Trump The tank Engine Goes Off The Rails

This is how we usher in a new era.

The observant will have noticed that over the last several days, during the closing six weeks of an intense campaign season, I posted as my Facebook banner an image representing each of the United States Presidents, starting with George Washington. There have been several interesting comments and observations made on these images. Special Thanks to Jim Crider, presidential historian, for his added insight on those Facebook posts.

This is the image that follows President Obama:

These are the official face shots of Congresspeople Waters, Sanchez, Conyers, Cummings, Neal, and Schiff. Depending on what happens over the next few weeks, these individuals are likely to be heading up the various committees of the House most directly involved with oversight of the POTUS. The pressure is on, and I’m not convinced Trump will be able to handle it. I thought he might quit the job, or have an aneurism, or something, when he was first elected. But he has remained isolated enough and oblivious enough for that to have not happened. Starting now, or really, when the new Congress is sworn in in January, we can resume the “How Will Trump Leave The White House” Bingo game.

2019 is going to be an interesting year!

The very first thing Trump did after his embarrassing defeat at the ballot box is captured in the following video. This came so close to Trump striding into the press gaggle and socking a reporter with his fist …

Can you imagine a mix of these reporters, a pro-Trump crowd, and this kind of encounter happening all at once?

While we’re at it:

After his ballot box humiliation, Trump loses it.

Spread the love

142 thoughts on “Trump The tank Engine Goes Off The Rails

  1. And now he’s fired Sessions (…”resigned at the request of President Trump”).

    What a worthless shitstorm our current president is.

    1. Its not all bad. Maybe the new AG will be pro-weed. I think Trump would get behind that.

      To me it is a state’s right issue and if a state has legalized pot, the Feds shouldn’t have any say in that (unless an organization is shipping pot out of state that is).

      I was very unhappy that Sessions went after pot in all the states who had legalized it.

      So maybe tomorrow will be a better day.

    2. Yeah, we know why Trump got rid of Sessions now. Honest (and intelligent) people know it isn’t about weed, despite what some clowns hypothesize.

    3. Look, We have an opportunity here. Trump gave the Mining people & Unions everything they wanted and the north voted BLUE big time. This has to get back to Trump, his ego will not tolerate this.. Also, Walz/Flanagan need pressure to Stop line 3 & this Mining crap now before the Unions start really crying. Lets not bash Trump but use him as a tool. Think..

  2. Another item just in:
    Rosenstein will no longer have oversight over the Mueller investigation — the acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, a critic of Mueller, will take over.

  3. So Trump is a schoolyard bully with a handful of cheap tricks. He strokes his turgid ego in public at every zoo and whistle stop, and the monkey houses go wild. And yet I hear people marvel that he’s some sort of master manipulator. Personally I marvel at the people who can fall for his guff and who climb aboard his ridiculous crazy train.

    I heard Justice Sotomayor talking the other day saying that they stopped teaching civics classes in public schools decades ago; and that there’s been a steady decline in civic life since then. This was news to me, and while I’m sure it’s not the only factor, I have to wonder whose stupid idea it was to do away with the practice.

    Re aneurisms: My understanding is that the main job of Whitehouse staffers is to tend to Trump’s hardened arteries and constantly reassure him that he’s a wonderful and very, very special little autocrat.

  4. The new Attorney General appears heavily compromised by Dark Money.

    Whitaker was appointed as Session’s chief of staff on September 22, 2017. Before that, he served for three years as the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), which describes itself as “a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government and civic arenas.”

    FACT has come under fire for its own lack of transparency, with the Center for Responsive Politics calling attention to FACT’s funding, which in some years came entirely from Donors Trust, an organization also known as the “Dark Money ATM of the Conservative Movement” and whose own donors include the notorious funders of climate denial, Charles and David Koch.

    Dark Money Paid New Trump Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s Salary for 3 Years.

    I wonder how well RickA does out of those sources?

    Surely, even a lawyer can not be that stupid to not grasp that Trump is wrecking the US.

    1. Surely, even a lawyer can not be that stupid to not grasp that Trump is wrecking the US.

      You just referenced rickA. he’s that stupid, although it’s clear his massive embracing of dishonesty helps.

    2. Lionel asks “I wonder how well RickA does out of those sources?”

      Lionel – thank you for asking.

      According to Wipedia: “In the politics of the United States, dark money is funds given to nonprofit organizations—and include 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions.”

      I don’t receive any money from “dark money”. If any dark money source wishes to send me money I would be happy to receive it.

      I sometimes think (to myself) – If just every American sent me $1 dollar I would be rich! Perhaps I should set up a go fund me page. Would you send me a dollar?

      As for Trump wrecking the USA – I don’t see it (yet).

      Things continue on much as they did before Trump was elected. True, more people are employed than just before Trump was elected – but is that a bad thing? True, the stock market is higher than it was just before Trump was elected – but is that a bad thing? True, most people’s taxes are lower now (as a percentage of adjusted gross income) than they were just before Trump was elected – but is that a bad thing? Not in my opinion.

      Not everything is better of course. We continue piling on to the national debt – and that is a bad thing. We need to spend less money as a nation. We need to spend within our means, meaning to spend only what we take in in tax revenue, and not to constantly spend 500 billion or 1 trillion more than we take in in revenue. If I were king, I would make that happen – but alas – I am not king! Why I am not even a government official. I am just an ordinary citizen who works in the private sector, doing my job and occasionally blogging (like now).

      However Lionel – you are certainly entitled to your opinion that Trump is wrecking the USA. I am sure many agree with you. Just as I am sure many do not. And that is what makes America such a great place to live! We get to disagree about things – and discuss them in public.

      I look forward to many future discussions about the topical issues of the day.

      My interests mostly fall to global warming and constitutional issues (like gun control), but I do enjoy discussing many issues.

      So thank you for calling me out and asking me about whether I receive dark money. Happy to respond and engage.

    3. As for Trump wrecking the USA – I don’t see it (yet).

      Oh. Boy.

      Mind you, this is the chap who thinks that there’s ‘evidence’ for ECS < 2C…

  5. Trump, the Republican Party, their associates, and their sycophantic lickspittles seem oblivious to the fact that in two years time, or at worst on six years time, the Democrats will once again have the Senate and the Oval Office. Then there will be a plethora of investigations of the breaches of procedure that have occurred, and whether there was criminal activity involved.

    Short of completely removing democracy from the US forever, justice will eventually be served.

  6. Oh. Boy.

    Mind you, this is the chap who thinks that there’s ‘evidence’ for ECS < 2C…

    Yup, and as his comments about the economy show

    * he has no clue about how the economy works
    * he seems to think that the US budget should be handled like a household budget — an idea that is a surefire indicator of a complete idiot

    But then we always know what his comments are worth (it’s always zero)

    1. dean and BBD:

      You guys might want to dust off your copy of the IPCC report.

      It still has a range for ECS which extends below 2 C.

      I call that evidence.

      What do you call it?

    2. You guys might want to dust off your copy of the IPCC report.

      It still has a range for ECS which extends below 2 C.

      I call that evidence.

      What do you call it?

      Obsolete. And you’ve been shown why a dozen times, which makes you a denier.

  7. “Things continue on much as they did before Trump was elected. ”

    All thanks to Obama, who reversed those trends inherited from Bush. Trump inherited six years of upward trends on employment, stock market, and has enjoyed the fact that those trend slopes have stayed the same. Which is, frankly, rather surprising considering how many employees have lost their jobs directly because of his games with tariffs.

    But this too shall end soon, as it always does when Republicans inherit rehabilitated economies from Democrats. Time after time after time. So, your premise that nothing has changed under Trump is almost certainly correct – and it means the economic shit will be hitting the fan soon.

    1. Roger:

      Maybe Obama inherited TARP from Bush and therefore inherited an economy fixed by Bush?

      By definition, each new President does inherit the economy that is what it is when they take over.

      And maybe the shit will hit the fan.

      I have been waiting for a recession for quite a few years now, so who knows what the future will bring.

    2. “I call that evidence.”

      I call it you making a selective choice and ignoring the rest of the evidence– your usual dishonesty.

      Just as you do with the lies about Acosta. It’s what you do.

    1. Lionel:

      It is interesting that you think Trump was being rude.

      I thought Jim Acosta was being rude.

      If I were President, I would strictly enforce the two question rule (custom) in the press corp.

      First, you have to ask a question – not make a statement or a speech. Jim Acosta violated that rule.

      Secondly, you can only ask two questions – not three or four or five. Jim Acosta also violated that rule.

      That is the definition of being rude – violating the rules set forth for giving a press conference.

      Any violation and I would no longer permit that press person into the briefing room.

      After a couple of banishments, I suspect the press corp. would get back to doing their job. Namely asking questions (not making speeches or statements) – two only.

      We will see how the press corp. shapes up after the Acosta banishment.

    2. It is interesting that you think Trump was being rude.

      He is rude. Appallingly so, all the time. Only a grade A lying prat would ever attempt to pretend otherwise.

      Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

    3. Deeper and deeper into the hole they go, you going with them.

      Yup. Infowars scum doctored a video and are peddling a false version of events.

      Wow. If this happened in the UK, heads would fucking roll.

      CNN should begin legal proceedings at once.

  8. What I find most troubling is that the White House just used doctored evidence (to buttress a false accusation of sexual impropriety) against a political enemy, who happens to be a member of the press.

    A nobody has said a peep about it.

    CNN should sue the living daylights out of them. And surely this is grounds for impeachment as Trump has a sworn obligation to protect the Constitution – which includes protecting the freedom of the press. Doctoring a video to suppress the press is prima facie evidence of an impeachable offense.

