Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Stupid Accusation or a Stupid Crime Just Took Place.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I ever heard, and the most irresponsible. You are the President of the United States in waiting, which means your role is supposed to be to enforce the law, and what the law says is simple: the government has to prove what it says. What Trump is saying is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. If you think about it, that is.

Trump ran a campaign against one of the more professional, and technologically adept political operations of all time. The Clintons are pros at this. They are the kind of people who, in the course of a campaign, would typically be focusing on each and every district with a laser focus.

He's now claiming that the growing, astonishing popular vote lead is the product of voter fraud. Now, I remember the Bush Administration trying to make this accusation work, trying to get out the United States Attorneys to prosecute these cases. Even with their best efforts, with hypothetical conspiracies that would have to employ thousands, the total of successful voter fraud conviction of any time never got north of more than a hundred or so. That's in a country with three hundred million people, roughly speaking. Now, roughly 134 million people have had their votes counted as of this writing.

Of those, 64.65 million voted for Clinton, 62.42 million voted for Trump. Trump alleges that the gap is explained by people voting illegally. Or put another way, roughly one to two percent of the votes that came in, at least, were by people ineligible to vote.

Now, the conspiracy theory goes that Democrats did this, that they went out and got people who weren't qualified to vote registered, so they could show up on election day, and tip the balance. This is also their claim for the victories that Obama enjoyed, one by five million, the one before by about nine. That's roughly 3.8% of the vote in one case, and 6.87% in the other. That is a truly staggering number of people to vote fraudulently. Number of cases of proven, in person voter fraud in all that time? 31 in a billion. That's two powers of ten out of out of ten places, and that's since 2000, not just recently!

Trump has offered no concrete evidence, just a belief. When Bush tried the same thing, he came up dry. But they use this to support measures they claim are meant to suppress voter fraud. What they really do is suppress voting they don't like. Many more votes are being lost to the GOP's efforts to combat a virtually non-existent problem, than to the problem as it really stands.

That should give you pause, when the President and other politicians talk about illegal votes they can't prove.

But let's be blunt here! If what Trump said happened happened, it has to be one of the most stupidly arranged frauds ever!

Obama managed to completely overwhelm both McCain and Romney, both in popular vote and electoral college votes. Critics who irresponsibly allege fraud, large scale fraud in these elections, can at least point to a winning result, one you could argue an organized, professional system perpetrating that fraud would create. Somehow, though, the voting conspirators neglected 2010 and 2014, elections which neutralized much of the Obama Administration's agenda by giving the GOP the House and Senate.

Somehow, with Hillary Clinton, the only candidate who came close to beating Obama in 2008, this fraud scheme managed to fail spectacularly. Not only that, but it managed to get a popular vote victory in all the wrong states! Would the Clintons, with Obama's help, somehow fail to realize which counties, which states they'd have to win?

This is a ridiculously incompetent conspiracy. If Trump is right, this conspiracy of voter fraud somehow managed to deliver the majority of our governing institutions into the Republican's hands.

I think the simpler explanation is Trump is wrong, and he barely won, and doesn't want to admit it. I think the same thing is true about the GOP. I think, despite appearances, that the Republicans are on unstable ground. The demographics tell us that within my lifetime, America will become majority minority. The children of today are already that way.

Diversity is not simply some watchword, it's a demographic reality. Americans are diverse, and getting more so with every year. It's pure nostalgic hogwash to think that you can maintain America as it was. It will change, and no amount of tyrannical insistence on getting your way regardless of who is elected or what the majority believes will change things.

The high water mark for Republican Presidents in the last 20 years was George Bush's 2004 re-election. Since 1990, that is the last time a Republican won by a majority, and it was the smallest re-election majority of modern times. The division in the GOP is also nothing new. Ross Perot's two third-party efforts were fed in part by many who might have also been Trump voters this time.

Republicans are trying to deny a basic pattern: They're running out of conservative white people. Bit by bit, they are losing this political war by attrition. Bit by bit, the forces of diversity are winning by simple dint of numbers. The irony, I think, is that much of this is the consequence of a system that strangled the white working class, not with taxes, not with regulations, not with handing people with welfare, but with steady increases in the cost of living paired with greater and greater burdens of debt. You can't expect people to have bunches of children if they're paying much of their income to student loan companies, to start families when you're shipping their jobs overseas. The Republican party is selling out it's own demographic advantages to it's political masters!

