WaPo reports. And opines:
[T]he vote amounted to a political show vote as President Trump and Republicans deride the Green New Deal, but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change....
One irony of the Green New Deal proposal is that it is forcing some Republicans to put forward their own climate proposals after being led by for two years by Trump, who has repeated dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world.
Posts
103 comments:
One irony of the Green New Deal proposal is that it is forcing some Republicans to put forward their own climate proposals after being led by for two years by Trump, who has repeated dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world.
Oh, yeah, that'll show Trump.
Obstruction of climate justice.
I'm pretty sure that when Trump calls something a hoax, I would bet on him being correct. He has a better record than those claiming otherwise.
This vote was a huge win for the anti-sustainability activists comprising our corporate Republican-Democrat uniparty elite. Who needs a planet when you've got a very nationalistic nation to run! Amurica! Amurica! Nature needs to listen to us!
Democrats promote crazy stupid ideas, and then refuse to vote for them. What a surprise.
the Old Farmer's Almanac suggests the sun is "buying us some time" on global warming in that the Maunder Minimum coming mini ice age is based on 4 centuries of observed facts rather than computer models. it is my opinion that the carbon tax friendly one world government folks have been outshone by the sun. the Paris Accord needed to have been cemented into place before enough folks realized the planet is cooling.
BTW, Althouse didn't make those grammatical errors, WaPo did. Or I guess, since this is just a little private message I am sending you, I should put that in the first person; "Wow, Althouse, I thought you were getting sloppy there, but I opened that WaPo screed in a private window and sure enough, you copied their prose accurately."
I don't know, it seems kind of weird to call you Althouse when there's just the two of us like this.
[T]he vote amounted to a political show vote as President Trump and Republicans deride the Green New Deal,
Odd these people didn't criticize AOC for writing political show legislation isn't it? Or the Dem presidential candidates for co-sponsoring it?
Weird.
Wonder why McConnell doesn’t want the mueller report public. Instead he’s playing games that don’t appear to help the republicans or hurt the democrats. Oh well. His tenure as senate leader should soon come to an end. Of the likely close races in 2020, 12 are now red and 6 blue.
Gustav Mahler needs to probe the collusion between big oil and the 57 Senators who are destroying the environment to make a buck. Trump's golf courses need to be planted with medicinal marijuana because his environmental policies are making us sick, and we need to smoke our worries away.
LLR's hardest hit.
The good news?
AOC posters are still half-price!!
Better luck next time LLR's/lefties!!
If the socialists at The Bulwark have their way lots more democrats will be elected (avoiding republican electoral victory "disasters") and that will open the door to full blowm lefty/LLR socialist paradise!!
Huzzah!
If you don't vote on something you introduce, you should be censured.
Trump and the GOP are making fast work of punishing the Democrats. The Green New Deal has been destroyed. The House failed to overturn Trump's veto on the Wall National Emergency. DoD comes up with money to build the Wall. One of Trump's appointment to the 9th Circuit was confirmed. And DOJ sides with Courts to let ACA die without appeal. I suspect this is just the beginning of moving Trump's agenda along, now that the Mueller investigation is over.
WaPo, as usual, is full of shit.
On a side note, Jeff Zucker explained why he was fine with CNN's Russia Hoax coverage:
"'We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,' the unapologetic Zucker wrote in an email."
Too funny. What the hell is investigative journalism if it isn't what CNN journalists practice? And exactly what meaningful "facts" did CNN actually get right that weren't just flat out fucking common knowledge? You could have had 100 baboons working on the CNN's Russia Hoax investigations, and they would have done just as well as CNN's best and brightest.
Yah. You not voting for your own thing is what people will take away from this little exercise.
In leftwing la la land, the bad guys are always being "forced" by the good guys to come out of the darkness over to the light. WaPo-think, like that of Markey, AOC, LLRs, and the other ever more government-lovers, always sees us flat-earth cave-dwelling tiny brains as bereft of intellect, morality, and concern for mankind. Our Betters will show us kulaks the way.
To belabor a point, this is how you get more Trump.
Sen. Sinema seems to be carving out an identity closer to Mancin than to the rest of her caucus.
....the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world.
"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops." -Some denier, probably
"...but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change..."
This is asinine. It is like the side proposing a diet of shit sandwiches complaining that the bad guys are the ones who won't compromise: Just one bite, okay?
Even if there was a global warming crisis, it won't be solved by the US working alone. China currently emits 4 times the CO2 the US does.