    1. What I find most troubling is that the White House just used doctored evidence (to buttress a false accusation of sexual impropriety) against a political enemy, who happens to be a member of the press.

      A nobody has said a peep about it.

      Bingo. The entire core should have repeated his question and left en masse if they were treated the same way.

      But Trump got an essentially free pass from the press through the campaign, being treated as an oddity without having any serious look into his behavior, lies, or background. It continues today (and, to the common trolls who defend him here. having the press point out his never-ending list of lies is not the same taking him to serious task).

    2. Roger:

      How did you hear about it if nobody said a peep about it?

      I ask because I have seen stories about it.

    3. What I find most troubling is that the White House just used doctored evidence (to buttress a false accusation of sexual impropriety) against a political enemy, who happens to be a member of the press.

      Yup — it was doctored by Paul Joseph Watson from Infowars. He froze several frames and doctored it to make it appear that acosta did what the White House spokeswoman’s lie say he did.

  9. Democrats got millions more votes – so how did Republicans win the Senate?

    The mixed result undermined Democratic hopes of a blue wave in an election billed as a referendum on Donald Trump and his presidency. In the 2010 midterms, by contrast, Republicans stormed into control of the House with a haul of 63 seats.

    But the latter was the result of partisan gerrymandering, which saw Republican-controlled state legislatures redraw congressional districts to favor the party in what conservative architects dubbed as Redmap, short for the Redistricting Majority Project.

    Classic how a repressive regime increases hold on government. Also looked into by the long running Greg Palast:

    Election expert Greg Palast: Thanks to GOP voter suppression, “Democrats may have effectively lost”

    Brian Kemp, Georgia’s secretary of state, purged 550,702 Georgians from the voter rolls in 2016 and 2017 — that is, canceled their registrations. I’m not guessing. After much resistance, Kemp turned over the names and addresses of each one of these purged voters in response to a threat of a federal lawsuit (which I filed in federal court in Atlanta and served on Kemp Friday).

    Of these, we are certain that 340,134 were wrongly removed, with no notice that they were purged. I want to thank Salon for your report, which went viral, letting Georgians know my foundation had listed all the names of the purged at GregPalast.com. Unfortunately, there were only a couple of days left to re-register, but it appears that thousands did so.

    That still leaves hundreds of thousands disenfranchised.

    1. Lionel:

      It doesn’t matter how many votes “democrats” got as a group.

      It only matters how many votes a particular candidate got in a particular race.

      News flash – the one who gets more votes in an individual race wins.

      You might want to study up on your civics a bit if you didn’t know this fact.

      As for the Georgia purging – I don’t know much about that as I live in Minnesota.

      However, I hope you agree that dead people should not vote – so when a person dies they should be purged from the voting roll.

      If the State has a rule against felons voting, I hope you agree that if you are found a felon, that you should be purged from the voting roll. If the State allows you to vote again after some period of time you can register again at that time.

      If the rule in a state is if you don’t vote in four (or whatever number) of elections you are removed from the roll, on the presumption you moved out of state – well that is ok with me. It is easy enough to check to see if you are registered prior to the election and if you vote in every election there is no problem at all.

      So I don’t see any of this as voter suppression – just cleaning up the voting rolls.

      I would like to see a system put in place nationwide to verify that nobody votes twice in the same election (whether in a state or in more than one state). This is against the law and there is really no good way to check on this currently.

      Hopefully you are not against the rule of one person one vote.

    2. rickA’s comments about there being no voter suppression is to be expected — he has never, it seems, uttered a bit of truth here.
      ” I hope you agree that dead people should not vote”

      As stupid a comment as any he makes: nobody thinks they should, but there also is no evidence that is a problem.
      Just as there is no evidence of massive (or moderate, or really, measurable) voter fraud.

      Yet he and the rest on the right see no issue with policies that “improve security” while hindering access to voting for the poor (voting locations in Florida moved to buildings inside gated communities on Tuesday), minorities (the issue with Native Americans), or simply massive purges that remove “accidentally” people identified as historically voting a with a Democratic tendency.

      Don’t expect any comment based on integrity or decency from him or the right in general: they’ve reach a comfortable point and don’t want others to have the same ability (because the poor and minorities are, in his and their, mind, icky).

    3. dean:

      From the post above we see 550,702 purged, but only 340,134 allegedly wrongfully purged. So it would appear that at least 210,000 were correctly purged.

      My guess is that most of the “wrongfully” purged were due to not voting and being purged without notice. But whether notice was given or not is up to the state. So the “no notice they were purged” is a made up issue.

      All people have to do is go online and check if they are registered before the election.

      Even if they don’t check and find out they are “purged” they can still same day vote or get a provisional ballot (depending on the rules in the particular state). So nobody is being disenfranchised, in my opinion.

  10. RickA

    It is interesting that you think Trump was being rude.

    I thought Jim Acosta was being rude.

    Well clearly in an age of Trump what is ‘being rude’ depends upon which side of the looking glass you are. The manner in which Trump addressed Acosta was damned rude.

    Acosta was doing his job, if Trump evades a question then a follow is a fair deal.

    Being an apologist for the real ‘terrible person’ in that room demeans you, but I guess it is hard for you to blacken yourself further so off base are you when it comes to decent thought and argument.

    1. Lionel:

      Acosta was not doing his job.

      He was not asking questions – which IS his job. He should ask a question and then write or air the answer – that is his job. It is not his job to make policy or proclamations or statements. Job #1 – ask a question.

      You might want to watch the video again, and make note of the statements versus actual questions.

    2. Of course rickA thought acosta was being rude: he was trying to hold a white president to account for something. You only hold black presidents to account for their actions — that’s the first rule of the moden right.

    3. Being an apologist for the real ‘terrible person’ in that room demeans you,

      No, it doesn’t — it perfectly defines how he always behaves.

      but I guess it is hard for you to blacken yourself further so off base are you when it comes to decent thought and argument.

      Correct — after his history of comments here, there is no way opinion of him could go lower.

  11. Acosta was not doing his job.

    Sorry, getting straight answers from a lying POTUS is very much his job. The fourth estate should hold their feet to the fire more often.

    Now, I have only seen the clips that show that Sarah Sanders lied, aided by doctored video. So I cannot comment on the number of questions issue but that is not what I am highlighting, so stop blowing smoke here. You are trying to change the narrative. Trump was still very rude.

  12. “As for Trump wrecking the USA – I don’t see it (yet).

    “Things continue on much as they did before Trump was elected. ”
    RickA

    The lying.
    The pipe bombs against politicians.
    The rising anti-Semitism, culminating in the synagogue killings.
    The winks and nods to white supremacists.
    The sleaze and corruption (The new Attorney General Whitaker is a welcome addition to the club: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/matthew-whitaker-trump-attorney-general-us-firm)
    The tax cuts for the rich.
    The vilification of the press.
    The denigration of women.
    The disregard for science.
    Ignoring climate change.
    Poisoning the environment.
    Replacing experienced senior level government workers with political allies.
    Denying healthcare to people who need it.
    Taking away food from people who, for various reasons, need assistance.
    Removing protections for consumers.
    Making America an international object of derision.

    The list could be longer. RickA even chooses to spray perfume on the fact that Bush left Obama an economic crisis that could have been worse than the Great Depression. So no, RickA doesn’t “see it (yet),” and he never will, because seeing it would threaten his sense of who he is.

    1. Or maybe I just see things differently than you do.

      My advice – don’t vote for Trump in the next election, vote for somebody else. If enough vote for somebody else (and they live in the correct states) maybe you can vote Trump out of office.

      Maybe you can get some of the lazy pampered democrats living on the coasts to move to the states which matter (the red interior states), where their votes actually count, instead of piling up 4 million extra democrat votes in CA (which don’t matter).

      Who knows – I might vote Libertarian again myself – hard to say.

      I just find the sky is falling rhetoric (Trump is wrecking the USA etc.) here funny, that is all.

    2. Or maybe I just see things differently than you do.

      Or maybe you’re just a lying apologist for a corrupt and dishonest President.

  13. RickA thought that Acosta was being rude. How touching. It appears that RickA would never think that his sexist, racist, misogynist, narcissist anti-environmental POTUS was ever remotely being ‘rude’. Clearly in RickA’s mind, groping women, bragging about it, calling poor nations ‘shitholes’ and other vile behavior is perfectly acceptable.

    RickA, you really are a clown.

    1. It is funny to read all the name callers here complain about Trump being rude for calling names!

      I personally choose not to name call.

      That cannot be said for many of the regulars here.

    2. You are a tone troll RickA.

      You (deliberately, IMO) wind people up behind a deeply offensive pretense of ‘politeness’ then when they finally snap at you, you whine about tone.

      The sly, manipulative malice of the tone troll is far, far worse than the justifiable anger they provoke.

  14. As an aside, given RickA’s blatant ignorance on just about any topic, we are at a juncture in world history where what we do is likely to determine our fate as a species. Trump and his corporate goons are not just wrecking America, but are tipping humanity into the abyss. Consider this fact. The greatest mass extinction event in the planet’s history – known as the ‘great dying’ – occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary. Most compelling evidence is that it was driven by a sudden intense increase in volcanic activity that drove atmospheric concentrations of C02 as high as 2000 parts per million. This kick-started a mass extinction event that ended up wiping out as many as 80% of species on land and 96% in the oceans. Now for the main point: the extinction event occurred as a result of an 8 degree rise in global surface temperatures over around 10,000 years. Let the time frame sink in: 100 centuries. Currently, humans are altering global surface temperatures at a rate some 30-40 times faster than occurred during the worst extinction event in the planet’s history. The US has elected a leader who denies AGW and who is doing everything to see that we speed up our descent into the abyss. And imbiciles like RickA swoon in their slavish adoration of the Trump cult and fail to see any concern as their country head inexorably from a plutocracy to a kleptocracy bordering on fascism.

