Impeachment

[mchammer]

I didn’t vote for either of them but I looked it up and Mitt got 47.2 of the popular vote in 2012 and President Bone Spur got 46.1 per cent in 2016

mitt lost the popular vote by 5 mil and Orange Jesus only lost by 3 mil

obama got 51.1 and Lady MacBeth got 48.2.

I didn’t vote for either of them either

On a mission from God is the only explanation

 

[ShAArk92]

Dems arent voting for a slick Private Equity rich White Morman. That's rich lololol

I'd so vote for Mitt!

It's possible I'd vote for him too as a Democrat.

not to say bubba and Bystander would fall to this ... but it's all about the marketing, @2003TexasGrad .

I gave it my most ridiculous motivation to the Mittster and that's what I got. Noted I whiffed on DJT's campaign motivation ... but hey ...

Here are a couple of guys who say they'd vote for Mitt as a democrat. And we know, Texas means ... the world.

 

[bystander]

not to say bubba and Bystander would fall to this ... but it's all about the marketing, @2003TexasGrad .

I gave it my most ridiculous motivation to the Mittster and that's what I got. Noted I whiffed on DJT's campaign motivation ... but hey ...

Here are a couple of guys who say they'd vote for Mitt as a democrat. And we know, Texas means ... the world.

My feeling is that Mitt is so much more rational and near the center than the current pack of humorless, idealistic, self-righteous, race-baiting, vote buying, virtue-signaling, lying, hateful totalitarian socialists/communists that he would merit strong consideration as a Democrat candidate for President.

 

[Horn6721]

by
So it is not an anti Trump vote but an anti every dem candidate vote?

 

[bystander]

by
So it is not an anti Trump vote but an anti every dem candidate vote?

Yes. He would be a centrist type candidate. The hatred would not be a platform. I think he is competent. I think he is able to govern without radicalism and anarchy.

 

[OUBubba]

My feeling is that Mitt is so much more rational and near the center than the current pack of humorless, idealistic, self-righteous, race-baiting, vote buying, virtue-signaling, lying, hateful totalitarian socialists/communists that he would merit strong consideration as a Democrat candidate for President.

Do you put Klobechar in that pack? I mean, I won't quibble with some of that.

 

[ShAArk92]

if the candidate's first response to anything beyond national security/border control/foreign relations is "the govt should provide/make/require..."

Next.
non starter.

 

[bystander]

Do you put Klobechar in that pack? I mean, I won't quibble with some of that.

To be honest, I have not followed her so she's not in that pack!

 

[bystander]

Do you put Klobechar in that pack? I mean, I won't quibble with some of that.

My man... I just think Warren and Sanders are too radical. Too anarchist. Too "revolutionary." Biden is almost palatable but I think he's a loose cannon at times and the Hunter episode shows he's a swamp alligator. But if they all do it (take care of their family) you almost have to give him that one.

I was thinking about something and wanted your take.

The Paris Agreement, in my view, was designed to bypass the US Constitutional requirement that an international treaty must be ratified by Congress. Instead it was approved by executive order which we know Trump rescinded. If I'm correct on this, then this is a prime example of how the Left wishes to govern which is to say, outside Constitutional requirements. When Trump rescinded it, he, of course, was skewered by the Left. But if it's a matter of the Constitution then what is he supposed to do?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

My man... I just think Warren and Sanders are too radical. Too anarchist. Too "revolutionary." Biden is almost palatable but I think he's a loose cannon at times and the Hunter episode shows he's a swamp alligator. But if they all do it (take care of their family) you almost have to give him that one.

I was thinking about something and wanted your take.

The Paris Agreement, in my view, was designed to bypass the US Constitutional requirement that an international treaty must be ratified by Congress. Instead it was approved by executive order which we know Trump rescinded. If I'm correct on this, then this is a prime example of how the Left wishes to govern which is to say, outside Constitutional requirements. When Trump rescinded it, he, of course, was skewered by the Left. But if it's a matter of the Constitution then what is he supposed to do?

If the left had ratified the Paris Accords via Congress, then Trump would have been unable to rescind our participation via executive order.

Live by the short cut, die by the short cut.

 

[Horn6721]

Sangre
Nice point and you know this drives Dems crazy
well maybe not. If the Dems could thwart Trump with short cut today would they?

 

[bystander]

If the left had ratified the Paris Accords via Congress, then Trump would have been unable to rescind our participation via executive order.

Live by the short cut, die by the short cut.

That's exactly right. It would have been a Constitutional process ratified by the people's representatives. NOT. JUST. ONE. MAN.

And they like to call Trump a dictator. It's pretty bad how things get skewed in the bizarro world.