1. Make a dubious claim that there is a problem.
2. Propose a "solution" that could not possibly work (assuming the problem exists).
3. The solution is expensive and painful.
Why would any sensible person "debate" this?
Who were the 4 Democrats. One - I assume was from West VA. Who were the other three?
All votes are political show votes. They're on the record, something you can't hide from so, by definition, they're show votes--they show the public the politician's policy position.
Synema from Arizona and two others,
who has repeated dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world.
Because it is a hoax, and there is no "overwhelming consensus."
All votes are show votes. There on the record. The vote shows the public the politician's policy preferences.
What other kind is there...
@rcocean, Angus King (technically an independent and not a Democrat), Doug Jones, and Kyrsten Sinema. She's going to make me delete my file of dumb blonde jokes if she keeps this up.
Trump, who has repeated[ly] dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus
Middle of the sixth, and Trump has a shutout going against overwhelming consensus.
If you think carbon is a villain you have must choose between four alternatives:
1) So-called "renewables" — a very expensive means to collapse civilization.
2) Hydrogen — a very costly way to fill the atmosphere with water vapor, a greenhouse gas ten times more efficient than CO₂.
3) Nuclear Fusion — God's big fix, but as a practical energy source, unavailable to anyone living today.
4) Nuclear Fission — Embrace the suck, leftards.
Trump is doing his part to reduce humanity's impact on the climate by trying to move manufacturing back here and away from countries who allow the factories to pollute more than we do.
Manchin, Jones from Alabama, the Indepen dent Angus King and I forget the 4th.
rcocean, a guess is Manchin, Sinema, Jones, and maybe Casey?
I'm a greenie of sorts but I fully recognize that what comes out of the communist-Marxist left isn't actually green - it's just an economy killing bulldozer, meant to punish first, last and always.
steve uhr: "Wonder why McConnell doesn’t want the mueller report public."
Another sad, pathetic lie.
The good news?
You are consistent!
BTW, anyone can pull up the video and listen to McConnells actual words instead of going with Collusion Truther Uhrs latest pack of lefty lies.
"Wonder why McConnell doesn’t want the mueller report public."
Maybe because to make it public would be explicitly against the law?
But every single Democrat who is asking for it to be made public knows that. And if it were made public, they'd scream for impeachment for violating that law.
Everyone is on to your bullshit now.
After all of the lies about Russiagate that the WaPo has promulgated over the last few years who can believe it when it mentions
"the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world"
Too lazy, too incurious, too biassed and too crooked to do their homework (let alone correct their own typos).
Sustainability is a bad thing. So was the original new deal. We need to have people working harder for less, and to the detriment of a sustainable biosphere. When will the enviros learn to accept that the planet cannot exist without nations, that science requires industries to challenge it, and that reason is inferior to aristocracy? Some people never learn. The earth's only been through 5 major extinctions. Why on earth should we believe that humans can do anything to their own detriment? There's a fossil fuel industry to prop up, dammit!
BTW, we are still waiting fir HoaxPPT's exhaustive list of Trumps "vast Russian properties", many shared with Putin and his pals.
Naturally, the first time our chemically-enhanced Super Inga made this assertion our curiosity was raised and so we asked where we might find this "vast" list.
Alas, we are still waiting.
Darn it!
The Gray Deal is, ironically, naive, and justified by a political myth and scientific prophecy. The drivers are "green". The technology is nonrenewable, environmentally disruptive and harmful, and the applications are limited to niche spaces where intermittent energy is a viable solution with a stable backup.
The words "Climate Change" are code words for, "Submit to the One World Government or else we will kill you." And they all know it.
Climate Change, a hoax.
Mueller Investigation, a hoax.
Trumpists who are still sane a hoax.
So the takeaway is that, while the Republican War on the Poor loses supporters every day, its War on Science and the Planet continues unabated.
Better luck next time LLR's/lefties!!
Don't use the L word, or you'll make whatshisname cry.
This is what always happens with environmental grandstanding. The Greens give it a big PR push & everyone else stands around going "WTF?".
Same thing happened with the Kyoto Protocols. VP Gore's out there hyping it to the max & then the Senate absolutely clobbers the bejeepers out of the treaty on a vote of 95 to 0.
Defective historical memory aided by the horde of liberal media minions wants it to remembered that somehow the second Bush Admin killed the Treaty. Nope. It was the Senate under Clinton.