    1. So it will only take 250 years to wait and see if we are really altering global surface temperatures 40 times faster than nature. Perhaps I will upload my consciousness into a computer and check back in 250 years and see if you are actually correct in your sky is falling fear of the future.

      Personally, I am not worried.

      I suspect CO2 emissions will not keep on the current path, for no other reason than we will run out of fossil fuel to emit (if you believe the science that is).

      I bet if the problem is really as severe as you think it is, humanity will build lots of nuclear power plants, electrify transport and take care of the majority of the problem in fairly short order (say over 50 years or so).

      If it gets really bad, we will just use pond scum to suck CO2 out of the air (like nature did).

      I am optimistic (by nature).

      You should have a drink and relax.

      If you want to help – invent a source of power which is non-carbon producing, but which is actually cheaper (on your bill cheaper – not counting externalities cheaper) than fossil fuels. Than people will want to switch out of the desire to save money (always a winning strategy).

      Or you can just worry if you want.

    2. RickA.

      This ground has been ploughed time and time again, and you always refuse to listen. Let me distill it for you.

      1) There’s enough fossil fuel to easily warm the planet to 6 or more degrees above pre-Industrial Revolution temperature, if humans are perverse enough to go this far. This will ensure a massive extinction of much of the biodiversity on the planet, and it will destroy global human civilisation.

      2) Natural processes, whether they be chemical or biological in nature, will not be able to draw out for centuries the amount of carbon dixode already in the atmosphere. The more we add, the longer it will take, and the damage will occur long before its back below 350 ppm.

      3) Active artificial draw-down of carbon dixode will come at a huge energetic cost. It’s simple thermodynamics. If it was so easy to fix carbon, to remove it from the atmoshphere, we wouldn’t need to oxidise fossil carbon in the first place – we could just blithely reduce the freely-available carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and keep it in an energy-storing/transferring cycle.

      This energetic cost has no plausible source except in science fiction, and we’re not about to tap into cold fusion or similar…

      4) The only response available to humans if they want to ensure a future for their decendants and for other species is to curtail fossil carbon use as quickly as possible, to moderate the individual demand for resources and energy, and to do whatever is possible to remediate the current damage. It won’t completely fix the planet – there’s already too much damage locked in to avoid a hard landing – but it might give the future a chance.

      5) Your argument from personal disbelief is a logical fallacy. You don’t support your case with scentifically-verified evidence – your statements are always mere personal belief – so your opinions carry no credibility. If you want them to carry weight you need to address the endless reference to hard science that has been repeatedly put to you. You never do, because that’s not the domain in which you play.

      You’re a fantasist.

  15. Or maybe I just see things differently than you do.

    People who are habitually dishonest and unabashedly bigoted do see things differently — and you fall into both those categories.

    Your misrepresentation of voter suppression could be used as a textbook illustration for the people who push it.

    1. What voter suppression?

      Don’t you have to wait and see how the lawsuit turns out before you conclude there was voter suppression?

  16. Two prominent conservatives have declared that Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker is unconstitutional:

    “What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”
    “Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.
    “He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.
    “But Professor Calabresi and Mr. Trump were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very significant consequence today.
    “It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html
    One of the authors is Kellyanne Conway’s husband.

    The other conservative critic is Andrew Napolitano, associated with Fox:
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/5859289849001/?#sp=show-clips

    One could, of course, object that Whitaker’s business past indicates that he’s not ethically qualified and that his ignorance of the rules related to his appointment indicates that he’s not professionally qualified. In any case, by appointing someone who is not Constitutionally qualified, Trump and his advisers have created a little mess for themselves and have again shown themselves to be unqualified and incompetent.

  17. It is funny to read all the name callers here complain about Trump being rude for calling names!

    The words used to describe you are accurate descriptions you’ve earned. Trump has no such concern for saying things based in fact.

  18. No Rick it won’t take 250 years because it is already happening. Current extinction rates exceed speciation rates by a ratio of between 100:1 and 1000:1. Since 1970 credible estimates suggest that the planet has already lost around 60% of species and genetic diversity. Biodiversity represents the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Owing to lags in the system, no matter what we do now with respect to fossil fuels the biosphere (or athrosphere as it should properly be called) is committed to an almost 2 degrees C rise in temperature thus century. No matt er what we do we will crash, but of course the longer that we procrastinate the bigger the crash will be. No amount of technology can wholly replace the critical ecosystem services that we will damage or destroy.

    Of course I expect brazen ignorance to ooze out of every statement you make because you are a lawyer. However, your inability or refusal to accept empirical science is beyond ignorant. You aren’t worried simply because the shit is truly going to hit the fan after you and I are dead and gone, so you merrily enjoy the last vestiges of human excess. At least admit this truth and stop your puerile forays into science and mirality. I am a scientist and, unlike you, I do care.

  19. RickA opines, “It is funny to read all the name callers here complain about Trump being rude for calling names! I personally choose not to name call”.

    We call it as we see it. You ARE a clown. And the difference is that Trump is the most powerful man in the world. He is supposed to have some moral authority, to be able to exhibit restraint and maturity. Yet hehas absolutely no tact whatsoever. When he called nations like El Salvador, Haiti and several in Africa ‘shitholes’ he should have been fired on the spot. He also ignores the role that successive US governments have played in creating and maintaining these ‘shitholes’ of which there is abundant evidence. It is telling in our warped society than a pathological narcissistic liar like Trump, who has become something a cult to disenfranchised Americans, can spew out whatever bile he likes and get completely away with it; by contrast, a radio commentator was recently sacked for suggesting on air that one of quarterback Tom Brady’s kids was a ‘brat’. Apparently this was considered intolerable to the station managers. By contrast, its seems like nothing that Trump says is beyond the pale. He can do and say pretty much anything he likes and have his vacuous army of sycophantic supporters braying for more.

    But I digress. The point I wish to make, RickA, is that your views are pretty well completely vacuous. Based on this, me and others describe you as we see you.

  20. RickA claims that he’s interested in climate science. He isn’t. He’s interested in in denying climate science and delaying whatever needs to be done to prevent climate change from becoming unmanageable – and by that I mean limiting, not preventing disastrous consequences, which are already inevitable. His main line of argumentation has always been that we don’t know what causes climate change, and he has never been able to point to any scientifically validated cause other than human activity. He is willfully blind to its experiential, visible, and measurable manifestations. He willfully ignores that the evidence is becoming more and more ominous and cherry-picks numbers from outdated reports. Here are links to compilations of recent scientific results and a recent paper that indicates more warming than previously acknowledged:

    Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
    http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
    Global Warming of 1.5°C:
    Summary for Policymakers
    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
    Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=0LHctviLEnc7TaHJ5FPFt9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPM6F5Tw–xUcDaVyo5KYP7_G9gTDd9jkXQCGLmYVcdiHz9wkwN0E6N2nDZlq4WDQgItGi5ylVScf0yzGnaEVfvjiMb4AD29fhh3xQR3z_DrC_cMrTVL7ZhdR6IhWWEdbaBw61pmJWfJX3nlJ6qnYm0eEGF290YDw0L29Qu1D0Zo3ti9EtUV0eTqh8Y9w5-oUx2QwN2d9ZfvrbV8VI76Jac_wGy8vU0HDJC8kZsxCODajiK5-Xh2PBJEpOF7dbTmkvK8ODrM9bJ3eN5ImeIhWrjP0vIbl2nqtTUikg1_4weT4qP8f2LvEjJJSkfhqn1kVaxfVy-C2rdIa6oJMIVwCfyNecf-DdNnbzpnoIZDvmLrYV8SUtG6OQC06lUSRazDY%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

    Not only does RickA distort climate change science and the evidence that climate change is occurring now, he also lies about our ability to deal with it:

    “If you want to help – invent a source of power which is non-carbon producing, but which is actually cheaper (on your bill cheaper – not counting externalities cheaper) than fossil fuels.”

    Unfortunately for RickA, externalities are something we wind up paying for, so leaving them out is a willful act of deception. There are numerous locations where “non-carbon producing” power sources are already cheaper than fossil fuels. A look at the American Wind Energy Association’s map of “Wind Energy’s Share of State Electricity Generation” shows that in 2017 Republican Kansas got 36% of its electric power from wind. Minnesota got 18%.

    RickA ignores all discussion of a carbon budget and in a revealing moment of
    What, me worry?, he saw this end to rising CO2 emissions:

    “I suspect CO2 emissions will not keep on the current path, for no other reason than we will run out of fossil fuel to emit (if you believe the science that is).”

    This is a bit like trivializing the Nazis’ extermination policies by pointing out that with fewer victims left, there would be fewer to kill. And I don’t think this comparison is unfair to RickA. He has already distinguished himself as complacent, ethical scum.

  21. I personally choose not to name call.

    That cannot be said for many of the regulars here.

    Oh poor ickle RickA does not like be called out for what he is, an apologist for the most awful POTUS ever seen, and I thought Bush II was the bottom. Who comes after Trump IT?

    Now on that Sanders BS, which it clearly is to anybody with a shred of honest decency.

    Despite the video’s dubious origins, Sanders doubled down in a White House statement on Thursday saying “The question is: did the reporter make contact or not? The video is clear, he did. We stand by our statement.”
    Paul Joseph Watson, who makes videos for Infowars, called claims that he had altered the video a “brazen lie”.

    But in an analysis done for Storyful, which describes itself as a social-media intelligence agency that sources and verifies insights for media, there are apparently several frames repeated in the video.

