Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:
Wow. Everyone just skipped right over my post where I lay out facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to people. I think you guys just like to argue.

I'm sorry, I have like 12 other posts to get too, and only so many hands. And I'm pretty sure everything in your post was answered in to other people.

So basically what you're saying ninth, is that you have absolutely no hard data to support your position. Got it.

Remember the dust bowl? Everybody was like "oh my god all this dirt in the air is suffocating us and we cannot grow crops to eat!" But Fraz was there telling everybody that dirt is naturally occurring so its not a pollutant. We shouldn't do anything about it because what law let's the government regulate dirt?

Ah, the good old days. When men were men and polio was everywhere.

 Vaktathi wrote:

SuperNewb wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.

But this happened multiple times in the Earth's history long before the industrial revolution. Why is it of concern now vs. then and again, how are we contributing exactly? Quantitatively?

It has, but on much longer timescales, but with traumatic biosphere consequences.

If you're asking me to look up direct numbers on the current situation vs previous eras, I'm going to defer to google on that one and submit that searching for and presenting college or graduate level data is not something I have either the time or expertise for on my own during lulls at work

Anyone else happen to have these numbers? I'm a bit lacking in time and expertise myself

To my understanding, the rate and speed of warming would be "the smoking gun" for human involvement so to speak. Climate change in and of itself is nothing extraordinary and the earth has been a lot warmer than what it is now and what the more extreme projections of our future predict. And that was millions of years before any human even existed. Let alone started to free ancient stored CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossile fuel.

SuperNewb wrote:
So basically what you're saying ninth, is that you have absolutely no hard data to support your position. Got it.

People don't have to humor you because you can't be bothered to go to Google Scholar and type in a simple query.

Besides, there is no hard data that you're not Putin, so it's dangerous to talk to you.

 whembly wrote:
Sure it does when the response is to BURN THE HERETIC when there's dissenting views.

Really? So far I have responded with evidence and sass (although not in that order), but not hate. I react strongly to those who deny it because it's a pretty important issue, but I'm perfectly OK as long as actual arguments are used, and the arguments you have used I have argued against. You might as well call my acceptance of Darwinism as religion, or belief in vaccines.

My contention is that it's very much up for debate. Hence my challenge to the word 'majority' or 'consensus' arguments.

And mine is that
A: There is a consensus, which is backed up by most of the scientific community
and
B: Even if every scientists and every study and every bit of research is wrong, there are no real downsides to the actions we can take, and most of them have good side effects anyway (such as cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier environment, energy independence), whereas if we don't do anything and it is right, we are all fethed.

Freaking thousands of experts from various disciplines challenges the notion about the severity of the impact:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Purpose
http://www.petitionproject.org/
https://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

So? They are greatly outnumbered by those supporting it, and the evidence very heavily supports it. A consciousness doesn't mean everybody agrees, just that most. There are still scintists who refute evolution, but would it be wrong to say that there is no consensus on evolution? And majority only needs more than 50%

And there are studies, heavily supported by evidences that refutes that.

Largely, no. The evidence for man made climate change vastly outnumbers the evidence against.

Sure, I'm prepared. I just don't believe that policy-makers should be doing anything drastic without explicit proof and repeatable science.

Good to see that you have absolved your conscience of all the damage not stopping it could do.

And, again, we do have have both explicit proof (as explicit as any piece of science ever i), and repeatable science. These measurements are done by thousands of groups.

That 90% is full on debunked boyo. That's the point I'm driving at. There are distinctions between... 'eh, it MIGHT be happening, but we can't prove it so let's study it' vs. 'I believe warming is fulling cause by anthropogenic activities'. The problem with those 90+ % studies is that they group those two responses into one big bucket that says 'experts believes warming is caused by human activities.'.

Actually, it wasn't. The 97% study was (sort of), but studies since have seen similar high numbers (80s-90s). And you need only looks at the groups who have put themselves behind it.

Both sides of this debate are making their cases and credentialed people challenges their findings. (as research & scientists are supposed to do)

What I object to, is this idea that it's all settled. (if it's settled, why are we still spending fething ton of money for research??)

Because we still don't know everything. We have enough knowledge to no what is happening and why, but not all the specifics yet, because it's a vast and complicated subject. And we also need answers on the actions we can best take. Thus we should do what we know we can do now, and keep searching. And none of the things that er being pushed for have any real downside bedsides cost, so I'm OK with being wrong on this one, as they chance of it being right is far too much to take.