Climate change is the natural state on Earth. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling then Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change are all based on a mechanism characterized in isolation, then inferred at global proportions. A "theory" supported by hypothesis (i.e. models), that fails to match past conditions, and predict near-term changes.
"the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists"
Yah, the same "scientists" who churned out 51 studies each giving a different reason for where their missing warming went.
If there's a consensus, it that none of them can agree on where their vaunted computer models went wrong. Settled science. LOL.
One of the guys I shoot archery with left a respectable position in Wildlife Conservation to become a Climate Change Consultant for Big Business. He's been unemployed for 3 years now.
The solution is expensive and painful.
OMG, someone made an electric car! Ouch! It hurts so bad!
And with more competition from other automakers to do the same obviously every Republican economist knows that the pressure on price will do anything but drive these the costs to be cheaper.
We have to do something, anything!!! There is no justification for letting the world come to an end in 10 years. We don't even have time to vote on this. Just git-r-done!
" You could have had 100 baboons working on the CNN's Russia Hoax investigations, and they would have done just as well as CNN's best and brightest."
At least the baboons wouldn't lie so much. They might throw just as much shit, but a CNN reporter is a special animal that spends its waking hours mostly just lying and fornicating, in that order. Baboons ain't got time for all that lying.
No Dems are willing to save the Earth? We only have 12 years left and we all die.
Profiles in Courage, no less.
Mitch did us a great favor by putting the GND in the rear view mirror. Deplorables hardest hit.
@rcocean: Manchin (WV), King (ME), Sinema (AZ), Jones (AL).
The United States is the only Nation that has met the carbon emissions goals set by all the climate agreements, that the United States never joined.
The United States met those goals without any govt regulations or govt direction. I suggest we keep doing what we are doing and not allow the Dems to mess up success.
0 to 57 means the senator of each state voted no.
"A panel of U.N. scientists says the world has about 10 years to rein in emissions and keep the global temperature increase to moderate levels."
Damn. I never realized it was that dire. I've changed my mind now. I'm fully on board with the GND. I think this is the first time any scientists have made such specific predictions, so you know it's pretty certain (and dire).
"repeatedly dismissed the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world."
It's really easy to dismiss something that doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's assume we embark upon this 10 Year Plan (much more ambitious than the Soviets, who only planned their failures out to 5 years). After we achieve the indisputably possible targets that are set, what will the world's emissions look like? Because my limited, feeble, non-scientist understanding of all of this is that it is a "global" problem. Shouldn't the GND be one in which the entire world is forced to participate? Otherwise, it's really nothing more than virtue signaling (incredibly expensive signaling).
If the climate is warming, less heating will be needed and less heating fuel used. Win!
I've known a lot of scientists and they seldom reach consensus on anything.
Who were the 4 Democrats
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama, and independent Angus King of Maine.
I'm happy that Sinema was among the 'no' votes. Makes me feel better about her winning.
Gustav Mahler needs to probe the collusion between big oil and the 57 Senators who are destroying the environment to make a buck.
No, he needs to give us the definitive version of the 10th Symphony.
So what would a bipartisan bill look like? Are we going to bomb China and India back to the stone age so they quit polluting?
“but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change.”
Why brother? CAGW is a scam. Do nothing.
Don’t worry though, the scientists behind global warming are like Science Officer Spock, not political animals at all!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#20e13e8b3535
Who were the other three?
Sinema and Jones. She may have figured out that Arizona is not going blue anytime soon.
Everyone missed the big story: Sinema. She had a radical history but ran as a moderate. So far she has voted as a moderate. She is an order of magnitude more attractive than any other woman in American politics. Watch for her in a few years.
Almost every Democrat senator has just confessed they support this idiocy and would have voted for it had there been a Democrat president and Democrat Congress.
Wonder why McConnell doesn’t want the mueller report public
He has valid reasons baed on grand jury secrecy, etc. I want it all out there, including the FISA warrants and the FBI 302 reports.
From now on all FBI interviews must be recorded.
After Hillary, we have no secrets left. China has the DOJ personal files after Obama put a
"First Hispanic" in charge of the database and she hired a Chinese national to administer it.
The Iran and China agent networks were rolled up after the CIA comm system was hacked.
We have no secrets.
I can't claim this, but I saved it because it expresses what I think. Another blog, another comment section, climate change deniers being attacked and the infamous consensus being trotted out:
Science is simply the current models that BEST describe the most observable data. These models were tested without bias if the scientific method was properly used.
