply side economics to be the idea that demand can be created by supply, sort of an economic "If you build it they will come." (It was actually "he will come," but I never remember it that way.)Do you remember supply side economics anything like that?--Percy

I'm guessing that a lot of people are not much different from me in that when I read something outrageously wrong or wrongheaded I can't help responding, even if RAZD, Theodoric, JonF, ringo and whoever else have already replied.--Percy

Sorry, didn't realize the problems Miami is already having with flooding weren't widely known. Here's a CBS News report. The whole report is pretty informative, but I've queued it up to begin at a 5 second portion showing the flooded Miami business district during Hurricane Irma: --Percy

Yesterday I predicted that if Trump said anything yesterday it would contain lies. Here's what I said: And of course Trump lied yesterday, here's the tweet. Of course the people of Iran do not love America, and especially not just after we assassinated a beloved general and ramped up sanctions again.Trump was at a fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida, yesterday evening. If I had a full transcript of his comments there I'm sure I could find many lies.--Percy

You're making up your own reality. Qasem Soleimani was a hero to the Iranian people for planning and implementing operations, terrorist and otherwise, against hated western nations. Iranians as a group are not thanking Trump for assassinating Soleimani, and they definitely do not love Americans. Does "Death to America" have a familiar ring to it? Does your memory go back far enough to remember the storming of our embassy in Iraq only a couple weeks ago: Protesters Attack U.S. Embassy in Iraq, Chanting ‘Death to America’ - The New York Times. The protests were sponsored and instigated by Iran.--Percy

This photograph of the 2017 Women's march appears in the National Archives in doctored form:AbE: When I first posted this message this image from the Washington Post was the doctored version that the National Archives originally displayed, but now it's the original version. I don't know why the change. Here'a an example of the doctoring. The original form is on the left, the altered from on the right: Naturally Trump did not order the change personally. It was done by people who merely want to keep their jobs. If Trump ever became aware of an image containing "God Hates Trump" in the National Archives, heads would roll. He rules Washington now with an iron fist. Even low level employees are affected.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add comment about image.