And, thus policy makers are pushing these debunked 'it's settled' mantra when pushing for changes under the umbrella to combat climate change.

Climate change exists, this is a "settled" fact. Mankind has contributed to it, that is also a "settled" fact (how much is man made vs natural is still being debated/researched).

SuperNewb wrote:
So basically what you're saying ninth, is that you have absolutely no hard data to support your position. Got it.

what you're asking for are specifics and details that would require someone to do a graduate level research and presentation, in an off topic forum on an internet toy soldier message board, and dismissing the entire argument if they dont spoon feed it that way.

Google has the information. Your local university has the information. Do a google search of "human co2 emissions climate change", do a GIS search for thousands of visual data representations, and look into the background of the sources. There's more there than a normal person will ever get through.

People here can provide synopsis of data, but you're asking for levels of detail with improper context from people who arent qualified to give that level of detail in an effort to dismiss the concept on the erroneous grounds such data doesn't exist.

Ok we're done with climate change for a while. Pick something else to talk about in this thread for now, I'm going to delete climate change posts past this point for a while. Thanks.

Deleted. Sorry. Must have posted at the same time as Red. Apologies.

Oops, missed the warning, sorry

So, AARP wants to kill the GOP healthcare plan because it goes too far, while the Tea Party members of congress say it doesn't go far enough. Fight to the death (due to lack of healthcare)?

Pretty much every major organization dealing with health says that TrumpCare is horrible.

I've had all day to digest this info and I still can't believe they are officially calling it the World's Greatest Healthcare Plan.

<gif>WillFerrelIfeellikeI'mtakingcrazypills</gif>

That was a campaign promise, right? To deliver the world's greatest healthcare plan?

Loophole!

 Spinner wrote:
That was a campaign promise, right? To deliver the world's greatest healthcare plan?

Loophole!

Oh, man. I never thought of that. It's genius, in a moustache twirling, white fluffy cat stroking, maniacal laughter kind of way.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretty much every major organization dealing with health says that TrumpCare is horrible.

Yup. I agree.

Ahtman wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I am an atheist, so way to go with the assumptions. Might as well call me anti-gay and racist, which I'm also not. Or uneducated, which I am also not.

Well if it walks like a duck and posts like a duck it is probably a duck. You've done a good job making yourself appear to be a certain way online so just denying it while acting like it doesn't really jive. If you don't want people to think you are a duck you may want to consider that you present yourself as one. Yeah yeah I know it is easier to assume everyone else is wrong instead of doing self reflection, but you never know.

Spoiler:

Alright, so show me ANYWHERE in my posts where I've been racist, anti-gay and uneducated. Other than assuming that since I don't suckle from the liberal teat that I must obviously be uneducated...

Verviedi wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you know that if you shoot and kill a pregnant woman it counts as a double homicide? Or is that only for 3rd trimester shootings.

Wow. So Peregrine comments that Republicans will turn out and vote no matter how big of a disaster Republicans might be because of wedge issue nonsense like abortion, a border wall and transgender issues. You respond to this by ignoring the greater conversation about the disastrous new Republican healthcare proposal, and instead try to drag the conversation back to abortion.

It's like you're trying to parody the right wing, or something.

No, my issue was the more than flippant and cavalier attitude your side of the fence has towards abortion, and I pointed out a legal precedent that refutes it solely because that was the part I had issue with at the time. Everything else? Yeah, yeah. Right wingers are all personist phobophobes. I understand perfectly.

It's also because that argument makes no sense. You shot a person. That's not an abortion, that's shooting someone.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Murder is murder, I don't see the difference.

Meat is murder.

Ustrello wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Murder is murder, I don't see the difference.

Meat is murder.

Boiling water is muder, think of the poor microbes

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I'm pretty sure breathing is murder somehow.

Verviedi wrote:So is chemotherapy. And organ transplants. And disinfecting.

And here is why discourse doesn't happen and battle lines are drawn. Anyone's beliefs are subject to ridicule if they don't meet with your own. Of course, I can't expect it to rise much higher when a disability is used qute loudly as the benchmark for mental deficiency...

d-usa wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Murder is murder, I don't see the difference.