    The revocation of Acosta’s “hard pass”, which provides access to the White House grounds, is without any precedent in modern history. The CNN reporter has made a name for himself by asking forceful questions of Trump and other administration officials.

    White House defends doctored Trump-Acosta clip used to justify reporter’s ban
    The problem for your narrative is RickA, that the WH, Trump and Sanders have a history of not answering straight question, as reported on here:

    Sanders won’t say if press is ‘enemy of the people’ so Acosta walks out

    With Trump frequently referring to the press as the “enemy of the people,” Acosta pressed Sanders to say definitely whether she agrees.

    Acosta’s question came after Trump’s daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump said she does not believe the press is the enemy of the people.

    Sanders wouldn’t answer the question directly during the August news conference, and said the media went after her personally. “As far as I know I’m the first press secretary in the history of the United States who has required Secret Service protection,” Sanders said.

    Some of the notable moments CNN’s Jim Acosta and the White House have clashed

    Boo hoo! Poor ickle Sarah, spreads propaganda and then wonders why people don’t like her.

    Maybe if the First Amendment is being ignored here by the WH then the second should be too, reducing the risk of further massacres like the two most recent to add to the long list in just the last couple of years. Trump’s rhetoric has consequences of the deadly kind and he should be indicted for hate speech.

    As for Trump wrecking the USA which you don’t see yet, well that is due to your ideological blindness. What are the principles that the US is supposed to hold dear, if only in the selfish self referential sense, you know that making America Great again at the expense of every other living thing on the planet?

    In his instituting of the travel ban, his firing of Jamey Comey, his refusal to denounce the white supremacists in Charlottesville, his family-separation policy at the border, and much else, Trump has shown a willingness to throw his Administration into chaos to get what he wants. Not a day after his Party lost the House and governorships across the country, he’s done it again.

    Trump Fires Jeff Sessions, and Throws His Administration Back Into Chaos

    As with any regime built on nepotism and self interest the rot starts at the top, but those geese ain’t squawking according to you. What a strange bubble you inhabit.

  22. If the State has a rule against felons voting, I hope you agree that if you are found a felon, that you should be purged from the voting roll. If the State allows you to vote again after some period of time you can register again at that time.

    Wonderful, this ignores how felons are created, or what deeds are deemed a felony.

    With the huge and growing inequality in the US and many more now struggling below the poverty line it is easier to make the marginalised felons and thus purge the rolls. If only all the white collar crimes could be exposed and subject to due process.

    But we know this can never happen because the wealthy and powerful can always hire the most expensive and clever lawyers. Clever in the sense of being able to pull the wool over a juries eyes by diversion and distraction – remind you of anyone?

    Now this crass statement based upon either ignorance or insouciance:

    As for Trump wrecking the USA – I don’t see it (yet).

    Of course you don’t see it yet, you don’t want to see it. Like the homeless person you skirt on your way too and from, that invisible to you reminder that all is not well in Trumpistan.

    Some reality, this is only a small part of a UN instigated report which can be accessed via the ‘has issued a withering critique’ link in the article linked to after the chunk of text quoted here, one most pertinent statement emphasised:

    4.
    …its immense wealth and expertise stand in shocking contrast with the conditions in which vast numbers of its citizens live. About 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty.1 It has the highest youth poverty rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the highest infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. Its citizens live shorter and sicker lives compared to those living in all other rich democracies, eradicable tropical diseases are increasingly prevalent, and it has the world’s highest incarceration rate, one of the lowest levels of voter registrations in among OECD countries and the highest obesity levels in the developed world.

    5. The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries.2 The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality. The consequences of neglecting poverty and promoting inequality are clear. The United States has one of the highest poverty and inequality levels among the OECD countries, and the Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks it 18th out of 21 wealthy countries in terms of labour markets, poverty rates, safety nets, wealth inequality and economic mobility. But in 2018 the United States had over 25 per cent of the world’s 2,208 billionaires.3 There is thus a dramatic contrast between the immense wealth of the few and the squalor and deprivation in which vast numbers of Americans exist. For almost five decades the overall policy response has been neglectful at best, but the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship.

    Full report found via this article:

    Trump’s ‘cruel’ measures pushing US inequality to dangerous level, UN warns

    Swallow that.

    1. Yep – you will not be surprised to find I do not agree that basic health care is a right of citizenship. I don’t see that in the constitution (Federal or State).

      I don’t believe anybody has a right to food, shelter, clothing, health care – unless they pay for it. If you cannot pay for your basic needs, you have to depend on charity. Whether you get your charity from a food bank or soup kitchen or rely on the forced charity of a government aid program isn’t very relevant – it is still charity.

      People do have a right to K-12 education, based on the Minnesota state constitution for example – but not government provided college.

      Taking from the rich to give to the poor is a democrat idea, which totally falls apart when 1/2 of the population (or less) has to pay for 100% of the population – and we are almost there.

      Why work and be responsible for yourself (or your family) if you can be lazy, sit back and rely on the government to feed you, shelter you, educate you, get your healthcare taken care of and even entertain you (I demand a free government cell phone and tv dammit).

      Eventually, the people who actually pay the Federal income taxes (a little more than 50% of the country) will give up and join the people on the dole (a little less than 50% of the country).

      Eventually, 40% of the population will be paying 100% of the Federal income taxes – and the 60% will be saying the rich are not paying their fair share.

      Then, someday 25% of the population will be paying 100 % of the federal income taxes – and the 75% will be saying the rich are not paying their fair share.

      You can see where this is heading.

      Free government cell phones already exist.
      Soon free tv’s (if not already here).
      Then free internet access in your government provided home – internet will be argued to be a fundamental right.

      You can see how this will break down at some point (when I do not know). I know I am certainly sick of paying for myself, my family and some not insignificant number of total strangers.

      I wonder if a time will come when nobody has to pay for anything – because it will all be provided by robots?

      At some point in the distant future, I see robots mining, planting, harvesting, transporting, stocking, distributing, manufacturing and even making more robots. They could build you a house, make all the stuff which goes into it, and so forth. They could do every job which the vast majority of people now do (someday). This could be paradise for some (mostly democrats). To me, without the dignity of work, I wonder what people will do? I do worry about that future.

      Oh well – I will probably be dead by then.

      So yes – free shit from the government is actually a soul sucking bad thing, in my opinion. It leads to more people asking for more free shit and here we are.

    2. Yep – you will not be surprised to find I do not agree that basic health care is a right of citizenship. I don’t see that in the constitution (Federal or State).

      I don’t believe anybody has a right to food, shelter, clothing, health care – unless they pay for it.

      Easy to say when you’ve never been desperate.

      This vicious, myopic, Randian bollocks doesn’t actually fit with reality. Unless we like our reality all Hogarth and Dickens. I suppose that’s what ‘progressive’ means, in a way.

    3. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is a democrat idea

      No you stupid rightwing fuck. It is the foundation of a civilised society.

  23. <Why work and be responsible for yourself (or your family) if you can be lazy, sit back and rely on the government to feed you, shelter you, educate you, get your healthcare taken care of and even entertain you (I demand a free government cell phone and tv dammit).

    You really are a despicable piece of shit. You’re also incredibly stupid if you believe that all the things you claim the government supplies all the things you claim it does.

    Taking from the rich to give to the poor is a democrat idea, which totally falls apart when 1/2 of the population (or less) has to pay for 100% of the population – and we are almost there.

    No, we are not, not even close.

    Eventually, 40% of the population will be paying 100% of the Federal income taxes – and the 60% will be saying the rich are not paying their fair share.

    I’d like to think that you know that there is nobody in the country who purchases things who doesn’t pay taxes, and that the people you are insulting actually pay a larger percentage of their money in tax than you ever will. Given your history, it’s 50/50 that you know this and are simply adding more lies to your record here versus that you are stupid enough to have swallowed the crap from the right.

    Free government cell phones already exist.

    Sort of, although no tax money pays for them. It’s a continuation of a program started under G. W. Bush, although the idea of subsidizing phone service for the poor began under Reagan.

    Free government cell phones already exist.
    Soon free tv’s (if not already here).
    Then free internet access in your government provided home – internet will be argued to be a fundamental right.

    Since communication and internet are required for education (despite your incredibly stupid and hateful opinions), government does have a place in ensuring access to those. Conflating items needed for social advancement with entertainment is simply more right-wing ignorant bloviation.

    You can see how this will break down at some point (when I do not know). I know I am certainly sick of paying for myself, my family and some not insignificant number of total strangers.

    There is the foundational stupidity of the liberatarian: I used the social structure people who lived before me put in place to better myself (although there is strong evidence you’ve never bettered yourself morally), but now that I’m where I want to be I don’t want anyone else to have the same advantages I did.

    I wonder if a time will come when nobody has to pay for anything – because it will all be provided by robots?
    At some point in the distant future, I see robots mining, planting, harvesting, transporting, stocking, distributing, manufacturing and even making more robots. They could build you a house, make all the stuff which goes into it, and so forth. They could do every job which the vast majority of people now do (someday). This could be paradise for some (mostly democrats). To me, without the dignity of work, I wonder what people will do? I do worry about that future.

    Your ignorance is astounding.

    So yes – free shit from the government is actually a soul sucking bad thing, in my opinion. It leads to more people asking for more free shit and here we are.

    Yup — you are an asshole.

    Don’t ever try to say again that you aren’t on the “might makes right” wagon train. Worthless ignorant fuck.

    1. It certainly does explain the ease with which he lies about science, politics, and attempts to deny his basic racism, bigotry, and dishonesty. It’s almost as though he’s trying to be a worse person than the current president is.

  24. Oh well – I will probably be dead by then.

    You are nearly there being totally empathetically dead.

