Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
23 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,946 Year: 21,982/19,786 Month: 545/1,834 Week: 45/500 Day: 3/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News (renamed)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3451 of 3745 (866759)
11-15-2019 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3447 by jar
11-15-2019 9:04 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
Indeed.

I was going to include the Amazon, but that appears to be man caused for genocide on indigents and animals.

We might want to have a thread on genocide ... and look at the administrations selective attacks on brown immigrants.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3447 by jar, posted 11-15-2019 9:04 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3452 of 3745 (866760)
11-15-2019 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3448 by Percy
11-15-2019 9:12 AM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
... Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?

Or do they just not care that he may have massive debts to Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey involving the financing of his towers -- we know he doesn't use is own money (heaven forfend), but gets others to invest so he can leave them high and dry when they go bankrupt.

That could explain why he gives these three countries whatever they want.

You want to investigate corruption? Start with the tax returns. We know from Cohen that he may have used two sets of books.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3448 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 9:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3453 by jar, posted 11-15-2019 12:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 3453 of 3745 (866762)
11-15-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3452 by RAZD
11-15-2019 12:14 PM


Follow the Money.
RAZD writes:

We know from Cohen that he may have used two sets of books.

We know from Cohen that he may have used AT LEAST two sets of books.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3452 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 12:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3454 of 3745 (866763)
11-15-2019 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3448 by Percy
11-15-2019 9:12 AM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?

Not I. I know how the **** operates, it is they I'm suspicious of. Of course nobody else here is, but I am. All they've done for three years is make mountains out of molehills, invent crimes out of nothing, anything to hold against the Preident, and that's all they want to do with his tax returns. Since his are ****** to be extremely compolicated and nobody on the **** is going to understand them anyway, just as they don't understand how everything Trump has done is perfectly legal and Constitutional that they are trying to impeach him for because it just doesn't sound right to them, they are going to do that with his tax returns too. If there were any tax prolems the IRS would long since have revealed them, but the **** just wants to see what they can find that doesn't sound quite right to them so they can make up some kind of wrongdoing that doesn't exist, **** all the other inventions they've come up with over the last three years. He has no legal obligation to release his tax returns and I'm glad he's sticking to it.

MAY ALL THE ***** COME OUT and the **** get shown to be the liars and frauds they are.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3448 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 9:12 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3455 by Taq, posted 11-15-2019 2:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 3457 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 3:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 3462 by JonF, posted 11-15-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 3474 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2019 7:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 3455 of 3745 (866767)
11-15-2019 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3454 by Faith
11-15-2019 1:40 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
Faith writes:

Not I. I know how the **** operates, it is they I'm suspicious of. Of course nobody else here is, but I am. All they've done for three years is make mountains out of molehills, invent crimes out of nothing, anything to hold against the Preident, and that's all they want to do with his tax returns. Since his are ****** to be extremely compolicated and nobody on the **** is going to understand them anyway, just as they don't understand how everything Trump has done is perfectly legal and Constitutional that they are trying to impeach him for because it just doesn't sound right to them,

Interesting. You claim that no one can understand Trump's taxes, yet you claim they are legal. Which is it? You would have to understand Trump's taxes in order to claim they are legal.

Also, accepting something of worth for a political campaign from a foreign country is illegal. Obstructing Congress by ignoring subpoenas is illegal.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3456 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 3:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3456 of 3745 (866769)
11-15-2019 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3455 by Taq
11-15-2019 2:40 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
Oh come on. I claim they are legal based on the fact that the IRS and no other legal knowledgeable entity has said otherwise. I know the average ***** isn't going to have a clue, and nor would I.

Trump did not do a quid pro quo for his political campaign, that's a big fat stupid ***. Read the damn transcript, there is no such thing in uit.. this is a typical example of what I was talking about, just making up **** you call ******** which is not, just because you're a bunch of ****** who don't understand the Constitution or anything else, or worse.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3455 by Taq, posted 11-15-2019 2:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 3457 of 3745 (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 responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3458 of 3745 (866774)
11-15-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3457 by Percy
11-15-2019 3:22 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
It's as consistent as it would be if you'd demanded anything else he's legally not required to give you and he refused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3457 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 3:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3459 by jar, posted 11-15-2019 3:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 3460 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2019 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 3464 by Percy, posted 11-16-2019 11:18 AM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 3459 of 3745 (866775)
11-15-2019 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3458 by Faith
11-15-2019 3:27 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
But the courts have consistently said that he is obligated to turn over the records.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3458 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 3:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3460 of 3745 (866776)
11-15-2019 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3458 by Faith
11-15-2019 3:27 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
quote:
It's as consistent as it would be if you'd demanded anything else he's legally not required to give you and he refused.

The courts so far have held that the demands for the tax returns are legal. Trump is insisting on a major expansion of Presidential immunity to keep them secret.

Which is consistent with the entire Trump a attitude to investigation going back to the seventies. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3458 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 3:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 3461 of 3745 (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 responded

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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3462 of 3745 (866780)
11-15-2019 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3454 by Faith
11-15-2019 1:40 PM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
You say the people who wrote the tax laws cannot understand his taxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3454 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 1:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 3463 of 3745 (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?

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI %

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.

13 major companies call on Congress to accelerate climate legislation. Here’s 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, 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. 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 responded

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 3464 of 3745 (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 responded

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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3465 of 3745 (866836)
11-16-2019 1:27 PM


The Russians are ecstatic
Russia Loves the Impeachment Hearings Because GOP Is Parroting Kremlin Propaganda

quote:
The Kremlin is eager to help Trump, in fact, because his presidency has proven to be exceedingly beneficial for the Kremlin—having brought chaos into American politics, undermined trust in democratic institutions, weakened transatlantic alliances, delivered Syria into the hands of Putin, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, thereby elevating the international image of Russia as a global force to be reckoned with.

The ongoing impeachment inquiry is a twofold gift for the Kremlin. On the one hand, President Trump and the Republican Party are doing Putin’s work by assailing U.S. intelligence agencies, career diplomats and institutions. On the other hand, the impeachment inquiry revealed an unprecedented rift between the United States and Ukraine—America’s strategic partner that enjoyed decades of strong bipartisan support....

"Everyone is laughing at you,” scoffed Skabeeva, addressing a Ukrainian panelist on 60 Minutes. Maksim Yusin, the editor of international politics at the leading Russian business daily Kommersant exclaimed, “Ukraine is toxic, everyone will want to avoid it now.”

When Ukrainian panelist Alexander Goncharov said that his country is relying on the support of Republicans, the hosts and other panelists broke out in uproarious laughter. “Listen to Rand Paul,” said the co-host of 60 Minutes, playing the clip of the Kentucky senator bluntly stating: “I wouldn’t give them anything.” The Kremlin is poised to reap more rewards from the presidency of Donald Trump—and suddenly, Ukraine seems to be within reach.



Replies to this message:
 Message 3466 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 5:03 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019