At no point in the scientific method does consensus matter. In fact, consensus has been proven WRONG many times in history using science. Though usually a lot of "smart" people with "egos" resisted and shamed anyone attempting to prove their BELIEFS were incorrect. Belief has nothing to do with science. In science we should NEVER stop questioning. We should even question our best models, as that only makes them stronger. One of the first signs someone can see when science is not being practiced is when they censor and shame people who question. The "climate change" dogma is backed by appeal to popularity (aka bandwagon) logical fallacies (which is what consensus is), appeal to authority fallacies (it is true because person X says it is), and appeals to emotion (you must not care about how your actions are killing people) fallacies.
The 97% consensus should have been a glaring red flag to anyone who truly practices the scientific method. Not to mention the study that came up with that 97% has been investigated. They did not interview very many actual scientists, and a large portion of that they decided that people agreed with them based upon papers those scientists had written; yet they didn't actually talk to the scientists. Many cited scientists have come forth stating that the way those that came up with the 97% chose to interpret their paper and thus decide they were in consensus was the incorrect interpretation.
"Mostly it works by consensus" shows how little you actually understand science. If it is true, it doesn't matter how many people think it is incorrect. If 99.9% of the population believes a false thing is true, guess what? It is still false. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. Dogma, Religion, and Politics are the realm of that type of thinking.
As for all the gnashing of teeth and efforts to tie those questioning the crap show that is climate chaos - new term! new term! - with a subset of corporations and individuals who, I have no doubt, care more about the bottom line than planet earth and mother Gaia, pull your head out of your a$$. If you're spouting things like This vote was a huge win for the anti-sustainability activists comprising our corporate Republican-Democrat uniparty elite. Who needs a planet when you've got a very nationalistic nation to run! Amurica! Amurica! Nature needs to listen to us! you are too comfortable in your indoctrinated bubble to even be able to consider the possibility that one can question the motives and poke holes in the crap show that is the man-made climate hoax without being someone who wants to trash the planet or will accept corporations/individuals doing the same. There is a lot of buy-in for the idea of being good stewards of this amazing and beautiful planet we inhabit; surprisingly enough, it comes from a great many who are questioning the money making, power grapping, control ensuring hoax that "uniparty elite" are trying to shove down our throats. Questioning the climate change hoaxsters does not equal not caring about the planet or the environment.
Crap proposed like that by AOC and the Green New Deal have exactly zilch to do with giving a flying fig about this planet and everything to do with power and control.
Unusual number of hoaxes coming up today.
"OMG, someone made an electric car! Ouch! It hurts so bad!"
I guess we don't need a green new deal now: Somebody made an electric car and the problem is solved.
I second the sense of encouragement of Sinema’s vote.
I just hope the Dems' collective Fart In was methane free.
"...but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change..."
Nor they ever be able to and to pretend so is the absolute peak of hubris.
Congress represents 370 Million people out of a planet of 7 Billion. Even if they all cooperated there would be no way to come up with a plan the other 6.64 Billion people would go along with or abide by.
Here's an idea: How about working to craft a bipartisan solution to the pothole strewn roads I drive on everyday!
All but 4 of the Dems voted "present"? Wow. That shows backbone. Libs, you can really be proud of such profiles in courage!
Trump needs to hang The Green New Deal on his opponent next year every single interaction. Force whoever it is toreact to it. Schumer and Reid used the word “extreme” to hammer Republicans in 2008 and 12. Trump should brand Dems as “Nut cases” and then bring up TGND ... every single day.
Ah, yes, that good old "overwhelming consensus among climate scientists."
I believe the last "overwhelming consensus" of scientists was the one mobilized against good old Galileo in 1633. I am referring to the Aristotelian scholastics and other supporters of the consensus Ptolemaic theory that the sun and planets all revolved around the stationary earth. It was settled science, you see. Only deniers like Galilei Galileo had the audacity to question authority. What a trouble-maker.
Too bad AOC didn't get to vote.
Not so long ago the "scientific consensus" was that the earth was flat. And another consensus had the solar system revolving around the earth. And of course, the consensus of Nazi scientists was that Jews were subhuman. And so on and so on. Consensus is just another word for politics and virtue signaling. There's no room in the scientific method for consensus.
Steve Uhr dutifully help to spread the prog-smear Covington Lie.
No credibility dude. None.
