jerryskids

Tim: Trump isn't going to do ridiculous tariffs like 20% on everything etc. This is Trump doing his "art of the deal." He's going to try to use it as a starting position in talks with other countries. HTH

Hopefully you had a good night sleeping off the booze, and can come in today with intelligent discussion.

For the purpose of this discussion, I don't want to move the goalposts into an argument of how violent it was. Instead, I'm conceding it was violent, and/or could be if there is another one, and I assert that the Capitol/security would be more prepared in the future.

That is interesting. I wonder if it is relevant. Maybe a girl planet just wants to be different?

Fake information, PeefoamLight?

I didn't "run down the field" with anything, I said initially that the rate of change vs. absolute change was interesting. I've made my points, which you've largely ignored, and instead focus on your inability to read, and end with another Eeyore reference. I was trying to have an actual conversation with you, if you had taken the time to read my posts, Hopefully, others with some intelligence got something out of them. Otherwise, I'm done responding to your trolling on this, Peefoam-Light.

Nice data, boyo.

First thought was an interview with Lex Fridman, who is fairly apolitical but the Left probably considers him a MAGA guy because he is right of Mao. Main point is that this is an unscripted interview on a variety of topics, with Trump answering honestly. I have no idea what Kamala actually thinks, since her recent positions are 180 degrees from her life's work.

I don't have access to WaPo, since I don't support Leftie sources. Feel free to paste the relevant info. Also, if you read above, I said that the rate of change (vs. absolute change) is an interesting point which, as an engineer, I find more believable. But in doing so, you are basically conceding that the absolute temp change is irrelevant. Either you didn't read that or forgot. More Eeyore, I'll go Seafoam in reply: Rusties are so stupid!

We're looking to the future, unburdened by the past.

Well, there you go then. Great discussion. On Fox? She'll only go on stations that support her. Did you watch it? Half of it was basically, "Trump said this, tell me why it sucks and you are awesome!" And she was clearly given the questions. Also, I thought that Ruhle looking glowingly at her the entire time was not a very professional look. I agree on the second paragraph, and I think that in general he is getting better about avoiding the grievance talk (has he done that recently?), and being a little quieter. See above.

Nice strawman. I never said that. I also have never said that mankind has no impact on climate change. Feel free to search if you want. What I HAVE said is that I question the impact and severity, and the ability of the earth to accommodate our impact in its closed-loop system. And of course, the seriousness of our leaders, who refuse to implement policies which would actually solve the problem. $9B for a nuke plant? Give me 50. That's $450B, the entire country has clean power for centuries, existential crisis averted. Look, I spent most of my career in high-tech sales. I understand the importance of urgency in the sales process. A degree or two temp rise over the next century isn't going to do much to the planet; look at the graph in this thread. But, we should still be good stewards for the planet, because eventually, we will cause problems. But if you present it this way to the public, nobody will act. So instead they do "OMG the planet will be underwater in a decade$#@!" in hopes of getting people to behave how they want for the long term. Many will, many probably won't, but it's better than nothing. The leaders certainly don't behave as they prescribe, because they know what I'm saying. As a recent real-world example, I present our Covid policy. Masks may have provided some small incremental benefit, as did social distancing, but it wasn't terribly important. The goal was to impart onto people that this thing was really, really serious, and they needed to take it that way. Many more people tested, and stay home when sick (to this day), because of that. Again, our leaders didn't follow those procedures.

Well, it was challenging, because the interviewers were completely hostile. Kamala initially balked at even going to the NABJ, because they are keeping her in a cocoon, and when she finally did, it was a love fest. Thanks for proving my point! Why don't either of you tell me about a remotely hostile interview by Kamala. TIA!

Not really. But Trump does 10X the interviews Kamala does, including with hostiles like the National Association of Black Journalists. Kamala agreed to speak with Ruhle, who recently argued that Kamala doesn't need to be specific on policy, since she needs to win vs. Orange Hitler. So yeah, it was more than a bit of an advertisement show vs. an interview.