But you try telling somebody their party is committing slow political suicide, the rough equivalent of strangling itself with its own underwear.

It's easier to think there's a terminally stupid conspiracy to put millions more votes in States that won't help them win, than it is to believe that the Republican Party is on the verge of being unable to elect a President even when it puts forward an extraordinary, expectation defeating effort like this. Put another way, the President's Party lost seats in both chambers of Congress. It loses two or three more in the Midterms, as unlikely as that might be, then they'll lose the majority in the Senate.

And then, what happens if this has the effect some think it will?

The Republican Party has created a situation which stack districts, both state and national, in a way that artificially inflates majorities. The Wisconsin case is particularly galling because Democrats could get 55% of the vote, yet still end up the minority with that map. I know that in strict terms, fairer maps might not deliver Democrats the majority, but it's worth noting that it's about the environment of political changes as much as anything else.

To the degree that Republicans have propped themselves up, two things are true: The Republicans retain a buffer that means losses of seats, as occasionally happen, don't affect them so much. Also, though, they can keep fielding absolutely ideological candidates because they've corralled enough of their loyal voters in order to make sure that the primary vote determines the general election vote.

What if that relationship is less certain? What if the districts become more vulnerable to Demographic shifts? What if the districts are structured so that Democrats are no longer confined merely to urban areas? What if the number of seats they have in their corner are reduced, such that swings in voter sentiment become more dangerous to whatever majorities they might create?

The Republicans would have to moderate themselves more, for one thing. They'd end up with more urban voters in their districts, and the Democrats with more rural ones. They'd have to face up to the Demographic reality, at last, rather than continue to ride the Southern Strategy down into obsolescence.

Democrats would be moderated, too, but the truth is, they didn't have so far to go to begin with. Much of their radicalization is a product of Republicans trying to marginalize them.

What conservatives here need to ask themselves is one serious question: can they compete without rigging the system in their own favor? Bit by bit, I believe simple Demographics are going to reshape the GOP's battlegrounds. They already have, delivering Colorado and Virginia into Democratic hands, where once they were reliably red states.

Right now, though, Republicans seem to be in a state of denial. They want to believe that they are the most popular party, but in the last twenty eight years, they've only officially won that distinction twice. You can talk about a silent majority supporting you, but at a certain point, it's likely that you're not looking at a silent majority, but a minority that occasionally shows up in the right places to give you a victory by technicality.

It's time to admit that they need other people's help. It's time to realize, also, that they've spent decades alienating the very people they need to give them that help. Electing Trump not only deepens that denial, it breaks the chasm between them and their potential voters that much wider.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 7:45 AM
Comments
Comment #410588

Perhaps he “acted stupidly”. If you could admit it, it isn’t the first time a president jumped to conclusions, yes?

Why won’t you consider neither party is popular, Stephen Daugherty? At least Donald Trump gave us something to look forward to. That would be a different political attitude. Hillbilly didn’t give us anything to get excited about. She droned on about the same crap they’ve been dishing out to us for the last 40 years.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 1:00 PM
Comment #410589

Sanders, an old socialist, just gave Hillary a run for her money in 2016. So much so that Hillary had to move way left to pander for the votes of his supporters.
Trump pretty much ran on the same positions Bill Clinton, a democrat, ran on in the 90s. Give or take.

Democrats have rejected the positions of Bill Clinton and have embraced the far-leftist positions of the likes of Bernie Sanders.
Republicans have rejected the a lot of the moderate right-wing positions they once held and have embraced many of the moderate left-wing positions of Bill Clinton.

But you think it is the Republicans who need to moderate more?

With such selective regard and understanding of the facts, it’s no wonder the far-left ‘protests’ and riots every time they don’t get their way.

Posted by: kctim at November 28, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #410593
Trump pretty much ran on the same positions Bill Clinton, a democrat, ran on in the 90s. Give or take.

Excuse me? When did Clinton promise to cut taxes for the wealthy or threaten to provoke trade wars? When did Bill Clinton rail against political correctness like Trump? When did Bill Clinton promise to roll back environmental regulations in order to subsidize fossil fuels?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 3:28 PM
Comment #410597

Warren,
The class warfare BS is a leftist thing, so it is one of the things they differ on.

The 90s Clinton’s and dems talked about lowering trade barriers, wanted fair rules at home and abroad, wanted to protect from fraud and dangerous instability, wanted to advance American commercial interests abroad, and wanted to ensure that the new global economy is directly beneficial to American working families. When it comes to the environment, they touted not trapping business in a tangle of red tape.
All things Trump has blabbed about one time or another.

