DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

Recommended Posts

Jail time for a soon to be ex-president?

        https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/schiff-trump-may-face-‘real-prospect-of-jail-time’/ar-BBQIgt5?ocid=spartandhp

 

"Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might "face the real prospect of jail time" after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.

"There's a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Schiff's comments come after federal prosecutors said in a legal filing Friday that referred to Trump as "Individual-1" that Trump during the 2016 campaign directed his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to make illegal payments to two women claiming they had affairs with Trump. It was the first time prosecutors made those accusations against Trump.

Schiff, who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, added that the next president may have to determine whether to pardon Trump.

"We have been discussing the issue of pardons the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people," Schiff said. "The bigger pardon question may come down the road, as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump."

"I think the prosecutors in New York make a powerful case against that idea," he added. "All the arguments they make against Michael Cohen ... that argument was equally made with respect to Individual-1, the president of the United States."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

You are dreaming if think the users of this forum are ill informed,particularly regular contributors to this thread.

And posting BS is not posting inconvenient facts.

Here's what climatologists actually think about anthropogenic warming. This covers the whole gamut of human influence,. Only 42% are as zealous as the regular contributors here, since they consider any dissent to be moronic at a minimum. The number 7 indicates very much convinced, 1 is not convinced at all.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1e25f5b71157

 

A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013 (Graph by Dennis Bray & Hans von Storch)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Why do all of your sources look like their websites were designed by a 12 year old in 1980?

 

The "source" for this particular piece of tripe is a site called "Climate Depot", which is run by Marc Morano, a former Republican aide who once was part of Rush Limbaugh's staff. He has a BA in Political Science, but that isn't the same as being a scientist. His site is sponsored by an organization called CFACT, which is dedicated to Climate Change denial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow

 

Here's what an actual Climate Scientist has to say about your "source":

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

 

 

Climate Depot is a great site, a real time saver. It''s not a climate change denial site.  Everyone knows the climate changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aguila said:

Here's what climatologists actually think about anthropogenic warming. This covers the whole gamut of human influence,. Only 42% are as zealous as the regular contributors here, since they consider any dissent to be moronic at a minimum. The number 7 indicates very much convinced, 1 is not convinced at all.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1e25f5b71157

 

A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013 (Graph by Dennis Bray & Hans von Storch)

 

if 60% of a scientific panel told you they were quite sure that someone took your ham sandwich and put cyanide in it, would you be like, meh 40% think I'm good and chow down? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aguila said:

Here's what climatologists actually think about anthropogenic warming. This covers the whole gamut of human influence,. Only 42% are as zealous as the regular contributors here, since they consider any dissent to be moronic at a minimum. The number 7 indicates very much convinced, 1 is not convinced at all.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1e25f5b71157

 

A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013 (Graph by Dennis Bray & Hans von Storch)

I was just reading on skeptical science.com that only 16 percent of Americans are aware that the scientific consensus that climate change is real is above 90 percent.

Very effective disinformation campaign or a very stupid populace.

My bets on a combination of both.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.  If you want women to carry to term, then they need healthcare services.  U.S. law already prohibits taxpayer money going towards abortion services (unless the mothers life is in danger).  This was a sad attempt by morons to destroy Planned Parenthood by cutting legitimate taxpayer funded services like ultrasounds.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-plannedparenthood/u-s-top-court-rebuffs-state-bids-to-cut-planned-parenthood-funds-idUSKBN1O91PN?utm_source=reddit.com

U.S. top court spurns Louisiana, Kansas on Planned Parenthood cuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently no one wants the Chief of Staff job.... go figure. Mueller is sending out court filings by the minute, even if he is fired and there's no report there's no turning back now. Its going to be a bizarre year ahead I bet. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So apparently no one wants the Chief of Staff job.... go figure. Mueller is sending out court filings by the minute, even if he is fired and there's no report there's no turning back now. Its going to be a bizarre year ahead I bet. 

yep it will be a short career with trump

cuz even if he lasts the term

no one lasts with him (except family)

kelly was supposed to endure till the next election

but once that decision was made

he was gone in 5 months

 

so who really wants

"part of the trump team"

on their resume

a black mark for sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ilunga said:

I was just reading on skeptical science.com that only 16 percent of Americans are aware that the scientific consensus that climate change is real is above 90 percent.

Very effective disinformation campaign or a very stupid populace.

My bets on a combination of both.

Yes the Skeptical Science site is Mecca for the climate change religion.  The home of the 97% lie that really got things going. All google searches regarding climate seem to go there. Great work by Steyer. What bugs me though is the title of the site. It is opposed to skeptics. But don't take my word for it.

 

 

https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

 

Here's a snippet

The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?

By John Droz, Jr. -- August 13, 2010

I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.

The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.

Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.

Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.

I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.

For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.

Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is  “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.

Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

if 60% of a scientific panel told you they were quite sure that someone took your ham sandwich and put cyanide in it, would you be like, meh 40% think I'm good and chow down? 

I should have been clearer I guess. The survey was asking if the climate scientists thought humans were the biggest influence in present and future temperature increases, not whether or not we are all going to die. 

 

In fact, the present warming has been great for civilization. Cooling temperatures, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aguila said:

Yes the Skeptical Science site is Mecca for the climate change religion.  The home of the 97% lie that really got things going. All google searches regarding climate seem to go there. Great work by Steyer. What bugs me though is the title of the site. It is opposed to skeptics. But don't take my word for it.