It's the same with immigration (notwithstanding the highly unfortunate problems with the kids). Enforce the law Mr. President. Let Congress change the law if it needs changing. NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS CHANGING THE LAW. If the border is being over-run (and it is. I'm from down there. The political rhetoric from the Left is clearly a cover-up and racist as they are pandering to a certain race) then he has to manage it.

 

[OUBubba]

My man... I just think Warren and Sanders are too radical. Too anarchist. Too "revolutionary." Biden is almost palatable but I think he's a loose cannon at times and the Hunter episode shows he's a swamp alligator. But if they all do it (take care of their family) you almost have to give him that one.

I was thinking about something and wanted your take.

The Paris Agreement, in my view, was designed to bypass the US Constitutional requirement that an international treaty must be ratified by Congress. Instead it was approved by executive order which we know Trump rescinded. If I'm correct on this, then this is a prime example of how the Left wishes to govern which is to say, outside Constitutional requirements. When Trump rescinded it, he, of course, was skewered by the Left. But if it's a matter of the Constitution then what is he supposed to do?

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not? I think we should so I'm OK with it. I think things like this are as much symbolic as they are impactful. The goal is to eventually try to get buy in from the India's and China's of the world and really move the needle. By being a leader on climate you hope to pull them along. Putting your head in the sand is not impactful and gets you nowhere. You might as well start working on sea walls.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not?

We already are. If you want to affect CO2 output levels, start in India and China. Our symbolism doesn't mean jack **** to those countries.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not? I think we should so I'm OK with it. I think things like this are as much symbolic as they are impactful. The goal is to eventually try to get buy in from the India's and China's of the world and really move the needle. By being a leader on climate you hope to pull them along. Putting your head in the sand is not impactful and gets you nowhere. You might as well start working on sea walls.

Oh, to be naïve and young again....

 

[OUBubba]

Oh, to be naïve and young again....

Awww, thanks buddy! hook'em!

 

[bystander]

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not? I think we should so I'm OK with it. I think things like this are as much symbolic as they are impactful. The goal is to eventually try to get buy in from the India's and China's of the world and really move the needle. By being a leader on climate you hope to pull them along. Putting your head in the sand is not impactful and gets you nowhere. You might as well start working on sea walls.

There's leadership and there's being a dictator. Whatever is needed from the United States must be Constitutional in form. I have ZERO belief that a politician who elevates himself above the law in the name of saving mankind is operating in good faith or with good judgment. NOBODY is above the Constitution. Domestically, if we are dealing with unjust laws then of course we need relief and hopefully a President would use the bully pulpit to embarrass Congress into action. BUT YOU CANNOT BYPASS THEM UNILATERALLY. The poison of politics is my reference on this. In this particular instance, you cannot take money from the American taxpayers by executive order and just give it to a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats (i.e. - anybody who works for the UN) or politicians in the developing countries.

 

[humahuma]

True story, I work as an environmental geologist for a large chemical company for years. When President Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord I told a dem friend of mine we (the company) started to crank out the CO2. He believed me, I laughed and told him the truth. The company has NOT added anything additional to the air. All US companies still follow the Clean Air Act, it’s a federal law. So all the talk about companies emitting more is BS. There could be bad actors but it’s not because of Paris Accord.

 

[Monahorns]

My man... I just think Warren and Sanders are too radical. Too anarchist.

They are the opposite of anarchist. They are statist, looking to give the state more power because they believe in it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not? I think we should so I'm OK with it. I think things like this are as much symbolic as they are impactful. The goal is to eventually try to get buy in from the India's and China's of the world and really move the needle. By being a leader on climate you hope to pull them along. Putting your head in the sand is not impactful and gets you nowhere. You might as well start working on sea walls.

Barry, India and China aren't going to buy in, because they don't give a crap. Like I said in the other thread, climate change is largely a hobby horse for wealthy, self-flagellating white liberals who reject religion and need something else to make them look righteous. That's people who live in big cities the United States and Western Europe and basically nobody else. That's also why the Paris Accords were so loved by them. It exemplifies them. It says some very nice things and feels good and righteous but is nonbinding, so nobody actually has to do anything or sacrifice. It's all rhetoric and no action. It's like having everybody in your country wear an AIDS ribbon and about that effective.

People who don't fit that mold largely don't care. That means that India and China don't care. They want to make money, and they're not dumb enough to think the world is going to end in 12 years. Furthermore, the climate activist base doesn't care if India and China buy in. A few do, but most of them don't. If they did, then they'd complain about them as much or more than they complain about the West.

If you really care about climate change, you should do three things. First, you should very enthusiastically support nuclear power. That should be priority number one. Anybody who says they care about climate change but opposes nuclear power is a dumbass and shouldn't be taken seriously. The minute I hear an activist say he opposes nuclear power, I stop listening to him and basically deem his opinion to be as relevant and merited as the ramblings of a retarded three year old. It's flagrant idiocy.