Political correctness was in its infancy back then, not the disease that is dividing and killing our country today.

Both ran on cutting taxes for working Americans. Health care reform. Not tolerating illegal immigration. Supporting the police. Reinventing government. Limiting the influence of special interests. Strengthening our military. Fighting terrorism. Fixing our cities. Putting Americans first.

It’s not hard to find something here and there where they differ, but there is no question that their overall ‘populist’ type of campaigns were similar.

Posted by: kctim at November 28, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #410599
but there is no question that their overall ‘populist’ type of campaigns were similar.

This is completely delusional. Clinton might have given immigration enforcement or rolling back regulations lip service, but neither was crucial to his candidacies.

Clinton ran on free trade. Trump ran against it.
Clinton ran on a promise of universal healthcare. Trump ran on repealing it.
Clinton ran on balancing the budget. Trump ran on increasing the deficit.
Clinton ran on raising taxes on the wealthy. Trump ran on lowering taxes on the wealthy.

The list goes on and on.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 4:38 PM
Comment #410603

Ho, Ho, Ho…what great fun to watch, see, and hear the Liberal/Socialist/Progressive fruitcakes pontificate about elections, fraud, and policies.

The recount by Jill Stein and the Green Party borders on insanity. She can’t win even if pigs could fly and Hillary didn’t lie. It is a money making endeavor by her and being supported by the Clinton Crime family for other reasons.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #410606

Warren,
I got most of that info from the 1996 Democratic Party platform. Compare that to Trump’s website:

Trump ran on free BUT FAIR trade.
Trump ran on reforming healthcare. (Unconstitutional universal healthcare is a liberal idea that was rejected by true Democrats in the 1990s.)
Trump ran on ‘stopping the deficit’ ‘knocking it down.’
Trump ran on reduce taxes across-the-board, but also ensuring that the rich ‘pay their fair share.’

How can you say they are nothing alike when you don’t know either of their positions?


Posted by: kctim at November 28, 2016 5:39 PM
Comment #410611

Michigan won by Trump…TRUMP…my God…has Hell frozen over? The Lefties will have to relocate to the last outposts on the coasts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 6:26 PM
Comment #410612

Hypocrisy reigns supreme at the Clinton Crime Network headquarters.

“Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Marc Elias announced over the weekend that the Clinton campaign would participate in the Wisconsin election recount even as he actively fights against recount efforts in a North Carolina governor’s race where the margin of victory was less than 5,000 votes.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/marc-elias-hypocrite-election-recounts/

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 6:52 PM
Comment #410614

Weary Willie-
Maybe he seems like some breath of fresh air to you, but he reads to me like a parody of a bad politician in an old movie. He’s a breath of fresh air the way inhaling as you climb into a musty old attic is. I’m not nostalgic for that. I don’t think the position magically gets less corrupting if you didn’t start out as a career politician. I think his behavior regarding his companies now, and his awarding of a major cabinet post to a billionaire woman with no education experience tells us that he’s quite corrupt enough, thank you.

You guys aren’t the crusaders that are going to destroy corruption in Washington, you’re the folks who keep on normalizing government corruption, keep on normalizing using government power to make businessfolk wealthier. What do you think all the regulations you’re relaxing, all the enforcement you’re crippling is actually aimed at?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 7:11 PM
Comment #410617

Why did you call her a “billionaire woman”, Stephen Daugherty? What does being a billionaire have to do with doing a job. I’d say being a billionaire, such as Trump, adds to his credibility, not takes away from it.

I think you’re playing the class warfare card again, because your talking points have nothing to do with anything. You’re just throwing the class card against the wall to see if it sticks. Didn’t you learn anything from this election?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #410622

Weary Willie-
Because Mrs. De Vos is literally that. And no, she didn’t earn the money herself. She’s legacy married to legacy. She’s got absolutely no experience in the field, and it’s not even certain she’s stepped foot as a student in a public school.

So, what qualifies her to be in charge of policy on this matter, other than her partisan advocacy for funneling public money into private pockets for private schools and charter schools?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 9:33 PM
Comment #410625

Royal Flush-
Hmm. You want hypocrisy? Try opposing an audit of the vote when you’re claiming that millions voted illegally.

I have to wonder… how does he think he can get away with telling you people implausible BS like that? He thinks you’re pretty gullible, to think that millions of votes could be falsified without the kind of conspiracy sophisticated enough to put those votes where they count.