    Nice rant that takes no heed that many fall into poverty through no fault of their own.

    Bad choices I hear people like you chant. Maybe. But when a natural disaster brought on by climate change (even you should have noted an up-tick in frequency and severity by now with places formerly thought safe no longer that) makes you homeless for the umpteenth time and you no longer have insurance how you going to pay the school fees for your kids then?

    Anybody can be just one disaster away from having to make a stark choice between looking after an invalid kid, parent, spouse and working.

    What a god awful view of the world you have. My thinking of you walking past a homeless with nose in the air wasn’t far from the reality of yourself that you have exposed. You best just hope that the rarefied bubble you inhabit doesn’t burst.

    You may have human shape but human you are not.

    1. I give plenty to Catholic charities, the church and other charities, which feed the poor and operate shelters. Plus I actually pay taxes which fund forced charity (unlike many).

      But I am sure that won’t matter to you.

      To give you more ammunition to despise me I will tell you a story from my college days (early 80’s).

      I was crossing the street in Dinkytown by the McDonalds (Greg will know where this is) and a homeless guy asks me for a quarter – saying he has nothing. I said no and then told him I actually had a negative net worth and so had less than nothing (student loans). So there you go – I am mean person.

      Personally, I don’t like giving money to homeless people because too often they use it to buy booze or drugs. YMMV. I prefer to give money to a charity which will feed them or give them a bed on a cold winter night.

      You can do what you want with your money and I can do what I want with my money. That is the American way.

    2. …pay taxes which fund forced charity…

      Taxes are the price that every person pays to live in a civilised society. You know, the sort that has laws to ensure that everyone plays by the rules…

      Are you complaining that you have to pay for the privilege of civility, of having to maintain your portion of shared commons? You stinking, rank hypocrite. You want tohe privilege of being permitted to plunge into the economy to skim off as much wealth as will fill your net, but you don’t want to pay the price of admission.

      Typical conservative, self-serving, entitled scum.

      And yes, I called you some names. Diddums.

      I said no and then told him I actually had a negative net worth and so had less than nothing…

      Again, logical fallacy. You had – and still have – the advantage of easily-accessible capacity to earn, whereas the homeless guy almost certainly didn’t. That you took moral assurance and satisfaction in your response is just further evidence of your self-deluding proclivity for fallacious thinking.

      Education and privilege certainly don’t automatically grant compassion and wisdom…

    1. No, rickA is just a dick, liar — a despicable person all on his own, who is amazingly clueless about how the world works but is immensely immersed in conspiracies and dishonesty. Hell, he might even “think” that Catholic charities do good, and that there is enough money in charities to deal with all the issues those icky poor people choose to get themselves involved in.

      And as for his student “can you spare a quarter” story: there is not a single reason to believe any of it.

    2. oa:

      Nope. But if you don’t like them, maybe I should join?

      I am not a member of the NRA either – maybe I should join that also?

      Are you a member of antifa?

    3. I am not a member of antifa.

      Furthermore, unlike you I don’t contemplate what I do and don’t like just to be in opposition to someone else. That would be contrarious and petulant, Rick.

    4. I don’t know much about Antifa, but from what I saw at Charlottesville, they looked like some nerds who watched a few Kung Fu movies and decided that they could handle themselves — bless their hearts. Maybe I’m wrong, but either way I give them points for chutzpah, especially when you look at what they were ready to face down.

      I don’t mean the closet bigots, or the tiki torch douchebags; I mean the well armed, ‘roid raging, prison tatted, white-supremacist death-cult-mercenaries yearning for blood on their hands.

      You are right about one thing though, Rick. I don’t hold the Federalist Society in very high regard. Their aim is to stack the courts with right wing dogmatists as far as I can see — a sort of ALEC for judiciary. And honestly when I asked about it I I half expected that you wouldn’t bother answering. So now we know.

  25. Are you a member of antifa?

    Let’s see, the Federalist Society, dedicated to making the country a hellhole for minorities, women, and the poor, compared to “Antifa”, dedicated to opposing white supremacists, nazis, racists, and the general authoritarian scum popping up with the blessing of the current president?

    I can see why you think Antifa is bad rickA, because they oppose the hatred and bigotry you support, and demonstrate, so your implication that membership (or, I will assume, support) is bad is laughable.

    Federalists: take away rights and fair treatment
    Antifa: oppose people like the Federalists

    Yeah, you’re knocking the wrong group you scumbag.

    1. Federalist:

      Q. What is the Federalist Society?
      A. It is an organization of 60,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society. It was founded in 1982 by a group of law students interested in making sure that the principles of limited government embodied in our Constitution receive a fair hearing. Click HERE for a more detailed background.

      Antifa:

      The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action. Wikipedia

      I think the Federalist Society is good and I think Antifa is bad. They lose me at “militant”.

      Hey dean – break down any doors lately? Scare any women lately? Beat up any people lately? I think you are backing the wrong group.

      But this is what makes America great. You can support a group of lawbreakers and criminals (the lefts version of the KKK), while I can support a group of lawyers who support limited government.

      I used to live in Troy Michigan – how was devil’s night this year? I left Michigan in 1977 so have lost touch with what kids get up to in Michigan. Are you for or against egging peoples houses and cars? Starting fires and destruction of property? Since you like Antifa – I am guessing you love devil’s night.

  26. rickA, nobody believes your lies about antifa being a group of terrorists. I get it — the fact that they support people who aren’t white means, to you, that they are criminals. We know your racist and dishonest views. I can, however, see another reason you don’t like them, despite the lack of violence and breaking down doors they’ve done (contrary to your false accusation): they are “anti-fascist”, which it’s clear you view as being on the wrong side.

    Martin Luther King Jr. was described as militant too — that doesn’t tar him badly now does it (well, it probably does with you, as I can see you reading his name and thinking “no good uppity n***&&&r”).

    So you didn’t make any factual point, and your misleading crap about what the Federalists want, and work for, is ignored, as it should be.

    You continue to cement yourself as the despicable person you’ve already been identified to be.

    1. I pasted in information from the about page of the federalist society webpage and from wikipedia about antifa and you say it isn’t factual?

      But what about devil’s night? I am really curious.

  27. Your implications about Antifa being violent aren’t factual, no. And since we know the consequences of the things the bigots in the Federalist Society want to accomplish would be, painting them as benevolent is asinine.

    Your devil’s night comment is completely irrelevant to the points here — except that you’re the actions of a small group of people to paint a large group of people — completely dishonest, as usual from you, as is your notion that you are the only one opposed to it.

    I note that you’ve never spoken ill of the president’s history of sexual assault, or his support of nazis and white supremacists, or his racist comments, or his constant lies, or — well, it goes on. The one constant is that you continually side with people who want to remove the rights of the poor, minorities, women — anyone who isn’t rich, and if that means siding with someone who supports folks who shoot up churches other houses of worship, who think sexual assault is fine — well, then you’re down with that.

    Predictably shitty, that’s you.

  28. Way up there now BBD wrote:

    Bet Tricky Ricky will just blank that…

    WRT my inclusion of a UN report on poverty in the US.

    That is exactly what the RickA has done, not answered and created a diversion telling us that he is quite divorced from the reasons for poverty whilst using the oft pushed trope about the homeless using money given to buy booze and drugs.

    Now I would not be surprised that if RickA has had, for him, a bad day he pours himself a shot of his favourite whatever. So this hypocrite denigrates one on the margins of society who’s every hour of every day and night is shitty for buying something which eases the pain. In short he lacks empathy.

    To get out of that state of homelessness, appears to one in it to be a Sisyphean task, too many steps to even think of starting the journey to normalcy. Besides, there may be underlying causes, forms of PTSD such as from sexual assault or verbal abuse, which prompts a person to leave home, often at a young and vulnerable age. This quite apart from losing ones home from a disaster, or being forced out by landlords hiking up rents beyond reason – sometimes a ploy to remove tenants so that expensive condos, or other structures, can be built. All of this is never considered by those who lack empathy. There are names for such individuals and if a name fits then it should be used so that everybody understands the situation. Maybe socio-path would be an apt description here but I would not rush to a definitive categorisation.

    But the nature and origins of empathy are complex, the following article goes into that and also provides an explanation for the attitude of RickA and the behaviour of the Donald.

    Why a lack of empathy is the root of all evil: From casual violence to genocide, acts of cruelty can be traced back to how the perpetrator identifies with other people, argues psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen. Is he right?

    Evil being taken with a pinch of salt.

  29. RickaA

    while I can support a group of lawyers who support limited government.

    There is one problem straight off. Limited government is a government that would allow a free for all for the more powerful to trample over the rights and lives of those less able to defend themselves for reasons I have already stated – the disparate capabilities in lawyering up for one.

    A larger more effective government is required so that the environment and peoples health and well being can be protected and not compromised by poor and dangerous working conditions and practices, practices designed to maximise profits. Without adequate regulatory oversight then those who are injured at work may be forced to quit, if they are the sole breadwinner then the whole family suffers. One unfortunate side effect of this is that the women feel obliged to earn money any which way with a descent into the oldest profession in the world, becoming criminalised and removed from the voter role.

    This an example of the vicious downward spiral invoked by the social violence of the current administration, a social violence which you appear to advocate, or at least enable.

    Governments which have supported a more equitable society in the past have a history of enabling beneficial developments. The R of the R&D has historically been more the province of the public sector with the D being that taken on by the private sector once the risky tasks have been negotiated.

    This point is hammered home by Mariana Mazzucato in her book ‘The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths’;

    Interrogating the entrepreneurial state a useful TED Talk can be found for more enlightenment.

