sleeper;1855839 wrote:All of this is on the front page of Fox News right now. LOL

Probably, because I saw it on Fox.

I'm not some liberal herp-derp that only gets one side of the news. That's why I watch Fox, CNN and read WaPo, WSJ, FT, BBC....You're a sucker if you think you're informed and don't have any conservative sources for your news.

And laughingly the one thing most all the news sources agree on - there's no evidence of collusion, or crimes, and impeachment is a long way off, if ever. That's how I know you don't watch or read anything, other than possibly headlines.

jmog;1855856 wrote:
Notice it said study the nature and structure of the natural world. It didn't say use as prophecy to determine the future.

I'd say the Climate Change field has been completely corrupted by politics. NASA faked data trying to explain away the warming pause for the last IPCC update. That's hardly the first questionable issue in the field, among some other outright frauds.

And it's not just that their models are not predictive. It's literally just a few years out-of-sample and their models fail to even be descriptive, so they come up with a new model (or, increasingly, revise/fudge/manipulate data to make things fit). I'll stop short of calling it junk science because that's not what it is, but the field and its understanding is in its infancy and findings have to be taken with a huge heaping amount of salt...certainly not driving costly policy decisions (although, back to the political angle....it might be the other way around with policy driving manufactured science to support choices).

isadore;1855841 wrote:[...] the group could have saved us.

This is so telling.

sleeper;1855812 wrote:Hard to compete in a market where people would rather read information that fits their narrative rather than quality journalism interested in the truth like NY Times.
But yeah, those leaks are just Fake News and whoever is leaking that Fake News needs to be jailed. LOL

When even MSNBC calls out publications such as the NYTimes, you know that there's problems within that body of work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lWZ7CsXu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0Og9TILiM

I have known for some time that you're shitposting, Sleeper, but you're going to have to become more clever while doing so if you want to be successful.

isadore;1855841 wrote:Canada with its enlightened tolerant society lead by a charismatic liberal leader. I don't believe in turning my back on American at a time when democracy and our social safety is so threatened by an electoral aberration.

Actually, Canada is fastly becoming anything BUT tolerant. And Trudeau praised Fidel Castro, who was anything BUT liberal.

Canada just ain't what it used to be.

gut;1855860 wrote:Probably, because I saw it on Fox.

I'm not some liberal herp-derp that only gets one side of the news. That's why I watch Fox, CNN and read WaPo, WSJ, FT, BBC....You're a sucker if you think you're informed and don't have any conservative sources for your news.

And laughingly the one thing most all the news sources agree on - there's no evidence of collusion, or crimes, and impeachment is a long way off, if ever. That's how I know you don't watch or read anything, other than possibly headlines.

There is equally little evidence of abuse of power for politically corrupt espionage by Obama and co., yet you believe in that while also denying any credibility to the other news sources you list reporting on leaks from Trump's own insiders (which is why the OMGRussia shit stays in the news - his own team talking to the liberal press).

CenterBHSFan;1855867 wrote:Actually, Canada is fastly becoming anything BUT tolerant. And Trudeau praised Fidel Castro, who was anything BUT liberal.

Canada just ain't what it used to be.

gosh a ruddies and what does it say about the US when its elected leader says
In response to Putin's compliments Trump said: "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
When Russia continued its military buildup in Syria and Putin backed the country's President Bashar al-Assad in 2015, Trump declared the Russian leader earned an "A" in leadership.
When asked about allegations that Putin orchestrated the deaths of his political opponents and journalists, Trump defended Putin: "I haven’t seen any evidence that he killed anybody."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-vladimir-putin-bromance-2016-12/#after-trump-won-the-election-november-8-putin-sent-the-president-elect-a-telegram-congratulating-him-on-his-victory-8
And then of course there is his praise for Kim Jong-Un who he describes as a “smart cookie” “You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys - he was like 26 or 25 when his father died - take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden... he goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss,”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12092353/Donald-Trump-praises-Kim-Jong-un-for-his-firm-hand-with-executed-uncle.html

O-Trap;1855862 wrote:This is so telling.

gosh a ruddies yes it is telling you that your vote helped put into power the person who is the greatest threat to the continuation of American representative democracy and in fact the very existence of our nation.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be insanely dumb. U.S. companies are in favor of it, China and India are members of it, and leaving it would show the U.S. does not want to lead on the international stage. It shows we do not give a damn about anything internationally. But, whatever, MAGA.

Also, this would be insanely dumb is Trump reverses this with the Russians. It would play right into the crazy Russian story and it looks really weak.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.c9c274926425

CenterBHSFan;1855865 wrote:When even MSNBC calls out publications such as the NYTimes, you know that there's problems within that body of work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lWZ7CsXu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0Og9TILiM

I have known for some time that you're shitposting, Sleeper, but you're going to have to become more clever while doing so if you want to be successful.

That's a sign of unbiased journalism rather than biased journalism if both sides are attacking it. Sorry you are so dense.

gut;1855860 wrote:Probably, because I saw it on Fox.