Y’all shoot your mouths off, the instant somebody yells voter fraud, regardless of the lack of real evidence. Is it just that difficult not to just ditto what Limbaugh or Alex Jones tells you? Oh he who said that Obama was demonically possessed and stinking of Brimstone?

Has the GOP settled into a permanent state of psychotic anger at their decline?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 9:44 PM
Comment #410626

Her many years of experience in the matter in Michigan and Florida qualifies her, Stephen Daugherty. Why does her billions disqualify her?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 10:10 PM
Comment #410627

She is an advocate for a certain kind of education, not an expert in it. Her basic qualification, as far as I can see, is here zeal for a certain agenda. But government should not be the play thing of the rich and powerful, because we all pay the consequences when that “toy” gets broken.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 10:24 PM
Comment #410628

With tens of millions of illegal aliens, many states require no voter ID (i.e. California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.), there is plenty of opportunity for voter fraud.

Democrats like it that way.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2016 1:44 AM
Comment #410635

Your hypocrisy is showing, Stephen Daugherty.

According to you Obama’s Commerce Department is “broken”, Obama’s State Department is “broken”, his Homeland Security Department is “broken”, along with the Interior and Energy Departments. All broken because they are headed by people with more money than they deserve, right?

Let’s hear you condemn these people with the same fervor you condemn a Republican nominee.


Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker
Net worth: $2.4 billion

Secretary of State John Kerry
Net worth: $198 million

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson
Net worth: $11.2 million to $51.5 million

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Net worth: $6.6 million to $25 million

Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz
Net worth: $5.4 million to $18.1 million

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/richest-members-obama-cabinet-article-1.1861803

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 9:37 AM
Comment #410636

“It’s time to admit that they need other people’s help. It’s time to realize, also, that they’ve spent decades alienating the very people they need to give them that help.”

You mean it’s time they stop pandering to people as Americans, and start pandering to people based on what demographic group they are placed in.

Have to say that is sound advice. Especially in today’s world where equal treatment = alienating people, and special treatment = justice.

Posted by: kctim at November 29, 2016 9:41 AM
Comment #410639

dan-
This conclusion is extrapolated from a very small subsample of the survey, with even the authors of the study questioning the reliability of any conclusion drawn from it.

Weary Willie-
There is no conflict in a Commerce Secretary being a business woman and entrepreneur. John Kerry had plenty of foreign policy experience to justify his selection as Secretary of State. Jeh Johnson was a lawyer for the military and the defense department. Sally Jewell worked as CEO of Outdoorsman-oriented retailer REI and was long involved in conservation causes. Ernest Moniz is a Nuclear Physicist. My objection is not based simply on the fact that she’s rich, my objection is based on the fact that this, and her advocacy without practical experience, is the only reason DeVos is being chosen.

I don’t mind, have never minded rich people. What I mind is this attitude that rich people are somehow inherently better or inherently wiser than the rest of us. Not all ways of becoming rich involve being virtuous. One prominent one just involves being pushed out of the right womb, like Trump was. As a grandchild of a fairly well to do man, I understand there’s a difference between that kind of luck and virtue. My Grandfather was constantly improving himself, a virtue he passed on to his children. Trump just seems to assume that he’s got something inherently special about him, and doesn’t realize that if he doesn’t watch himself, people are going to remember his predecessor, a man of modest means at birth, much more kindly than him. Wealth provides people with the opportunity to do more than others- more good, and more bad. Trump just doesn’t seem to care when he does more bad, and uses his wealth to get away with it. He’s surrounding himself with similar people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #410640

kctim-
Don’t be disingenuous. You’ve been pandered to your whole life. When somebody talks about illegal immigration, they’re talking about brown people taking the blue collar work. When they talk about those scary Muslims, they’re pandering to scared Christians, especially the fundamentalists whose ignorance about the separation between church and state lets them fear that somehow, in a majority Christian country where the law explicitly forbids elevating any religion to state religion, we’ll all be put under Sharia law and get our heads cut off.

When Reagan talked about States Rights, and Nixon about the Silent Majority, they weren’t talking to black people or brown people. When Trump described our inner cities as war zones, he wasn’t talking to black people, who would know that, as much as televisions shows different, the typical inner city doesn’t resemble Aleppo.