Meat is murder.

Tasty murder though.

Sweet Surak, we actually have something in common. I had a delicous helping of bangers and mash last week, and I'm grateful for the pig murdered to make that happen. But I will eat that pig anyway because not eating meat is a choice and eating meat is an instinct.

sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, my issue was the more than flippant and cavalier attitude your side of the fence has towards abortion

Exactly. There's a conversation going on about policy events that are happening right now, with Republicans rolling out their healthcare reform bill after 6 years of promising it, and you come in desperate to talk about abortion again. You couldn't have proven Peregrine's point more clearly.

It gets even more amazing because I pointed out how perfectly you demonstrated the indifference of many on the right to any kind of real policy discussion because of the fixation on wedge issues, and ignore all that a second time to keep trying to make a point about abortion.

Are you gonna go for a threepeat?

Yeah, yeah. Right wingers are all personist phobophobes.

Oh look, word salad.

Here's the thing: if you mix 5 gallons of ice cream with 5 gallons of gak, you get 10 gallons of gak. The ACA was precisely that. The replacement is, for some stupid reason, swapping some gak out for some ice cream, while taking some of the OTHER ice cream out to replace it with gak. NEITHER are good plans. I didn't think my verifying was necessary, I figure my lack of defense of said plan was understood, I obvously gave far too much credit.

Verviedi wrote:Technically, it's true. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself (and nuclear war, and the spread of memetic viruses) Complete nonsensical garbage for all practical purposes, but "phobophobia" is a valid trait everyone should have.

Cute, but my intent was parodizing (Gee, new word? Too lazy to check...) the knee-jerk reaction to label anyone from the right a bigot of whatever flavor you got. And I got more than enough examples of that, and from this point on "personist phobophobe" will be my response when your side resorts to that tactic.

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Notice even the grand paragon of left wing liberalism, California, views it as murder. #fakenews or summat...

I see you're just going to ignore the post you quoted, where I explained that viewing it as murder is a legal fiction that we accept because we consider the crime to be especially horrible and treating it as a double homicide is an easy way to make the punishment more severe. Citing the fact that states use this legal fiction is hardly a compelling rebuttal to anything I said.

Can you show me any federal push to overturn gay marriage?

From the republican party's official 2016 platform (p31-32):

Our laws and our government’s regulations
should recognize marriage as the union of one man
and one woman and actively promote married
family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous
society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere
in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme
Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its
reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or
a constitutional amendment returning control over
marriage to the states.

Now, they may have been too busy with banning Muslims and the health care debacle to actively move on this, but they explicitly state that it is a goal (and one that will be very relevant with a supreme court nomination in the near future).

As far as the bathroom defense laws, wouldn't it be easier to build unisex bathrooms everywhere? Like, all three versions? One would assume that if you are aware that there are two disparate groups you make some sort of concession to accommodate both. Or should the uncomfortable phobics be forced to do something against their will? Doesn't sound like EITHER party should be forced to do something they don't want to do.

I think we've already learned our lesson about "separate but equal". This suggestion wasn't acceptable when it was "we'll just give the black people separate bathrooms and that way no white people will have to be uncomfortable", and it isn't acceptable now.

And my joking about Pence's army had more to do with your multiple posts about how every right your community has would be taken away within the first minutes of the new administration, which was of course not the case.

No, that would be your blatant straw man. I never said that every right would be taken away, I said that Trump and Pence (and the republican party in general) are something to be concerned about and they have a goal of attacking LGBT rights. Please stop posting straw man arguments and accusing me of saying things I did not say.

 reds8n wrote:
what a difference a year makes eh ?

One nearly had some respect for Cruz when he walked over to talk/argue/confront with the Trump supporters during the primaries.

Had some sympathy for him when he was there on the phones for Trump/the Party.

Guess that was misplaced, what a spineless little coward he really is.

Ted Cruz is defined by his political ambition and absolutely nothing else. Everyone in federal politics is ambitious of course, no-one ends up a federal elected representative by mistake, but most of them have some purpose or values alongside their ambition. Not Ted.

