jerryskids

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

Yeah, she'd have been a stone cold lock. I wonder if it went down like you said. My guess is that it's simpler -- she simply turned it down. She is living the dream: rich, revered going on worshiped, and able to opine about things without the phenomenal effort of being POTUS.

True, but the point is, there wouldn't be anything about her intelligence. Pulling the "raciss!" card when you accuse Kamala of not being smart, is a gun throw.

That first tweet is from a parody account

I'm confident that if Michelle Obama were running, we wouldn't have a meme about her having a 78 IQ

Laughable. You are at least as prejudiced as I, most would say more. Also, like I said, I did this for a living. You manage your father's properties. I would defer to you in the best way to get illegal aliens to clean out a parking lot. At the debate, she did well spouting non-responsive word salad and in baiting Trump to be Trump, which I'm confident was pre-planned. Like I said, she may be smart, but anyone with observation skills can see that she is not quick on her feet. Last time I said something similar about observation skills: Biden being brain dead. You probably still don't see it, which basically makes your skills extremely poor. But for grins, feel free to provide links of objective people saying she's extremely bright.

I used to be for the death penalty, but now I oppose it. Cases like this are part of the reason, although Rolling Stone is so Leftie, it's hard to tell how accurate it is. But in the general sense, I don't think the government should be in the business of killing it's citizens, especially in the larger sense that I believe the government is generally incompetent at most things.

Agreed. I'd have gone with 96. Just below average. Much more believable That being said, it's hard to tell how intelligent someone is. I'm confident, though, in saying that her mental acuity, or processing speed, is quite low. She clearly can't think well on her feet. That's not inherently a bad thing, depending on the job. For POTUS, it is a bad thing. Some of you might recall that I used to measure this for a living, so I'm somewhat qualified to make this observation.

Sweet Jeebus my team shat the bed. Who knew I should have started Odunze, Michael Wilson, Lazard, and/or Kalil Shakir over Conner, Achane, Aiyuk Also LaPorta can lick my dirty taint. I guess it bodes well for my bench and options, but it's shaping up to be quite a management challenge. I like when clear starters emerge and I can just plug them in.

The Left: Three pages of denigrating Melania Trump. The Right: Kamala slept with Willie Brown to get her career started. The Left: Misogynist!

I don't think so. Here is how a list experiment works: https://www.gradientmetrics.com/resource-old/list-experiments Pretty interesting; I wasn't familiar with these. I can see how it works. It sounds to me like they asked different questions through this technique, including wishing if he was hit. Here is what I think happened: - 30% of Democrats wish he was hit. - Other questions were asked to identify political affiliation, like "white republicans are racist," which are attributable to hard-left opinions [my guess here]. - Math ensues, and he comes up with his number of hard-lefties who wanted him hit. -