He was talking to people like us, suburban and rural folks. He was talking to your generation, folks raised in a time when normalcy and integrity of community were often explicitly protected by racist exclusion. When he says, “make America great again,” he’s hearkening back to the days, long gone, when white men could just act like they ruled the roost, and not have to worry about watching their tongues.

What I’m talking about isn’t about pandering to special ethnic interests. It’s about not pitting America against its own minorities, not creating special NEGATIVE treatment for those who aren’t white, aren’t Christian, aren’t straight, aren’t identifying with the gender of their birth. You don’t see that. You see everything entirely through the lens of a society built around YOU, and those who look like you, so any understanding and acceptance of these OTHERS, you interpret as special treatment, special rights.

The trick is, any remedy of our longtime supremacy is going to come at our cost, and that ain’t easy. Learning to talk to people like equals, rather than give them s*** and arrogantly assume they should have to take it, isn’t easy. But if you want others to respect you, respect has to be given in turn. You can’t ask the average black person or Latino to go against their own interests, let you trample their rights, their votes, and then turn around and expect that they won’t vote against Republicans. They will do what they think is best for them. If you want them to assume that voting Republican helps them, you have a lot of work to do, because years of their policies pushes have come at these people’s expenses, making hard lives harder still.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 11:42 AM
Comment #410642
Trump ran on free BUT FAIR trade.
Clinton’s definition of fair trade includes NAFTA. Trump’s does not.
Trump ran on reforming healthcare. (Unconstitutional universal healthcare is a liberal idea that was rejected by true Democrats in the 1990s.)

Universal healthcare has been a part of every Democratic Platform going back to Truman’s Fair Deal. From the 1992 Democratic Platform: “All Americans should have universal access to quality, affordable health care—not as a privilege, but as a right.”

Trump ran on ‘stopping the deficit’ ‘knocking it down.’
Last I checked, Trump’s promises amount to increasing the debt burden to well over 100% of GDP.
Trump ran on reduce taxes across-the-board, but also ensuring that the rich ‘pay their fair share.’
Every tax plan released by Trump reduces the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans by unprecedented margins. That’s a radically different definition of “Fair Share” from what Bill Clinton supported. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 1:35 PM
Comment #410643

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I have to wonder… how does he think he can get away with telling you people implausible BS like that?”

I know you don’t get the “inside” joke Stephen. That’s OK…we get it. Ask someone else to explain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 3:06 PM
Comment #410649

Royal Flush-
Sadly enough, it’s a serious question. Why do you believe we want to destroy the economy, when we’d lose our jobs, too? Why do people buy into Sharia law as being even a remote possibility in America? Why do people somehow think the vast majority of a major scientific discipline has been corrupted by whatever politics or rich people they choose to believe could do it? How did they get turned against a Free Market, open society advocate like George Soros, a fervent anti-communist, dedicated capitalist?

Implicit trust is being given to the information coming from the GOP, which is all the sadder for the fact that many people don’t trust the GOP establishment anymore. They know they’re being lied to, but they don’t grasp what the biggest of lies they’re being told are. It’s not stupidity that’s the problem, it’s bad information, and a culture that encourages deliberate disregard of alternate information that might serve as a check to dishonesty and ignorance from their primary sources.

The bubble is about to get hammered, because however fiercely you believe something, reality will prevail over illusion in cause and effect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #410650

…reality will prevail over illusion in cause and effect.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 5:12 PM

Sure hope so Stephen. We had the illusion of health care change that would help lower costs and premiums. Failed

We had the illusion that by electing a half-black president we would prove that the majority of the nation are not racist and that the president would restore good race relations. Failed

We had the illusion that adding $8 or $9 Trillion to the national debt would purchase some increase in jobs and pay for the hurting middle class. Failed.

We had the illusion that Hillary would keep her campaign promise of accepting the election results. Failed.

We had the illusion that everyone in America was for law and order. Sanctuary cities proved it false.

More…?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #410651
Why do you believe we want to destroy the economy, when we’d lose our jobs, too?

If I remember right, after the 2008 robbery the only people who didn’t go into the great recession were the people in Washington D.C. and surrounding counties.