Remember, long before took his stand against Trump, the two of them were working as a tag team in the primary debates, Cruz allying with Trump because he'd calculated that Trump was useful for hammering the other candidates, but would crash and burn once the field was narrowed to just the two of them. Once Rubio, Bush and the rest were dealt with Cruz and Trump turned on each other as the last remaining major rivals. Later on, after Trump had won and Cruz continued to resist, it wasn't some newfound discovery of principles, Cruz was making another political calculation that Trump's campaign would be a disaster, and by continuing the resistance Cruz was positioning himself as the alternative that stayed true to conservative values. That didn't happen, so now he's made another political calculation, to cozy up to Trump.

Cruz himself is actually very uninteresting, he's just a machine politician. What's kind of interesting is how because he's taken up a position of extreme religious conservatism, people naturally assume he's driven by principles, even if they're principles they disagree with. If Cruz had made all the political choices he had while taking on a centrist position, or even a centre right position, it would be obvious to everyone how cynical the guy is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

The Clean Air Act. The supreme court confirmed in 2014 that greenhouse gases are a pollutant subject to that regulation.

Hope you had a nice lunch. Perhaps instead of taking such leisurely lunches you could spend some of that time consulting google, and not come here asking questions that you have more than enough ability to discover for yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Here's the key: what statutory law empowers the EPA to regulate 'Climate Change' anything?

The Clean Air Act. Seriously, this went before the SC in 2014 and got a lot of media attention.

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

We've done this so many times. You try to claim that there was a methodology issue with the original survey claiming 97% of climate scientists believe it is happening and is caused by man, I show you the dozen or so other studies done after that which found found positive responses from climate scientists around that 97% figure, with most higher than 97%. You ignore this. I pester you to acknowledge it. You say you'll look in to it, and then you never get back. And then a couple of months later you come back again repeating your initial claim that there's no majority.

You are simply fething wrong, and you engage in plainly dishonest debating techniques to prevent having to recognise the facts that show clearly that you are wrong. fething stop this, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

I can play the wiki game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

No, you can't play the wiki game. Your wiki game sucks. You have listed a bunch of scientists who are not in climate scientist. The opinion of an engineer on climate change is as useful as asking a chess player if he thinks 40K is balanced.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait Zimbabwe has an academy of sciences? So does Sudan?

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

Come on, buddy. You are having a stroke every damn time any foreigner is critical of the US. And you must still remember how angry you were when we last spoke about your own (in)ability to judge scientific works. So, basically, unless you suddenly got a PhD, I advise you to not say things that will hit you back big time. Leave science to the science guys and gals, I'll leave you with the weiner dogs where you are no doubt an expert. Because I'm sure any member of the Bulgaria academy of science is A BILLION TIME MORE QUALIFIED that you on science. Care to tell us what your academics credentials are? If you have any? Or am I hitting a nerve right now?
Switch to Calvinball mode incoming . Go full clown and explain us everything was just a joke, Frazz.
Maybe you should just stop making disparaging remarks about other countries scientist, but hey, being a nationalistic jerk doesn't magically disappear.

 Just Tony wrote:
And here is why discourse doesn't happen and battle lines are drawn. Anyone's beliefs are subject to ridicule if they don't meet with your own.

I honestly believe that meat is murder. I am a vegetarian.
So I guess I ridiculed my own belief in the process. Anyone's belief are subject to ridicule indeed. Even if they meet with my own because they are my won.

 Just Tony wrote:
Sweet Surak, we actually have something in common. I had a delicous helping of bangers and mash last week, and I'm grateful for the pig murdered to make that happen. But I will eat that pig anyway because not eating meat is a choice and eating meat is an instinct.

And just here you are ridiculing my believes too . See, no need to riding that high horse of yours.a

 whembly wrote:
The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.

This is a straight up fething lie.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.

This is a straight up fething lie.

What else is new?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Notice even the grand paragon of left wing liberalism, California, views it as murder. #fakenews or summat...

I see you're just going to ignore the post you quoted, where I explained that viewing it as murder is a legal fiction that we accept because we consider the crime to be especially horrible and treating it as a double homicide is an easy way to make the punishment more severe. Citing the fact that states use this legal fiction is hardly a compelling rebuttal to anything I said.

And I showed you where it is a law regardless, and a legal precedent is a legal precedent. Schrodinger's Fetus, again.

 Peregrine wrote:

Can you show me any federal push to overturn gay marriage?

From the republican party's official 2016 platform (p31-32):

Our laws and our government’s regulations
should recognize marriage as the union of one man
and one woman and actively promote married
family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous
society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere
in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme
Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its
reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or
a constitutional amendment returning control over
marriage to the states.