I'm not some liberal herp-derp that only gets one side of the news. That's why I watch Fox, CNN and read WaPo, WSJ, FT, BBC....You're a sucker if you think you're informed and don't have any conservative sources for your news.

And laughingly the one thing most all the news sources agree on - there's no evidence of collusion, or crimes, and impeachment is a long way off, if ever. That's how I know you don't watch or read anything, other than possibly headlines.

Right and pigs fly.

BoatShoes;1855871 wrote:There is equally little evidence of abuse of power for politically corrupt espionage by Obama and co., yet you believe in that while also denying any credibility to the other news sources you list reporting on leaks from Trump's own insiders (which is why the OMGRussia shit stays in the news - his own team talking to the liberal press).

savage.

BoatShoes;1855871 wrote:There is equally little evidence of abuse of power for politically corrupt espionage by Obama and co., yet you believe in that while also denying any credibility to the other news sources you list reporting on leaks from Trump's own insiders (which is why the OMGRussia shit stays in the news - his own team talking to the liberal press).

First off, I've only ever called for it to be investigated.

Second, there is kind of a history of this from the Obama administration, from the throwing a patsy in jail to sell a bullshit Benghazi story, to wiretapping journalists, to using the IRS to target conservatives....ACORN (people forget about that one)....it's a long list.

Third, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing from Trump then it begs the question of how the investigation started in the first place. You sound like you would be surprised if the Obama administration did this....yet, we have the unusual unmasking of individuals and then the unprecedented step to "intelligence share" in the final days of office.

LOL, fourth, how do you know the unnamed and anonymous leakers are "Trump's own team"? There are staffers held over from the Obama administration. It's comical when you talk about lack of evidence and rejecting sources that you go and state something as fact which is entirely unprovable without naming those inside sources. There is such hatred and vitriol out there for Trump that I don't believe the normal standards of journalism are being upheld - that's just an observation I don't give two shits about Trump.

It's very difficult to believe there's nothing on Trump and yet there was still valid, justifiable reason multiple government agencies were investigating a political candidate and then duly elected. I've always felt this case is either going to shake out as corruption from Trump, or if not then from the Obama administration - it seems HIGHLY unlikely this is all just some terrible misunderstanding. 10 months in and everyone is telling us there is nothing, and now it sounds like they are, rightly, looking into how this whole mess started and why.

isadore;1855884 wrote:gosh a ruddies yes it is telling you that your vote helped put into power the person who is the greatest threat to the continuation of American representative democracy and in fact the very existence of our nation.

It's telling that you believe politicians are who we ought to look to to "save" us.

It's also telling that you genuinely believe that the votes for anyone other than Clinton helped Trump. It's nonsense, and it should be dismissed as such.

sleeper;1855890 wrote:That's a sign of unbiased journalism rather than biased journalism if both sides are attacking it. Sorry you are so dense.

I mean, that's possible, but it's not really a sign of it. It could just as easily be a sign that it's not quality journalism.

O-Trap;1855933 wrote:I mean, that's possible, but it's not really a sign of it. It could just as easily be a sign that it's not quality journalism.

This is all really too timely and on the nose:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-times-san-bernardino-correction-margaret-sullivan-public-editor/?_r=0
"...it involved a failure of sufficient skepticism at every level of the editing and reporting process - especially since the story in question relied on anonymous government sources, as too many Times articles do"

That's from the NY Times very own Public Editor's Journal - in 2015. A position/department that they are now eliminating! Fewer editors, more journalists. They are going full blown tabloid.

O-Trap;1855933 wrote:It's telling that you believe politicians are who we ought to look to to "save" us.

It's also telling that you genuinely believe that the votes for anyone other than Clinton helped Trump. It's nonsense, and it should be dismissed as such.

Gosh a ruddies, who has supplied the great leadership in our nation’s history Lincoln, FDR, Truman and even Ronald Reagan with the Cold War. Gosh George Washington had held elected office before the Presidency. What is our experience with non-politician presidents? Donald Trump non politician businessman. Who bragged about being a non politician businessman, Herbert Hoover.
On November 8, 2016 you had two true alternatives, vote for or against Hillary Clinton. Any vote not given to Hillary helped put Donald Trump in the Presidency.

Fake News of the day: Comey to testify on June 8 about Trump/Russia interactions

Get your popcorn ready. Impeachments proceedings could start as early as June 9th.

isadore;1855942 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, who has supplied the great leadership in our nation’s history Lincoln, FDR, Truman and even Ronald Reagan with the Cold War. Gosh George Washington had held elected office before the Presidency. What is our experience with non-politician presidents? Donald Trump non politician businessman. Who bragged about being a non politician businessman, Herbert Hoover.
On November 8, 2016 you had two true alternatives, vote for or against Hillary Clinton. Any vote not given to Hillary helped put Donald Trump in the Presidency.

Inaction is the default. You're treating an active vote for Clinton as the default, which is without articulable merit. It's nonsense.

Do you agree, then, that any vote not for Romney last election helped re-elect Obama? It is an equally silly statement, but the logic is identical, and it was the complaint du jour after the 2012 election from Romney voters in regard to third-party voters and those who abstained.