The vote Tuesday came against the backdrop of historic flooding in the Midwest ...
The vote Tuesday came against the backdrop of the end of drought in California.
"The 97% consensus should have been a glaring red flag to anyone who truly practices the scientific method. Not to mention the study that came up with that 97% has been investigated."
Yeah, the 97% stuff is nonsense. If you want to know what scientists think, there have been actual surveys. Ask them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
The true numbers are high, probably about 90%. But it depends on for what. "Climate change", if you want it to mean "we must reshape world economy now to save us", includes a number of things that must be true. The earlier steps like, The world has gotten __ warmer, and CO2 causes most of that warming, probably are well above 90%.
If CO2 doubles the temperature will go up __ - that's harder. The IPCC report gives a "likely" range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. No one knows that one.
What will the impact be on geology, biology, economy,... Much harder. Doubt you can get much of a consensus on any specific question there. We don't know what will happen. Probably mostly not good, maybe very not good.
How much will it cost us if we do nothing? No one knows. DICE model estimates 5% of world GDP by the end of the century. That's a _tremendous_ amount of money, but not world-ending. And no consensus on that either.
Should we do mitigation to prevent that? No consensus at all. There are Nobel-Prize-winning economists (Copenhagen Consensus) who think that mitigation loses money, not saves it. Freeman Dyson famously held that mitigation would save money, but not enough to bother.
How do we accomplish mitigation politically? No consensus, or there is a consensus that it probably can't be done. China and India and then developing Africa are going to continue growing their emissions for as long as they need to to get out of poverty. Everyone agrees that California and Germany don't actually matter. Everyone agrees that renewables are going to grow too slowly. Everyone agrees that nuclear would help but probably won't have the support it needs.
Karen of Texas said...
Crap proposed like that by AOC and the Green New Deal have exactly zilch to do with giving a flying fig about this planet and everything to do with power and control.
and feelz. Don't forget the feelz. It feelz good to punish and bulldoze. Ask Hitler.
Ken B said, "Everyone missed the big story: Sinema. She had a radical history but ran as a moderate. So far she has voted as a moderate. She is an order of magnitude more attractive than any other woman in American politics. Watch for her in a few years. "
So, Kamala Harris with a brain?
The problem of course is not electric cars but where the energy to power them is coming from.
Quaestor said...
"2) Hydrogen — a very costly way to fill the atmosphere with water vapor, a greenhouse gas ten times more efficient than CO₂."
It occurred to me, Althouse, that you might be unaware, as apparently Quaestor is, that as matters currently stand, hydrogen is a means of energy storage and transportation, not a source of energy. This is because there are no pipes in the ground with hydrogen coming out. Hydrogen is produced using electrical power, which must come from some other energy source.
"...but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change..."
Civility bullshit.
There are never calls for bipartisanship in building the wall or dealing with the immigration crisis.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the Green New Deal's main sponsor in the House, tweeted following the vote that she had encouraged Senate Democrats to vote "present" on the resolution.
So even AOC didn't encourage them to vote yes?
I doubt that's right. She likely urged them to vote yes and then present rather than no. But the writing makes it look like the Dems didn't take a kick to the groin on this one, and they clearly did.
readering: "Unusual number of hoaxes coming up today."
Not really.
The number of hoaxes today perfectly matches the number of lefty assertions today, as it does everyday.
For instance, one such hoax might be someone claiming the Soviets invaded Poland from the East only to defend Poland from the Nazi invasion from the West.
That would be an example of a hoax.
Get it now?
Hoax dossier gal: "Climate Change, a hoax.
Mueller Investigation, a hoax.
Trumpists who are still sane a hoax."
AGW, yep, Hoax.
Collusion: Hoax.
Lefty Collusion Truther in WI asserting Trump voters are insane: clear hoax.
There is a "vast list of Trump properties in Russia".....also clearly a hoax, unless HoaxPPT would like to finally provide what he claimed exists.
I like to think of HoaxPPT as our very own resident Eric Swalwell when it comes to the "vast" Trump holdings in Russia....
LOL
Those holdings are so vast that no one has found them yet!!!
OMG, The Trump Organization has perfected Invisible Properties!!!
Let's just call them Potemkin Properties and call it a day.
Civilization did not cause global warming. Global warming caused civilization.
"One irony of the Green New Deal proposal is that it is forcing some Republicans to put forward their own climate proposals after being led by for two years by Trump, who has repeated dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world."