Second, you should support the development of alternative fuels and promote energy efficiency but without being stupid about it. Believe it or not, I'm a big advocate for this, despite my criticism of climate change activists. I identify as a climate change agnostic. I'm not a denier (though I do deny the alarmism and apocalypse scenarios). And that isn't just because of climate change. It's also because of air pollution, the limited supply of fossil fuels, and because I don't like crazy Muslims in the Middle East having so much clout.

Third, have some proportion in your criticisms. It's OK to say the West should do better, but for every time you do that, you should rip China and India about 50 times. It's not because we're not big players in it. We are. However, we actually try to do better and have made a serious effort. China and India don't give two squirts of piss, and they don't even try.

 

[ShAArk92]

climate change is largely a hobby horse for wealthy, self-flagellating white liberals who reject religion and need something else to make them look righteous. That's people who live in big cities the United States and Western Europe and basically nobody else.

winner to the NTH degree ...

Deez ... this is a masterpiece. It shall be shared/credited.

 

[Joe Fan]

Giuliani says there are 3 Ukrainian witnesses who are willing to testify that they were at the NSC in 2016, and two Joe Biden reps asked them to "dig up dirt" on the Trump campaign.

And one of them may be the whistleblower.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Giuliani says there are 3 Ukrainian witnesses who are willing to testify that they were at the NSC in 2016, and two Joe Biden reps asked them to "dig up dirt" on the Trump campaign.

And one of them may be the whistleblower.

This would not be shocking in the least.

 

[Joe Fan]

This would not be shocking in the least.

The Senate should give him 3 days of televised hearings to make his case on Ukraine. Trying to follow along will probably be like reading a Tolstoy novel, with way too many hard to pronounce names to try and remember. But it should happen anyway. For the sake of open government, if nothing else.

 

[Statalyzer]

I guess it goes to a bigger question, do you think we should be a leader on climate change or not?

Did we have the biggest CO2 reduction this past year? Saw it but don't remember where now, so not 100% sure if I trust it.

 

[mchammer]

Barry, India and China aren't going to buy in, because they don't give a crap. Like I said in the other thread, climate change is largely a hobby horse for wealthy, self-flagellating white liberals who reject religion and need something else to make them look righteous. That's people who live in big cities the United States and Western Europe and basically nobody else. That's also why the Paris Accords were so loved by them. It exemplifies them. It says some very nice things and feels good and righteous but is nonbinding, so nobody actually has to do anything or sacrifice. It's all rhetoric and no action. It's like having everybody in your country wear an AIDS ribbon and about that effective.

People who don't fit that mold largely don't care. That means that India and China don't care. They want to make money, and they're not dumb enough to think the world is going to end in 12 years. Furthermore, the climate activist base doesn't care if India and China buy in. A few do, but most of them don't. If they did, then they'd complain about them as much or more than they complain about the West.

If you really care about climate change, you should do three things. First, you should very enthusiastically support nuclear power. That should be priority number one. Anybody who says they care about climate change but opposes nuclear power is a dumbass and shouldn't be taken seriously. The minute I hear an activist say he opposes nuclear power, I stop listening to him and basically deem his opinion to be as relevant and merited as the ramblings of a retarded three year old. It's flagrant idiocy.

Second, you should support the development of alternative fuels and promote energy efficiency but without being stupid about it. Believe it or not, I'm a big advocate for this, despite my criticism of climate change activists. I identify as a climate change agnostic. I'm not a denier (though I do deny the alarmism and apocalypse scenarios). And that isn't just because of climate change. It's also because of air pollution, the limited supply of fossil fuels, and because I don't like crazy Muslims in the Middle East having so much clout.

Third, have some proportion in your criticisms. It's OK to say the West should do better, but for every time you do that, you should rip China and India about 50 times. It's not because we're not big players in it. We are. However, we actually try to do better and have made a serious effort. China and India don't give two squirts of piss, and they don't even try.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yep. Only Whitey cares about climate change.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Yep. Only Whitey cares about climate change.

They say that giant horde of biblical level locusts in Africa prove it. Which were supposedly caused by all the coal burning power plants China has built in Africa. Why do they avoid these topics?
And how did this thread morph into a weather thread?

 

[Joe Fan]

The Senate should give him 3 days of televised hearings to make his case on Ukraine. Trying to follow along will probably be like reading a Tolstoy novel, with way too many hard to pronounce names to try and remember. But it should happen anyway. For the sake of open government, if nothing else.

And this is why they wont give Rudy 3 days in the Senate