That sure doesn’t sound like they were in fear of losing their jobs, too, Stephen Daugherty! They needed to destroy the economy so they could get back in power and pass their health care law, the only law they focused on the entire two years they had control!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #410652

Why would you insist on only career politicians working in our government, Stephen Daugherty. Have you ever had a fresh set of eyes come in and see the obvious that every one else had been staring at for days and not seen?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #410660

Royal Flush-
1) Not lower the rate, slow it. Among other positive results, increases are less than the draconian ones from before. You’ve just forgotten. One of the hazards of solving problems is you end up spoiling people who forget what things were like before the problems were solved. So, they’ll unsolve them! (see lifted restrictions on Wall Street)

2) It wasn’t Democrats who failed, it was Republicans, particularly in the leadership, who decided that treating the President who won by 9 million votes (not -2 million) like he had no mandate. You folks expect respect for your President, now you’re going to get the respect you gave our man.

3) You brought that debt on us. If we had stuck with the program as we had it under Clinton, we’d be much better off at this point. But you INSISTED on tax cuts, and you’ll insist on them now! My prediction is nothing complex here: Trump’s proposed tax cuts will add trillions more to the deficit, and you’ll blame it all on the first Democrat who has to rein in that deficit after Trump! Your tax policy is about avoiding any responsibility whatever for the finance of government, using that, rather than genuine displeasure with government services to break them down and shunt the money to your contributors.

4) Why should she be held to accepting the results when your fellow is accusing her of Election fraud? She didn’t initiate it, but if Trump sees fit to question the validity of her votes, she will have to set the record straight.

5) Now this is where your logic twists itself in knots. For one thing, it is entirely within the law for state and local governments to forgo whatever federal funds are tied to that program, and as the tenth amendment provides, leave the enforcement of federal law to federal authorities. The knot you’ve twisted yourself in? The Republican governors who refused the medicaid expansion under Obamacare used the same legal principle.

Now, here are your illusions:
1) That a billionaire that has so much money would be immune to the attraction of corruption. He’s already heading towards serious conflicts of interest, and is using his office to the advantage of his businesses. He may even be in violation of the Emoluments clause.

2) That being an outsider, he’d be immune to Washington influences. Guess what? Reince Priebus, RNC CHAIRMAN, will be his Chief of Staff, and many Washington insiders, especially the ones that bought into his campaign early, will be in his adminstration.

3) That he would fulfill many of his promises. In many cases, he was talking about things that weren’t even in his power. Presidents can’t order prosecutions, much less convictions and punishments! Oh, and the Wall? His spokesman is saying that some of it will be a fence, and so far we haven’t heard much about Mexico paying for it.

4) That his people will be able to just wipe away Obamacare! It’s been the law of the land for six years now, and there are millions with policies, millions who took advantage of the medicaid expansion. If you think you can reintroduce denials for pre-existing conditions, etc. You’re going to have people very angry, very quickly.

5) That you really can step on that Third Rail of Social Security and Medicare Reforms that create defined benefits without losing everything. Or that it’s any different than saying, “I hate Obamacare, and I’m going to inflict it on everybody now!” Because Obamacare, at it’s core, is RomneyCare, and RomneyCare is privatized, mandated healthcare.

Put another way, you’re just flaming hypocrites. You never stood for anything by opposing Obamacare, you just Opposed President Obama because you saw that he had the potential to be very, very transformative.

It didn’t matter that to do this, to make sure he failed, you crippled much of the recovery. You kept millions of jobs from returning so you could showboat about the deficit (The deficit you created.) The cynicism of your efforts, I think, is what’s going to destroy this GOP Majority, in the end. You’ve committed yourselves to some pretty stupid things in the name of opposing Obama, but many people aren’t going to forget that conveniently when you try to go back to business as usual.

Too many folks, like you, don’t realize that it’s a mistake to take everything your politicians promise at face value, and for the better part of a decade, promises have been all you’ve had. Like anything strictly in people’s heads, it can drift from reality, mutate, become like those bizarre orchids that need Moths with footlong tongues to fertilize.

You can’t really get creative, because all the expectations have been carved in stone, and everything has been declared inviolable party dogma. To so strongly oppose Obama and the Democrats, you’ve given up all your options on how you will lead, at least the ones that won’t burn your political capital very quickly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 6:46 PM
Comment #410661

Sorry Stephen, your conclusions about Republicans and Conservatives doesn’t match reality.

Consider the gains made by “us” in government in cities, counties, states and the national government. Our political philosophy is ascending while the Leftist/Progressive/ Socialist is declining.

We are in touch with the nations concerns while those you support are in touch with the “id” of the social malcontents.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 7:02 PM
Comment #410662

Weary Willie-
People like you need bad guys. You need to set yourself in the court of angels, and cast everybody else into the pit of pandemonium.