  30. And now our resident rightwing apologist is parroting the rightwing lie about Antifa.

    But the facts are, as usual, exactly the opposite of rightwing lies (emphasis added to illustrate just what a bunch of lying fucks rightwingers really are):

    There was a dramatic surge in white supremacist violence in 2017.

    White supremacists and other far-right extremists were responsible for 59% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US in 2017, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) Center on Extremism. The ADL’s annual report—“Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017”— found that the number of murders conducted by white supremacists US more than doubled last year, compared to 2016.

    […]

    Over the last decade, 71% of domestic extremist related killings in the US were linked to right-wing extremists, while Islamic extremists committed 26% of the killings, the report notes. An Islamic extremist committed the single deadliest incident in 2017: the New York City vehicle ramming attack killed eight people. Left-wing extremists and those who didn’t fall in the previous two categories carried out the other 3% of deaths. 2017 was the second year in a row in which black nationalists committed murders in the US.

    So the real violent, murdering, dangerous nutters are by a vast majority, rightwingers. Not Antifa in particular or the extreme left in general, but rightwing extremists, currently emboldened and enabled by Trump’s race baiting, hatemongering rhetoric.

    Just another example of how the US is suffering under Trump’s maladministration.

    1. This needs repeating:

      Over the last decade, 71% of domestic extremist related killings in the US were linked to right-wing extremists, while Islamic extremists committed 26% of the killings, the report notes.

      Yes, you read that right. Rightwing extremists murdered almost three times as many people in the US over the last decade as did Islamic extremists.

      Let’s let that sink in for a moment.

      So where is the Homeland Security crackdown on rightwing *terrorism*? Rightwing *terrorism* that is almost three times as deadly as Islamic terrorism.

      Weird, isn’t it?

      Almost as weird as the fact that you almost never hear the words ‘rightwing’ and ‘terrorist‘ in the same breath. Despite the fact that rightwing terrorism killed nearly three times as many Americans over the last decade.

      Why do we never hear these murdering lunatics correctly described as terrorists? Could it be because they are white?

  31. RickA once again demonstrates that he does not understand how climate change works.

    So it will only take 250 years to wait and see if we are really altering global surface temperatures 40 times faster than nature.

    Which is one hell of a malformed statement, why?

    Because it conflates different quantities – rise in CO2 concentrations with temperature rise and the scalar 40% for 40 times, and the ‘faster than nature; is ambiguous nonsense.

    In reality it has been recently determined that the oceans have built up far more heat than hitherto understood. This has grave consequences.

    Think of oceans and heat as the flywheel in the climate system. Since even pre-industrial times humans have had an effect on the amount of energy being stored by that flywheel. Over recent centuries that rate of accumulation of energy has accelerated even more so in the last few decades.

    The hazard is that there is enough excess energy in the oceans which when transmitted to other parts of the Earth’s systems will continue raise surface temperatures even if atmospheric CO2 levels are pegged at today’s values, for the heat balance of Earth to space is still weighed in favour of the Earth. Even should atmospheric GHG levels be reduced in real terms that excess energy in the flywheel will still be there to continue elevating temperatures.

    Consider that the disparity in heat capacity of water to that of a mixed gas such as air is hugely magnified by the sheer differences in volume between oceans and atmosphere.

    Also as ice across the globe, especially at the poles continues with accelerated melt rates, with a number of factors involved in this not least temperature rise but also that ocean heat, another factor being albedo change from particulates and algae increasing on the ice cap surfaces.

    As ice is lost so holding temperature rise down will be more difficult because of the amount of latent heat that changes into sensible heat across the phase change, it is a factor of 80. At the vapour – liquid phase change a factor of 540 is involved.

    If you have not already, then I strongly urge you to watch James Balog’s ‘Chasing Ice’ which was put out as long ago as 2009, so there really is no excuse for being unaware of the true situation WRT the human effect on warming, frankly those who almost ten years later still try to make out that climate scientists themselves are still in doubt are lying.

    At the very least watch this TED talk:

    Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss. Note I have put Balog and his Extreme Ice Survey in front of you before.

    The result is Climate Change Is Happening Faster Than Expected, and It’s More Extreme

    1. Even if Resplandy is an over-estimate – and NL’s predictable fussing does not actually demonstrate this – then the existing OHC data are more than enough cause for immediate emissions abatement.

      And Rick, we have established beyond any doubt that:

      (a) You don’t have a fucking clue about the science
      (b) You don’t give a shit about the scientific evidence
      (c) Because you are an ideological denier

      So you should in future restrict your posts to repeating your worthless ‘opinions’ and cease all pretense of engaging in a scientific discussion. Those of us who have wasted significant amounts of time trying to educate you have given up. You are untutorable because you are sunk deep in denial.

    2. Another overestimate bits the dust.

      Lying again, Ricky:

      The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements.

  32. Maybe not.

    https://judithcurry.com

    Oh FFS you never learn do you!

    Now there is a name, own it.

    This from a thread at Real Climate, note the reference to thermal inertia and then read my post referring to ‘flywheel’ again.

    AB – The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system1. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 2007 (2,3). However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007 (4,5). Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20 × 10^22 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 (6)—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases (7) and the thermal component of sea-level rise8.

    Curry has history and should not be followed blindly. Who to believe? Active climate scientists still publishing in accredited journals or a has been, self immolated with deceptive rhetoric, one time scientist.

    What yiu have not grasped is that this finding only makes a dire situation look worse. If it could be disproved anyone not yet in the septuagenarian club will face a hostile Earth. You clearly have no idea of the express coming down the track, or maybe its a coal train.

    The world is currently witnessing mass migrations from zones already hit by conflict and climate change, this will only get worse.

    The US itself will see millions displaced as sea levels rise, wildfires become bigger and more destructive and climate change triggers seismic responses. Melting ice sheets relieve pressure on the crust which will readjust. Indeed the central area of the USA is still witness to seismic events from the retreat of the ice age ice sheets.

    Along with displaced people comes the fracturing of utilities in the effected areas, unleashing conditions likely to see an up-tick in vermin moving home spreading disease. Disease which will take hold and spread faster through a population weakened by dietary deficiencies and lack of shelter. Medical supplies will be disrupted and some unavailable at any price because of difficulties importing and transporting because of flooded ports, airstrips and knocked out atomic power stations. Fuel pipelines will become casualties of these varied climate-geological disruptions .

    The very wealthy of course can bunker down and adopt a siege mentality with an arsenal to protect them. Snag is even fresh air and water may be in short supply. No amount of money will fix that.

  33. Now there is a name, own it.

    Oops I edited the statement and forgot to keep ‘the name’.

    So it should have read:

    Oh FFS you never learn do you! You are an ignoramus. One who is wilfully ignorant.

  34. Re. the voter suppression that RickA denies:
    “The United States has a long history of denying the vote to whole groups of people— especially women, people of color, and the poor. Poll taxes, literacy exams, and property deeds have been replaced by voter-I.D. laws, polling-place closures, and state-sanctioned efforts to curtail voter registration. Most recently, this has been a Republican strategy to grab and hold on to power, one best explained by the conservative operative Paul Weyrich when he was plotting Ronald Reagan’s path to victory, in 1980: “I don’t want everybody to vote . . . our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” ”
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-voting-machine-errors-reflect-a-wider-crisis-for-american-democracy

    A Slow-Motion Coup in Tennessee
    For years, Republicans in this state have attempted to undermine the foundation of democratic government: the vote.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/opinion/a-slow-motion-coup-in-tennessee.html

    “This year, I voted in Texas for the first time. It was complicated.

    “Registering to vote was simple enough. The post office had a form I could print out with my personal information and change of address. Because I don’t own a car, I had to Lyft to the Bexar County Elections Department and turn in my registration. Although I was more than a week ahead of the deadline, the sheer number of new registrations meant that I was not in the system until weeks after the deadline had passed. I was able to check online and see that I was registered, although my registration card did not arrive until several weeks later.

    “Obtaining an ID was another matter. Texas has one of the strictest voter-ID laws in the country. It is very selective about which IDs are valid—the Republican-controlled state legislature determined that military IDs and gun licenses are fine, but employee and student IDs are not—and to vote I would have to obtain a Texas state ID. I could get a driver’s license if I turned in my license from Washington, D.C., from where I’d recently moved, and as long as I brought proof of citizenship, proof of my Social Security number, proof of identity, and proof of residency. So I brought along my passport, W-2s, bank statement, insurance statement, phone bill, and D.C. driver’s license. The employee at the Texas Department of Public Safety who signed the piece of paper that would serve as my temporary license was named “Borders”; he made a joke about not crossing him.

    “Texas billed me $35 for my new license; with transportation to and from DPS and the Bexar County elections office, the cost of my registering to vote in Texas topped $80.* For anyone who is missing any of those documents and would need to obtain them, the price would be far higher. I work from home, so I have the privilege of being able to visit these facilities during working hours, and I can afford both the cost of transportation and the necessary documents. I live in the city, so public facilities are not difficult for me to get to. For people with more traditional jobs or who have less disposable income, these barriers stand much higher.

    “Moreover, Texas has all but banned voter-registration drives, which is how many low-income and minority voters are registered, through laws that bar anyone but a deputy voter registrar in a particular county from registering voters in that county. If they tried to register a voter in another county, even they would be breaking the law. From trying to register to casting a ballot, it is hard to vote in Texas, maybe harder than in any other state.

