jerryskids

I remember that, it's super cool. Thanks for posting. Glad you are OK.

I'm trying to think of who lives there. @Voltaireis in the panhandle but I think (hope) he is on the west (good) side of this. @peenieis in Atlanta which, while inland a bit, is supposed to get a ton of rain and wind. @Bill E.is in Georgia but looks east of the really bad stuff. @iam90sbabyis Orlando area I think, looks OK. @GobbleDog?

More of a love-fest. Ruhle is asking leading questions about the future, and questions about why Trump sucks. Nothing about Harris/Biden's past. How brave of Kamala!

Ruhle spent most of the interview nodding with a smile, as if to say, "that's my Kamala, running with that Trump softball just like we rehearsed. :hugs:".

That's what ballot harvesting is for.

I find it hard to believe that Pennsylvania, which was so close last time it needed 110% votes for Biden in certain Philly wards, is going to go for Harris, given the real threat to fracking that she represents.

I was born and raised in Wilkes-Barre. The city I grew up in was heavily union blue-dog democrat -- hard-working, blue-collar, family values. Those people, transported to today, would overwhelmingly vote for Trump. I was just back there this past spring for the first time in, oof, a decade? Downtown was quite depressing. Anyway, I'd still say the old guard there will be overwhelmingly Trump, but I can't speak for the newer generation. Zoomers suck everywhere.

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.