No politician worth their salt wants to kill jobs. It’s bad for them. They may do it accidentally through incompetence, but even Trump hopes he’ll create jobs. Now what they might do is get in the way of the other guy getting credit, and that, I feel, is what your friends have been doing, but without trying to be constructive in the other direction, since that would leave Obama with some credit.

If it’s not racism that motivated them, then it was something, really, really, ugly that was little better. If your idea is, if the people choose the Democrats, we can sabotage everything they do, just keep this in mind: you set the precedents, create the atmosphere for equally destructive, and potentially equally harmful retaliation in return. The reason people didn’t do these things for decades before wasn’t that they weren’t innovative enough to think of it, it’s that they weren’t so politically bubbled off that they would think it wouldn’t come back to bite them in the ass. These Designer District GOPers are all too willing to operate as if the GOP can walk between the raindrops forever. Won’t work that way, unfortunately, and unless you can get people enthusiastic every time, and avoid major screwups (I doubt it, based on the previous decade,) you will pay for it.

As far as career politicians go? Look, I want somebody in there, career politician or not, who has a good idea of how the system actually works, both so they can defy it, and so they can use it. You throw somebody in there who has no idea of what’s going on, and here is exactly what’s going to happen: The people who do know will tell him, and he’ll have to work through them, rather than being able to negotiate the crowd on his own.

In other words, he’ll become a sock puppet when he’s not a loose cannon on deck. I want somebody who knows the system, understands it, but is not married to it absolutely.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 7:03 PM
Comment #410663

“No politician worth their salt wants to kill jobs.”

Thank you Stephen for confirming that Hillary is unworthy of her salt as she publicly stumped for closing coal mines and the jobs depending upon it.

Please don’t embarrass yourself Stephen by writing that she promised to find some other job, or government benefits, for those men and women her policies would make jobless.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 7:07 PM
Comment #410664

“I want somebody who knows the system…”

Would two years as a US senator qualify?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 7:10 PM
Comment #410665

Democratics put people out of work with a luxury tax simply to get GWHB to renege on his “No New Taxes” pledge. Don’t tell me about how clean an pure as the wind driven snow politicians are. Don’t you dare lecture me.

You will go to your grave believing Democratics can do no wrong, yet Trump hasn’t even entered office and you’re criticizing him without exception. You can’t be non-partisan, Stephen Daugherty. It isn’t in your party’s best interests. Your party will let the best of both worlds slip away because they can’t claim it as their own.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment #410667
Stephen Daugherty wrote:dan- This conclusion is extrapolated from a very small subsample of the survey, with even the authors of the study questioning the reliability of any conclusion drawn from it.
You don’t know how much voter fraud there is.

But, you also don’t care, since many Democrats understand that most illegal aliens and dead people vote Democrat. Duh?

The fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015 does not mean that many more people were driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015?

Again, with tens of millions of illegal aliens, and numerous states that require no voter ID (i.e. California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.), there is plenty of opportunity for voter fraud.

So, the lack of evidence does not prove there isn’t substantial voter fraud. It really only proves that no one cares enough (yet) to do anything about it. And besides, the popular vote is not who elects the POTUS.

Voter fraud is real, and it happens a lot, and it is probably happening far more than anyone knows, since few (especially Democraps) want to find out how bad it really is.

Evidence of voter fraud Part1:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2143

See Part1, Part2, and Part3.

For example:
Autumn 2004: Voter Fraud in California:

In 2002, Dean Gardner, a losing GOP candidate for California’s state legislature, sent out a survey to 14,000 first-time voters. A total of 1,691 surveys came back. The results were startling: 76 people admitted that they weren’t citizens but had voted, while 49 claimed not to have registered at their correct residence, as the law requires. Gardner lost by only 266 votes.

Claims of very little voter fraud are lies.
It is widespread.
And the nefarious motives of why one party claims very little voter fraud is all too obvious.

Here is something else to think about.
IF people can cheat, many will, and many do.


But, don’t cry! Cheer up!
Because, after Repugnicans have abused their power for 4 to 8 years, the Democraps will most likely get their next turn at also screwing up the nation.
Little changes … at least, until things become too painful (which for now, is why the majority of voters repeatedly bounce back and forth between Democraps and Repugnicans).

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2016 9:03 PM
Comment #410668
Weary Willie wrote: You can’t be non-partisan, Stephen Daugherty.
LOL !!!