Now, they may have been too busy with banning Muslims and the health care debacle to actively move on this, but they explicitly state that it is a goal (and one that will be very relevant with a supreme court nomination in the near future).

And that right there should be enough to get them voted out if they try to push for that. Seriously, I didn't think they'd be stupid enough to do anything but bluster, unless it was the whole religious exemption angle, but this is pretty much the cake. Even with religious backings, does nobody remember "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?

 Peregrine wrote:

As far as the bathroom defense laws, wouldn't it be easier to build unisex bathrooms everywhere? Like, all three versions? One would assume that if you are aware that there are two disparate groups you make some sort of concession to accommodate both. Or should the uncomfortable phobics be forced to do something against their will? Doesn't sound like EITHER party should be forced to do something they don't want to do.

I think we've already learned our lesson about "separate but equal". This suggestion wasn't acceptable when it was "we'll just give the black people separate bathrooms and that way no white people will have to be uncomfortable", and it isn't acceptable now.

We live in a world where people will grab childred through half opened doors on cam. If you saw the forensic files I saw tied to playgrounds, you'd vomit. THOSE kind of people will, of course, never dress as a member of the opposite sex to gain access to a bathroom ever. I personally don't need that scenario to play out before taking steps to prevent that from happening.

 Peregrine wrote:

And my joking about Pence's army had more to do with your multiple posts about how every right your community has would be taken away within the first minutes of the new administration, which was of course not the case.

No, that would be your blatant straw man. I never said that every right would be taken away, I said that Trump and Pence (and the republican party in general) are something to be concerned about and they have a goal of attacking LGBT rights. Please stop posting straw man arguments and accusing me of saying things I did not say.

You're right, what I need to do is go back through everything you've ever posted in OT and quote it directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait Zimbabwe has an academy of sciences? So does Sudan?

 Frazzled wrote:
Bulgaria Academy of Science.. ok thats just funny.

Come on, buddy. You are having a stroke every damn time any foreigner is critical of the US. And you must still remember how angry you were when we last spoke about your own (in)ability to judge scientific works. So, basically, unless you suddenly got a PhD, I advise you to not say things that will hit you back big time. Leave science to the science guys and gals, I'll leave you with the weiner dogs where you are no doubt an expert. Because I'm sure any member of the Bulgaria academy of science is A BILLION TIME MORE QUALIFIED that you on science. Care to tell us what your academics credentials are? If you have any? Or am I hitting a nerve right now?
Switch to Calvinball mode incoming . Go full clown and explain us everything was just a joke, Frazz.
Maybe you should just stop making disparaging remarks about other countries scientist, but hey, being a nationalistic jerk doesn't magically disappear.

 Just Tony wrote:
And here is why discourse doesn't happen and battle lines are drawn. Anyone's beliefs are subject to ridicule if they don't meet with your own.

I honestly believe that meat is murder. I am a vegetarian.
So I guess I ridiculed my own belief in the process. Anyone's belief are subject to ridicule indeed. Even if they meet with my own because they are my won.

 Just Tony wrote:
Sweet Surak, we actually have something in common. I had a delicous helping of bangers and mash last week, and I'm grateful for the pig murdered to make that happen. But I will eat that pig anyway because not eating meat is a choice and eating meat is an instinct.

And just here you are ridiculing my believes too . See, no need to riding that high horse of yours.a

I ride a Great Pyrenees, sir.

Out of respect of the last Mod warning, I suggest we drop this.


...


Other news... seems the idea that Trump was colluding with Russia is going to fall flat..
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-people-investigating-russias-role-in-the-election-worry?utm_term=.amOgLWRDR#.oxn15P9o9

If there were anything that incriminates Trump... wouldn't we see it by now?

 Just Tony wrote:
We live in a world where people will grab childred through half opened doors on cam. If you saw the forensic files I saw tied to playgrounds, you'd vomit. THOSE kind of people will, of course, never dress as a member of the opposite sex to gain access to a bathroom ever. I personally don't need that scenario to play out before taking steps to prevent that from happening.

I, for one, am very grateful for those laws that will prevent criminals from breaking them. We should have the same thing with other laws!