 

 

https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

 

Here's a snippet

The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?

By John Droz, Jr. -- August 13, 2010

I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.

The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.

Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.

Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.

I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.

For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.

Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is  “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.

Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!

 

 

 

Why do you bother ?

No one here is buying your BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So apparently no one wants the Chief of Staff job.... go figure. Mueller is sending out court filings by the minute, even if he is fired and there's no report there's no turning back now. Its going to be a bizarre year ahead I bet. 

Yeah....it's pretty much equivalent to being the doorman at a mosque in downtown Kabul....

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Why do you bother ?

No one here is buying your BS.

Yeah, I guess you're  right. I'm just a lowly deplorable trying  to scratch out a living. Who am I to interfere with your dreams of turning over our lives to those ever so deserving unelected global authorities. It is pretty hopeless. But maybe you could humor me and read this one last little article.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/10/the-snow-job-in-poland/

 

The snow job in Poland

IPCC climate confab seeks to stampede the world into adopting destructive energy policies

Craig Rucker

Any blizzards that blanket Poland this winter can’t compare to the massive snow job climate campaigners are trying to pull off.

Some 30,000 politicians, activists, computer modelers, bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists, renewable energy sellers and a few scientists are in Katowice, Poland December 2-14, for another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference. Four issues will dominate the agenda.

* Proclaim that humanity and planet face existential cataclysms, unless fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are slashed to zero by 2050 – to “prevent” average planetary temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) above what they were in 1820, when the Little Ice Age ended and the modern industrial era began.

* Finalize 300 pages of “guidelines,” to implement the Paris climate agreement – by driving the switch from coal, oil and natural gas to wind, solar and biofuel energy.

* Reach a binding agreement that wealthy countries (excluding China and other newly rich nations) must transfer at least $100 billion annually to poor countries.

* Ensure “transparency” on discussions, disclosures and treaty compliance.

This entire agenda deserves skepticism and ridicule.

Earth’s climate is always changing somewhere, due to powerful natural forces over which humans have no control. To say we can now perpetuate current conditions by controlling emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is sheer fantasy.

Average global temperatures have already (thankfully) risen nearly a degree since 1820. To suggest that another half degree would be catastrophic is absurd. Indeed, average temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period – and except during recent El Niño events have barely risen since 1998, even as CO2 levels climbed significantly, spurring plant growth worldwide.

Constant references to the “hottest ever” day or month involve hundredths of a degree, less than the margin of measurement error, often by activist scientists who have a history of doctoring data. They also ignore record cold snaps, like this Thanksgiving weekend in the U.S. Northeast.

Human activities certainly affect climate and weather to some degree, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that they have major (much less cataclysmic) impacts. Computer models say otherwise, but their record for accuracy is abysmal to zero.

Regarding guidelines to implement Paris, they would put the United Nations and IPCC in charge of our energy use, economies, lives and living standards – which would be disastrous. Fossil fuels still provide 80% of all U.S. and global energy; wind and solar provide less than 5% and only intermittently.

Forcing us to convert to wind and solar would increase electricity prices ten times over – and blanket areas many times the size of California with turbines, panels, batteries, and huge mines to dig out the raw materials needed for these “eco-friendly, climate-safe, sustainable” replacements.

Expensive, unreliable “renewable” energy would destroy jobs and economies, depress living standards, keep poor nations impoverished – and cause conflicts, famines and refugee migrations, as countries fight over increasingly scarce energy, food and resources.

Developing countries say they were promised $100 billion a year, for starters, plus free energy technology transfers. That’s the primary reason they signed the Paris climate treaty.

They’re angry that barely $3.5 billion has been put on the table, and rich countries say they cannot afford to pay more, especially if they’re also supposed to slash their fossil fuel use and thus economic prosperity.

The biggest snow job is any claimed devotion to transparency. Secrecy and deception are fundamental to the IPCC process. Anyone who questions the “fossil fuels cause climate chaos” thesis is silenced. So is anyone who suggests that data and evidence should determine policy – instead of computer models.

Katowice organizers are furious that a Trump Administration exhibit will highlight the remarkable benefits of fossil fuels. They vilify scientists who emphasize the sun’s vital role in climate change, or point out the many ways that temperature, storm, drought and other climate data are cherrypicked, “homogenized,” manipulated or even fabricated to drive alarmist narratives. They ignore the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 1970-1976 global cooling scare.

The real IPCC and Paris treaty agenda is simple. Blame humans and fossil fuels for virtually all climate and weather events. Control energy use, economic growth and living standards – lowering them in industrialized countries and limiting them in developing nations. Redistribute the world’s wealth and resources. And replace the capitalist economic model with a global green socialist system, controlled by the UN, IPCC and green activists.

Lack of energy, jobs, safe water and decent living standards is a far more pressing issue for poor countries than climate change. No wonder Asia alone already has some 2,000 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants operating or under construction. That’s nearly twice as much as total US summertime generating capacity.

Meanwhile, every Irish household faces new carbon taxes of $3,000 to $5,000 a year (!) unless their government imposes equally costly measures to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions and avoid paying punitive EU fines. To gauge likely Irish reaction to that, look to France – where tens of thousands have been rioting over President Macron’s plans to implement higher carbon taxes.

Climate insanity needs to be reined in. CFACT’s delegation to Katowice is working hard to get that process underway.

Craig Rucker is president of CFACT, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank devoted to sound science for both people and planet.

 
Edited by Aguila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.