    “That’s by design. Although Republican dominance of Texas long predates these new voting restrictions, their implementation is part of a national GOP strategy of maintaining political control through scorched-earth culture-war campaigns that target historically disfavored minorities and the disenfranchisement of the populations whose growth and influence could challenge that control. It is a consciously counter-majoritarian strategy for a party that wants to maintain its power indefinitely, even if most of the American electorate opposes it.”
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/somethings-happening-in-texas/574873/

    Before an election in Denmark, all eligible voters are sent a card informing us when and where to vote. We don’t have to register or present any ID other than the card we’ve received. Our voting percentage is normally >80%. I’ve never heard of any problem concerning voter fraud, and no party here pretends that it’s a problem.

    If I’m not mistaken, RickA mentioned the importance of removing dead people from the voter roles. I wonder if he can give examples of “dead” people voting, especially to such an extent that it would justify infringing on the rights of considerably more legitimate voters.

    1. One of the many horrifying aspects of American ‘democracy’ as viewed by non-US citizens is the gerrymandering and other GOP-organised voter suppressions.

      Minority rule by any party means that democracy has been subverted. As far as I can see, this is now the case in the USA.

    2. Here is the classic example:

      https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/vote-rigged-elections-history-fraud-stolen-trump/

      Chicago again (and more recent):

      https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/

      Given big data and modern databases and computers, there is no excuse to permit dead people to vote. The voter rolls need to be reviewed and made accurate – in all 50 states.

      I want every legal citizen over 18, who has not had their privilege to vote revoked for a felony and who wants to vote to be able to vote. But I don’t think it too much to ask that nobody be able to vote twice (or thrice), or vote dead people or let people who are not legal citizens vote. It does happen and it should not.

  35. Just when you think rickA couldn’t possibly post anything more stupid than he already has, he posts the bit about fraud in Chicago to support his argument.

    From that article:

    A lot has changed since those days, said James Allen, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners spokesman. The Illinois Voter Registration System examines the state’s voter rolls to look for people registered more than once, and it checks records to remove people who have died.

    An electronic roll book keeps people from voting twice, Allen said, and there’s a paper trail for every ballot that’s cast. Poll watchers still keep an eye on voting places.

    In the last 10 years, there have been 9 million ballots cast, Allen said, and only 10 of them were referred to the State’s Attorney’s Office for suspicious activity. None of that resulted in the change of any election outcome, he said.

    From his “more recent” post.

    In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.

    Jim Allen, a city election board spokesman, says a majority of those dead voters were most likely clerical errors, involving family members with the same names and addresses.

    “This is not the bad old days,” Allen says. “There are just a few instances here where a father came in for a son, or a neighbor was given the wrong ballot application and signed it.”

    So no elections were changed, and fewer than 300 fake votes were detected out of — I’ll let rickA and his fake background in engineering do an envelope calculation to estimate the number of votes.

    Nobody wants dead people to vote rickA — your implication that you are the only person against it is as false as everything else you assert. The difference is your dishonest claim that voter suppression doesn’t exist, your dishonest implication that fraud is out of control, and your weird belief that people who have been to prison and served their time should not be allowed to vote (I know that’s a law in many locations, and it’s stupid).

    Back to your links: maybe you should read them to see whether they really do support your point, and when they don’t, don’t post them.

    1. I was asked to provide examples of dead people voting, and I did so.

      It doesn’t matter how many dead people vote or whether it changes an election result or not.

      It should not happen at all.

      My point is fully supported – dead people are voting and they should not.

    2. I was asked to provide examples of dead people voting, and I did so.

      Triffic effort, RickA.

      But what about the bollocks about Antifa? Vs the vast rightwing murdering terrorist elephant in the room?

      Simple test of good faith: admit that the predominant US political violence problem is the extreme right. Which in the last decade killed nearly three times as many Americans as the Islamist nutters.

      Mic over to you.

    3. “It doesn’t matter how many dead people vote or whether it changes an election result or not.
      It should not happen at all.”
      RickA

      No, it shouldn’t happen, but how should we react if we find rare, isolated instances that usually show no sign of intent and have no effect? It seems to me that RickA is less interested in the real insignificance of this anomaly than in exploiting it to limit the rights of probable political opponents. Certainly, there’s no kind of proportionality in what RickA seems to support. For every “dead” voter he’s willing to make voting insurmountable for thousands of others.

      Which leads me to his support for permanently disenfranchising felons. Others have pointed out that factors such as race, poverty, a lack of opportunity and a skewed system of justice that benefits the haves determine what we define as a felony and who is charged and convicted. Another factor is that many felonies are committed by young people, and we know that the parts of the brain related to morals and ethics aren’t fully developed until one is well into ones twenties. Modern justice has gone beyond the proportionality of “an eye for an eye” and, while maintaining standards of accountability, it also combines a humane and (also economically) common sense interest in rehabilitation and avoiding recidivism. RickA, who pretends to be a Christian, and whose religion is based on the life of a militant rabble-rouser who preached forgiveness and, by the way, was executed for sedition, believes only in retribution and at least symbolically hasn’t moved beyond “lock ’em up and throw away the key.” He would have convicted felons wear a scarlet F for the rest of their lives. RickA is one who would gladly cast the first stone.

    4. Each state has their own rules on whether a felon can vote. In Minnesota “A felon can re-register to vote once he has fully served his sentence, including parole, probation, or other requirements, such as restitution.”

    5. But what about the bollocks about Antifa? Vs the vast rightwing murdering terrorist elephant in the room?

      Simple test of good faith: admit that the predominant US political violence problem is the extreme right. Which in the last decade killed nearly three times as many Americans as the Islamist nutters.

      You keep claiming to be ‘for the USA’ so why not a peep of condemnation for the most dangerous terrorist threat to American citizens of the last decade?

      If you won’t explicitly condemn the extreme rightwing terrorism then I am going to be forced to conclude that you tacitly endorse it.

      So where do you stand?

  36. In 2009 there was an intelligence report on right-wing extremism and right-wing violence. Republicans objected, and it was retracted.

    “Since 2008, though, the body count from numerous acts of violent right-wing terrorism continued to rise steadily with very little media interest, political discussion or concern from our national leaders. As this threat grew, government resources were scaled back, law enforcement counterterrorism training was defunded and policies to counter violent extremism narrowed to focus solely on Muslim extremism. Heated political campaigning by Donald Trump in 2016 pandered to these extremists. Now, right-wing terrorism has become the national security threat which many government leaders have yet to acknowledge.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/21/i-warned-of-right-wing-violence-in-2009-it-caused-an-uproar-i-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.94082c599525

    U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism.
    Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.
    “For two decades, domestic counterterrorism strategy has ignored the rising danger of far-right extremism. In the atmosphere of willful indifference, a virulent movement has grown and metastasized.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html

    As Adam Serwer repeatedly has shown, Trump has done nothing to oppose the uptick in right-wing violence, but has in fact encouraged it.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/author/adam-serwer/

  37. My point is fully supported – dead people are voting and they should not.

    Typical. You get caught with proof that your rants and implications are bogus and you lie about it.

  38. “I think the Federalist Society is good and I think Antifa is bad. They lose me at “militant”.”
    RickA

    Has it ever occurred to RickA that the American colonists who rebelled against the British Crown were not only militant but also guilty of sedition?

    1. True.

      And if Antifa overthrows the USA government, they can say they were the good guys after they install their new government. Since I support the USA government I consider Antifa the bad guys.

      Everybody is free to have their own opinion about Antifa (and the Federalist society).

    2. “True.”
      RickA

      RickA acknowledges that militancy alone is not a disqualification. Having acknowledged that, he resorts to a straw man.

    3. RickA

      Stop lying about the imaginary threat presented by Antifa. That self-serving rightwing fiction was debunked at the weekend.

      Stop pretending the vast rightwing murdering terrorist elephant in the room isn’t there.

      One last chance for you:

      Simple test of good faith: admit that the predominant US political violence problem is the extreme right. Which in the last decade killed nearly three times as many Americans as the Islamist nutters.

      Or be shown up for the lying rightwing troll you appear to be.

  39. Or be shown up for the lying rightwing troll you appear to be.

    I wonder how RickA will excuse Trump’s failure to visit the place where thousands of of Americans faced something a darned sight more hostile than rain. A place so hallowed in US history that they named a WW2 aircraft carrier, the USS Belleau Wood CVL-24, after the site of a major battle. Indeed there was another warship by that name on the US Navy strength more recently .

    Of course Sarah ‘Goebbels’ Sanders spins it another way:

    Trump ditched cemetery visit to avoid causing Paris traffic jams, says Sanders

    Really!

    To think US veterans enabled this creatures ascent to the White House, in a sane world that should be another sector of his base that he has totally pissed off.

  40. Everybody is free to have their own opinion about Antifa (and the Federalist society).

    Nobody has any issue with that. The issue is your lying about the consequences of the federalists’ actions and flat-out racist lying about Antifa.

  41. Since rickA is all for votes and votes being counted, I’m sure he’s 100% against the stand of the president’s argument that vote counting in Florida needs to stop before the recount is done.

    1. dean:

      I am actually 100% against Trump’s argument to stop the recount.

      Of course this is a state’s right issue and the state of Florida has rules in place which triggered the recounts. They should continue and follow all the laws on the books.

      The Feds have nothing to say about it (other than tweeting about it of course).

    2. Okay, that’s it.

      You have now ignored multiple requests for you to disavow rightwing terrorism.

      Upthread you asked for evidence that you were a bigot. Consider it provided.

  42. RickA , now that you have summarily dismissed the Nature paper currently being corrected, perhaps you can go through the empirical literature in an attempt to dismiss the literally thousands of studies reporting significant ecological effects as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

    Of course I am joking. Don’t bother. You are a clueless dolt and an ideologue. You couldn’t care less about the science if it slapped you in the face. You camouflage your clear political bias with kindergarten level science.