Two whopping errors in one sentence; WAPO has no proofreaders.
Global warming is like coffee, wine or maybe eggs. Ever notice how every few years a "New Study" changes the "science"? The disclaimer trailing the "study" always "advises moderation" ? Don't look at history for answers, as the planet started up this morning. Those who fear CO2 would be able to qualify for climate sainthood by stopping their personal contribution of same. I was a lefty long enough to see their disdain for fact. It is a character defect, and America doesn't produce enough aluminum for their hats.
What Karen of Texas commented is backed up by Richard Feynman's explanation of how science works. You really only need to watch the first minute. His point is simple: if your theory does not agree with observation, then it is wrong. W. R. O. N. G. Time to come up with a new theory.
Predictions about carbon dioxide causing runaway global warming have been made since 1988. if not earlier. Had the models been true, then by now we should have equatorial-like temperatures in winter in Alaska, coastal cities should be underwater, and life would be unbearable.
But it didn't happen, it hasn't happened, and probably it won't between now and when the sun goes nova.
Beyond that, there is no "consensus of climate scientists." There are climate scientists like Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg who call BS on the movement. Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is available through the Althouse Amazon portal. For that matter, so are Curry's books, but Lomborg's book is a bit more accessible than Curry's "Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds."
Climate change hoaxers demonstrate another subset of useful idiot. Juvenile fear.
"Who were the 4 Democrats
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama, and independent Angus King of Maine.
I'm happy that Sinema was among the 'no' votes. Makes me feel better about her winning."
Bah. It's a cheap display. Insignificant compared to the madness they're going to vote for.
Wonder why McConnell doesn’t want the mueller report public.
Maybe because he doesn't want to go to jail. It is against the law to release it.
Saying McConnell "doesn't want to release the report" is completely dishonest and a terrible thing to do.
There is this little thing called presumption of innocence and the report is full of personal information on a lot of innocent people that are swept up in such an investigation.
The law is there to protect the citizen from the government.
Democrats and leftists are just completely awful.
I will never submit to a government run by democrats. I don't care how many elections you win by importing people from central america.
Democrats are proving daily they are just completely awful people.
Details on why the 97% hoax is a hoax. A classic example of "It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes." The methods used to put papers in the "97%" category were as sketchy as much of the other climate science greatest hits. The explanation includes quotes by scientists who were misrepresented This is propaganda not science; this is Lysenkoism - a political campaign based on un-falsifiable scientific hypothesis.
How does this vote force Republicans put forward their own ‘deal’?
Someone seems to think that this is a tit for tat thing. Or, they believe the Rs must put something forward because ‘hey, we tried this, you didn’t like it, now what have you got, then?’
I’m sure the Rs couldn’t put their ‘no’ vote in fast enough.
The only reason Doug Jones was allowed to vote no instead of present is because the only chance he had of beating any Republican not named Roy Moore in next year’s election is to fool the rubes into thinking that he isn’t just a toady to his Democrat masters. This was a meaningless vote over a stupid proposal that had no chance of passing, so this isn’t exactly a profile in courage moment for Doug. If they had been smart, when they knew they didn’t have the votes to stop Kavanaugh, they’d have let him vote to confirm. We may be rubes, but we’re not all stupid, so it probably would have been recognized as pandering, but at least he could have pretended to be independent. It’s not going to work.
How does this vote force Republicans put forward their own ‘deal’?
This is the throwaway line in any article about the R’s doing well. It lets the D’s know they’re really the ones winning.
Yesterday it wasn’t that the GND was exposed, it’s that now McConnell has to come up with his own plan.
The alternatives, that there is no plan or no plan is required, is too difficult for their readers to consider.
Sustainability is a bad thing.
Finally I can almost agree with something you wrote. Sustainability is one thing to consider, but is a stupid goal. Hysteria is stupid but Progressives sustain their tantrums for years on end. But they couldn't even sustain a vote for their own New Deal. Russiagate syndrome is stupid, but Progressives are sustaining their chase of the rabbit down the hole!
You know what's really, literally unsustainable? Wind and solar. Stick those two green deals in your sustainable scenario!
Someday in the future, when the remnants of mankind are freezing to death as the sun burns itself out, they will curse our generation for not producing more CO2 to warm the planet. When we had the chance.
Didn't expect that from Synema.
I'm starting to like the cut of her jib.
Well, I mean politically now, too.
Post a Comment