Wow, that's new. Updated this week? I'll take the "L" for now. Odd that Ruhle asked little to nothing about her past performance in the "interview" tonight, since according to this website, she drove the vast majority of awesomeness in the prior admin. Ball is in Trump's court to work off of this, push on things like the Inflation Increase Act.

Next up, Ruhle will ask Trump about his assertion that he is a "protector of women." Hard hitting question!

How intelligent of you.

When has Kamala taken any ownership for the current administration? The DNC is spending millions of dollars to present her as the new, "change" candidate, full of joy and... more joy, dammit! Be joyful! Your assertion is ludicrous on the surface, unless you believe most people voting for her are voting for the most progressive record in the Senate, a left-of-Bernie set of positions in the 2020 election, paid medical transing for illegal aliens and prisoners, kill fracking, Medicare for all, decriminalize illegal border crossings... then as VP, overseeing the border clusterfock, being the last person in the room on the Afghanistan disaster, and otherwise accomplishing nothing but being a fundamentally unelectable candidate so bad, that the DNC continues running a braind-dead person instead of her, until it became untenable to do so.

I was clear about the cult IMO, go back and reread if you want to learn. Questioning the beliefs of a cult are not tolerated BTW. I've heard many discussions about how humans fundamentally need "religion," or beliefs in something. As belief in God wanes, God is being replaced by things like climate change. Republicans and Democrats don't want to invest in nuclear? I've heard it estimated that "carbon zero" will take $15T. We can build a lot of fission plants, invest in fusion (for @The Real timschochet, also it is a good idea), and invest in researching improved ways of disposing the waste, for tiny fractions of that money. Problem is, such investment doesn't satisfy the climate change cultists, who require human flagellation as a path to purification. So it is not politically expedient to do so.

If you had common sense, knowledge, and facts about wind vs. nuclear, you would know that they are two completely different things. Wind will never be anything more than an ancillary source to a major power grid with the technology we have. Nuclear has been in place for like 50 years as just such a source, yet we continue to eschew it. Thoughts on the cult reference? I see you skipped that. Why do we do what I just explained, if not that? As usual, you missed my point in your attempt at yet another Eeyore reference. You are as bad as seafoam with his "liberals are so stupid."

Because it is a cult. The goal of the cult leaders is not to solve the problem, it is to make billions of dollars by scaring their cult members and convincing them that the only solution is the punishment of mankind. You'll notice none of the climate alarmists like @IndyColtsFan jump at the opportunity to discuss the nuclear issue. I think that nuclear power is the equivalent of a white male on the intersectionality scale, to climate alarmists. Actually, it makes more sense that the rate of change vs. the absolute change would be more of a concern. A high rate of change could be too fast for some plants to adapt, say. But we're talking CO2 change, not temperature change. Temperature varies too much with weather on a short-term basis. BTW, excess CO2 in the past settled in the oceans and reacted with metals to form carbonates like limestone, dolomite, granite, etc. The earth is a wonderful (mostly) closed loop feedback system.

Did you see it? Interested in your thoughts.

Why? RealTim and the MSDNC said that because they don't like his politics, not because they knew anything about the recent revelations.

No it's not hypocritical. The plan with Kamala is for her to absolutely do nothing as VP, because if she does, she has to take ownership of the current administration (which she should already have, but people are easily duped). This is why, for instance, she won't invoke the 25th amendment, despite the fact that a brain dead person is currently at the helm.

Here, I'll simplify the logic for you. Some people are racist and/or misogynistic, and think all blacks/women/both are stupid. Others think Kamala isn't a rocket surgeon based on her book of business to this date. But if you think Kamala isn't smart, that doesn't mean you are racist. It is the same incorrect use of the symmetric property of mathematics that pseud Lefties apply to think, say, all Trump fans are racists and misogynists. That being said, even if some people think the first part, I would expect few if any memes, because even if they were made, they'd quickly get shot down. Instead I'd expect memes about her being a man, and her being there because she is Saint Barack's wife. HTH