    Another of your recent posts here had me on the floor. You expressed outrage that apparently dead people appear on the electoral register, while you turn a completely blind eye to the obvious fact that your democracy is a complete farce anyway, given the corporations control every lever of government in the United States. It’s a plutocracy, morphing into a kleptocracy, and to anyone with half a brain that should be blatantly obvious. Clearly, to right wing lawyers like you, it isn’t. You are concerned with voter irregularities when the whole system has long been hijacked to serve the ruling elite. Dear on dear you are one naive guy.

    1. Jeff:

      I am glad you found my post funny.

      I find your conspiracy ideation funny also.

      Could you give me an example (or two) of something the government did which demonstrates a lever being pulled?

    2. STILL refusing to disavow rightwing terrorism in the US I see, Ricky?

      Well, there can be no more room for doubt.

      You are clearly and indisputably a tacit supporter of murderous race-hate-mongering bigotry.

  43. Dear on dear you are one naive guy.

    You hit hard and on target with that post Jeff but I think you let this example of antisocial personality disorder off too lightly. I don’t think naivety is involved here, like many lawyers he is only interested in the win never mind any such notions as fair play and truth.

    1. And he’s a fucking unpatriotic bigot who won’t speak out against rightwing terrorism that kills US citizens.

      I don’t think he should ever be allowed to get past this, do you?

    1. It’s about time someone with a bit of clout called Trump to account for publicly wiping his arse on the Constitution.

      Funny how all the ‘pro USA’ and ‘Constitutionalist’ types haven’t uttered a peep, isn’t it?

      It’s almost as if they are traitors hiding behind a pretense of patriotism even as they trample the Constitution underfoot.

    2. It’s regrettable that, given the impressive history of US journalism at its best, it is left to Al Jaz to throw punches like that.

  44. You are correct, Lionel, but Rick’s brazen ignorance begins and ends with naïveté. Look at his latest post – he dismisses the patently obvious truth that his country is a plutocracy. Sheldon Wolin wrote eloquently about this is his books, describing the corporate coup det tat as a form of ‘inverted totalitarianism’. The expression of this totalitarianism is not expressed through a charismatic revolutionary leader or party but through the anonymity of the corporate state. The fact that Trump has stuffed his administration from top to bottom with corporate lobbyists and lawyers makes this patently obvious – or should. But it is nothing new. The US government has been in thrall and beholden to the corporate lobby for years.

    And our intellectually challenged lawyer thinks its conspiracy ideation.

    Naive and stupid too.

  45. So they didn’t follow the Sherrill rule, which requires written notice.

    I imagine one of two things will happen.

    Either Trump will cancel all press briefings, both by himself and by his press secretary (at least for a couple of weeks). That would be petty, but . . .

    Or Trump will order his staff to follow the rules and give written notice and a chance for Acosta to object. Ultimately he did violate the rules, so I would imagine if they give due process they can take away his hard pass.

    A third option would be to move the briefings out of the white house to a different location. Kick them all out – but not really, because you are just moving them all (including acosta) to a different briefing location.

    Personally, I would just not hold press briefings for awhile AND I would provide written notice and terminate Acosta’s hard pass correctly. After all, there is no requirement that the White House do them – it is just a convenience and a custom.

    1. Every time you comment from now on is another occasion on which you fail to disavow rightwing terrorism in the US despite being caught in your lies about Antifa and educated about the real menace of rightwing terrorism in the US.

      It never ceases to amaze me just how utterly shameless you rightwing scum really are.

    2. Looks to me that Acosta didn’t break any rules. That’s just a lie to cover for the fact that Trump violated Acosta’s Constitutional rights.

      And the ‘pro-USA’ guy here is sticking up for those attacking the Constitution.

      Utterly bizarre. It’s almost like he’s a traitor.

    3. “Ultimately he did violate the rules”

      Really, you’re pushing a line of shit that’s patently false? What an ass.

  46. Sherrill rule

    Well being a Brit and nor knowing WTF that was I did some look up and

    I found this which tells that the rule doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Deeper and deeper.

    The more you look the more you realise that Acosta was doing his job, not being put off getting an answer to tough questions.

    1. “The more you look the more you realise that Acosta was doing his job, not being put off getting an answer to tough questions.”

      Yeah, the breaking the rules line was tossed out for the lowbrow trump supporters to latch onto and think “Yeah, this administration isn’t taking any crap from the lamestream media” — and we know rickA is as lowbrow as they come.

      Apparently asking serious questions and not accepting blatant lies at a press conference now is now considered poor behavior. Odd coming from a party (Republican) and people (rickA) who build their entire power structure and lives on lies. (But remember, in eyes of folks like rickA, this president has to be right because he’s not black like the last guy.)

  47. When a male baboon has been bested in a physical contest by another male, the loser will then pick a winnable fight with a baboon lower in the baboon hierarchy. This helps the loser counter the testosterone loss he just suffered. Testosterone economics. Trump has taken a big hit from the American people, who did not support him in most of the proxy mid term contests. So he first picks on female correspondents of color , knowing they will be too polite and too stunned to fight back. Then he works his way up to Jim Acosta. He picks Acosta to field and not answer one of his questions, and then has his lacky intern step in on cue to take away the microphone. However, the gambit backfired a bit, as people genuinely like Jim Acosta, and a judge appointed by Trump stood up for him.

    Trump just went to California, where he exposed his lungs to a good snootful of fire haze. This has probably diminished his breathing capacity a tad, maybe enough to lower his blood oxygen level a tiny bit, and make him just a little more cranky and irrational than usual. His stupid comments on raking the forest is in line with that. . Oh yeah, and that Mueller thing is still circling in the background like vulture shadows. On the one hand Trump is acting like an emotionless yet somehow vindictive sociopath through all that he has been going through, on the other hand, he is showing signs of stress cracks.

    Trump has, since his childhood, shown himself to be unable to accept that he can be wrong about anything. The amount of emotional energy he must have to use to maintain this charade must be extraordinary. It is probably beneficial for helping maintain his testosterone level stay elevated in the baboon battles he engages in every day. But his job is not to maintain his testosterone level. His job is to be President of all the people of the United States. He really needs to be evicted from office.

    1. SteveP says “He really needs to be evicted from office.”

      Very tough. You need 2/3’s of the Senate to vote guilty for that to happen.

      Perhaps you should hope he doesn’t run in 2020 or loses in 2020 instead?

      Or maybe you could thump your chest and bare your teeth at Trump?

    2. Yeah, he does need to be removed, but the problem is that

      * the Republicans spent 8 years coming up with false problems with President Obama’s presidency — that he was harming the economy (when the opposite was happening), was weakening the military, failing in the war on terror (and somehow getting bin Laden wasn’t a plus, probably because Bush had declared that it wasn’t important), etc., but now that Trump has harmed the economy with his tariffs that doesn’t matter, nor does his spending, etc. If you lie and say the previous president was doing things to harm the country but never act on them, you won’t act on them when the new president really does harm the country
      * as we know from rickA’s comments, it doesn’t matter how bad trump does or how much he lies, all that’s important is that Trump is white and his doing his best to harm women, minorities, and the poor in general — the very people rickA and other supporters of trump view as “icky” and disposable

      Trump just went to California…

      and cared so little for the situation there that he couldn’t remember the name of Paradise one day after he visited it. Add that to his “the fires wouldn’t be so bad if they had taken better care of the forests” bullshit and intelligent people have more evidence of just what an unqualified POS trump really is.

  48. Trump is a very good president, judging by Baboon standards. He has sired numerous offspring by various attractive mates. He rarely gets bested in contests. He never backs down, even when he is blatantly wrong. He makes intimidating noises that he may or may not be able to back up. His is a very good Baboon president.

    Trump is a lousy president judging by the standards of the time of the founders, IMO. He is not truthful. He is vindictive. He is vain. He is not loyal to all the American people. He does not look out for the general welfare, only the welfare of corrupt generals and captains of industry. He sucks up to the world’s worst villains. He appears to want to be a monarch. He takes credit for an economy that failed after Bush and has steadily improved since Obama. He berates and abuses the good people of the FBI and the CIA. He really needs to be evicted from office IMO. Perhaps the House Intelligence Committee and Mueller will bring enough wrong doings to light to make the eviction process quick and easy. Or not. But he really needs to be evicted from office.

    1. Trump and the right were livid over the ‘scandal’ of HRC using personal email for government work. Fake investigation over fake investigation followed (fake because, after the first call, they knew nothing wrong had occurred, it was all part of a smear campaign).

      I’m sure they’ll do the same thing (endless investigations, with endless accusations) now that we know Ivanka was doing the same thing.

      Actually, I’m not sure of that at all. It won’t happen. I am sure the scummy supporters of the president will show up in all over the news cycle “explaining” why it isn’t the same thing at all.

  49. According to Wikipedia “After advising her father in an unofficial capacity for the first two months of his administration, she was appointed Advisor to the President, a government employee, on March 29, 2017. She takes no salary.[3] Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.[87]”

    I don’t know the facts – but for emails before march 29, 2017, I don’t see a problem, since she wasn’t an official government employee prior to March 29, 2017.

    After March 29, 2017 I do see a problem.

    I don’t know if she sent any government work emails after March 29, 2017 – but I bet we will find out.

    I am sure there will be an investigation. I am sure the House will investigate after Jan. 20th 2019. Maybe they will dock her pay (grin).

  50. And right on cue the local trump liar trots out crap to defend Ivanka .

    The point isn’t whether there is an issue with what she did — there probably isn’t (other than her being completely unqualified for her work). The issue is that it is the same non-issue as it was for Bush’s Sec of State, and should have been for HRC. The only reason it was an issue (repeatedly, non stop) for the right (and liars like rickA) is party affiliation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.