Many also claimed Obama was going to bring about the destruction of the United States, and that it wouldn't be a sovereign state by the time he was out of office.

And yet, here we are.

So stop acting like the fringe righties and using the same line of reasoning this time around. You're sinking to their level with this drivel.

Also, lest you were unaware, there is a difference between leadership and salvation. Perhaps that has gone over your head until now, but you should consider it. Perhaps it is not the job of anyone in political office ... or anyone else, for that matter ... to "save" you or us.

nGosh a ruddies
One hundred years ago 1917 the United States went to war. Major reason the threat posed by a German dominated Europe.
24 years later 1941 the United States went to war. Major reason the threat posed by a German dominated Europe.
1945 to 2017 United States created an alliance system with Germany as a client state. Europe and the Atlantic Community lived largely at peace for a longer period than ever in its recorded history.
And then came Donald Trump. And we have the beginning of the end of the alliance system and the return of a German dominated Europe. What an idiot!

isadore;1855955 wrote:nGosh a ruddies
One hundred years ago 1917 the United States went to war. Major reason the threat posed by a German dominated Europe.
24 years later 1941 the United States went to war. Major reason the threat posed by a German dominated Europe.
1945 to 2017 United States created an alliance system with Germany as a client state. Europe and the Atlantic Community lived largely at peace for a longer period than ever in its recorded history.
And then came Donald Trump. And we have the beginning of the end of the alliance system and the return of a German dominated Europe. What an idiot!

Well, I don't disagree with the "What an idiot!" part.

However, I'd suggest you slow the Chicken Little roll. Just as Obama didn't bring about the end of the country, I don't think Trump will, either.

Will he do dumb stuff? He already has, but yes, he will in the future as well.

Will he maybe do things that are good as well? It's possible. I'm not going to write off an act as bad just because he did it, so it's possible.

However, I'd put money on the US still being around in four or eight years, after he's gone.

O-Trap;1855954 wrote:Inaction is the default. You're treating an active vote for Clinton as the default, which is without articulable merit. It's nonsense.

Do you agree, then, that any vote not for Romney last election helped re-elect Obama? It is an equally silly statement, but the logic is identical, and it was the complaint du jour after the 2012 election from Romney voters in regard to third-party voters and those who abstained.

Many also claimed Obama was going to bring about the destruction of the United States, and that it wouldn't be a sovereign state by the time he was out of office.

And yet, here we are.

So stop acting like the fringe righties and using the same line of reasoning this time around. You're sinking to their level with this drivel.

Also, lest you were unaware, there is a difference between leadership and salvation. Perhaps that has gone over your head until now, but you should consider it. Perhaps it is not the job of anyone in political office ... or anyone else, for that matter ... to "save" you or us.

A vote for Clinton was the default position for any person rational decent person. Any other action on November 8, 2016 aided in the election of the worst candidate presented by a major party for the office of the Presidency in our history. A person too incompetent for the office, too ethically challenged for the Presidency, too ill-informed for the Presidency, too bigoted for the Presidency and above too emotionally unsuited for the Presidency of the United States. Those claims would be visibly untrue about Barack Obama for any rational individual.
Leaders have saved this nation. George Washington saved our nation at a time it could have easily disintegrated. And no other person at that could have. I think Lincoln and FDR each saved our nation. What is unusual now is that the President is the real threat to United States.

O-Trap;1855958 wrote:Well, I don't disagree with the "What an idiot!" part.

However, I'd suggest you slow the Chicken Little roll. Just as Obama didn't bring about the end of the country, I don't think Trump will, either.

Will he do dumb stuff? He already has, but yes, he will in the future as well.

Will he maybe do things that are good as well? It's possible. I'm not going to write off an act as bad just because he did it, so it's possible.

However, I'd put money on the US still being around in four or eight y ears, after he's gone.

gosh a ruddies, while some may see a chicken little, the much more likely is a modern Cassandra. Watch out for Russians bearing gifts.

isadore;1855980 wrote:gosh a ruddies, while some may see a chicken little, the much more likely is a modern Cassandra. Watch out for Russians bearing gifts.

More likely based on what? Evidence isn't presented until an investigation is concluded.

Has an investigation been concluded?

Or are you just buying into sensationalist articles and intellectual incest?

Hell, if he's found guilty, then get him indicted, tried, and let a hearing decide his guilt. If it finds him guilty, throw Baron Cheeto von Tinyhands in prison.

But let's not pretend that he's going to single-handedly bring down the United States.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/forget-trumps-bluster-world-walking-090001198.html

Sounds like the same narrative as a weak President Obama.

O-Trap;1855988 wrote:More likely based on what? Evidence isn't presented until an investigation is concluded.

Has an investigation been concluded?

Or are you just buying into sensationalist articles and intellectual incest?

Hell, if he's found guilty, then get him indicted, tried, and let a hearing decide his guilt. If it finds him guilty, throw Baron Cheeto von Tinyhands in prison.

But let's not pretend that he's going to single-handedly bring down the United States.

Why do you continue to engage this retard?