 Just Tony wrote:


We live in a world where people will grab childred through half opened doors on cam. If you saw the forensic files I saw tied to playgrounds, you'd vomit. THOSE kind of people will, of course, never dress as a member of the opposite sex to gain access to a bathroom ever. I personally don't need that scenario to play out before taking steps to prevent that from happening.

You mean like the laws making kidnapping illegal stopped people from kidnapping children through half opened doors?

I think the fact that there are no reported cases of people dressing up as the opposite gender to try and gain access to a bathroom and successfully stealing or harming a child shows that even child snatchers think it is a really fething dumb plan when you can instead just hop gardens trying back doors.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Specifically I am referring to how the Clinton campaign used local branches to funnel money into the presidential campaign so that donation limits could be circumvented.

This is close to something that actually happened. Clinton worked with local branches to fund raise for the Victory Fund. She made appearances, and then donations were made to the local branch which then pushed almost all that money in to the Victory Fund. The Victory Fund then spent most of that money on Clinton specific ads. This was a bit dodgy, as it was likely used to avoid campaign contribution limits to individual campaigns. It also bothered some state members, who saw the over-focus on the national campaign as a mistake (and they were likely correct). But it's total nonsense to say this was done by riding roughshod over local branches, they signed on to the scheme, it couldn't have been done without their approval.

That this then maxed out the local branches' donation limits and generally left them without the funds to campaign themselves was an immediate and obvious problem at the time but was ignored.

This is gibberish. There is no limit to what an individual state branch can collect.

It's a bit of a gamble even if you win the presidency but since Clinton managed to lose to Donald Trump and we now have President of the United States Donald J. Trump, the Republicans are are worryingly close to having the power needed to change the constitution.

And this is complete nonsense. Republicans aren't even close to the 60 seats needed to defeat a filibuster, they're nowhere near the 67 seats needed to pass an amendment, and are just as far in the House, where you also need 67%. The other way to an amendment is by getting 38 states to sign on, which is probably even further away.

 Just Tony wrote:
And I showed you where it is a law regardless, and a legal precedent is a legal precedent. Schrodinger's Fetus, again.

WTF are you talking about here? The fact that there's a "the fetus is a person so we can send someone to prison for more years" legal fiction has nothing to do with the moral question of whether abortion is murder or not. Nor does this weird tangent of yours have anything to do with my original point, that the republican party will keep their 60 million voters despite the health care debacle by yelling loudly about things like abortion.

We live in a world where people will grab childred through half opened doors on cam. If you saw the forensic files I saw tied to playgrounds, you'd vomit. THOSE kind of people will, of course, never dress as a member of the opposite sex to gain access to a bathroom ever. I personally don't need that scenario to play out before taking steps to prevent that from happening.

The various bathroom laws do absolutely nothing to prevent this situation. What those people are doing is horrible, but it's already a serious crime. And putting a "no bad people" sign on the bathroom isn't going to stop them. Rapists aren't going to walk into a crowded bathroom and commit their crimes in front of witnesses and people who can stop them (probably violently, since people who rape children aren't very popular). They're going to find isolated victims to attack, where it doesn't matter what gender they're presenting as because nobody is around to stop them. Or they're going to get into a position of trust and abuse it, no matter how they're dressed. Or they'll target children of the same gender, and just walk right through the door without questioning.

Interestingly, conservatives tend to understand the reasoning perfectly well when it comes to gun control. They'll eagerly point out how "no guns allowed" signs are ineffective because a criminal with a gun will just ignore the sign, and any charges for illegally carrying a gun are trivial compared to a violent felony conviction.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretty much every major organization dealing with health says that TrumpCare is horrible.

Let's call it what it is; Republicare. Trump didn't have much to do with it beyond being part of the party. And as an added bonus it will serve as a reminder of...

 sebster wrote:
this is complete nonsense.

...the GOP's platform.

 whembly wrote:

Other news... seems the idea that Trump was colluding with Russia is going to fall flat..
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-people-investigating-russias-role-in-the-election-worry?utm_term=.amOgLWRDR#.oxn15P9o9

If there were anything that incriminates Trump... wouldn't we see it by now?

I mean, you know its getting serious if even buzzfeed is running the story


On the incrimination front, not necessarily. Remember, this is a guy who's been playing legal games for decades. If he's learned one thing, its going to be appearances. This is also why we have investigations.