Does Stephen Daugherty wallow and fuel the circular, delusional partisan warfare?

Does a bear $#!+ in the woods?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2016 9:10 PM
Comment #410669

Evidence of voter fraud Part1:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2143

See Part1, Part2, and Part3.

For example:
Autumn 2004: Voter Fraud in California:

In 2002, Dean Gardner, a losing GOP candidate for California’s state legislature, sent out a survey to 14,000 first-time voters. A total of 1,691 surveys came back. The results were startling: 76 people admitted that they weren’t citizens but had voted, while 49 claimed not to have registered at their correct residence, as the law requires. Gardner lost by only 266 votes.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2016 9:12 PM
Comment #410672

Discover the networks is a site run by a stone cold racist and Islamaphobe named David Horowitz. He is one nasty piece of work. Watch for that name.

Dean Gardner received little support from the GOP at the time due to his name changes, unpaid taxes, bankruptcies, and lawsuits. Sending a survey to voters to see if they were breaking the law is one of the most ridiculous attempts to fake evidence I’ve seen in a while.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2016 9:40 PM
Comment #410674

phx8, if I even tried to make sense of that comment I would still come to the conclusion you were WRONG! Why should any of us on Watchblog consider your point of view? You’re always WRONG!

Why should we listen to you? You should spend less time writing your posts and more time reevaluating your opinion. You should consider the very basic fact that you have been wrong much more than you have been right! Why do you think your comments are relevant? Why should any of us listen to you?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:55 PM
Comment #410675

Royal Flush-
I would say, no. I would say what you have is a system rigged in your favor propping your party up against it’s current demographic challenges. If you really were on the rise, you wouldn’t be two million votes short. Every graph has its ups and downs. You need to pay attention to the averages. In all but two elections in the last thirty years, A Republican has failed to gather the majority of votes. in the four elections when a Republican was elected, only two of them went by majority votes. One of those was George H.W. Bush, almost thirty years ago, the other was his son, and in that case, he won by only about a million more votes than Hillary lost. Democrats, on the other hand, have had significant victories over their Republican Opponents. 1992, Clinton got more than 5.8 million more than Bush. 1996, 8.2 million more than Bob Dole. Gore beat Bush’s popular vote total by more than half a million votes. Bush gets a three million vote victory and a majority in 2004. Then Obama wins by about 9 and 5 million in his elections. Trump wins, but he’s currently two million votes down. You have a system that is in essence tilted in your favor, the popular vote advantage kept back by a system that allows majorities in key states and key states alone to turn the tide. Yet even with that, even with all the effort your people put into winning, you still have fallen short.

If you want to believe that you’re still the Party that dominated much of the seventies and eighties, be my guest. If you want to believe that majorities are forever, and signify your virtue, be my guest. But take some advice from a person who has watched how power ebbs and flows: It doesn’t take much time to go from having all the cards, to losing all the cards.

I mean, Let’s look at history, during my lifetime. Reagan had the Senate and made big advances in the house in 1980, but by the end of his administration, he was dealing with a Democratic Congress entirely, one which would survive into his successor’s administration, and two years in the Clinton’s.

Clinton’s had all the cards, but 1994 brutally corrected him, delivering the House and Senate to the GOP. Bush? Bush actually started, I think, with a 50/50 split, or something close to it. 9/11 gave him a surge, though, and by 2003, he had all the cards.

By 2006, the House and Senate went to the Democrats.

Obama starts his administration with the House and Senate. Two years later, loses the house, four years after that, Loses the Senate, too.

Now Trump has all the Cards. The last three Presidents that had all the cards either lost them in one midterm or the other. I think if it wasn’t for the political boost of being a War President, Bush would have lost his majority, at least in part, by 2004. He might have even lost the Presidency.

Trump? Trump to me doesn’t seem the kind of guy to step lightly where angels fear to tread. He seems to me to be a very reckless man. He proved it over and over in the campaign, and I am damn sure he will make the Republican Party pay for having supported him. Hell, the GOP might make itself pay while it’s at it. I saw the kind of disunity your party had. The only thing keeping it together was Hillary Clinton! But now she’s retiring, taking a load off, and Obama’s going to be a private citizen again.

The members of the GOP in the House and Senate are going to have to deal with what all supreme majorities must deal with.

They will be faced with actual policy choices, which unlike ideological litmus tests, don’t have easy answers.

They will be called upon to hold the administration in question accountable, which if they fail to do during a major scandal, might end up making voters take back some of their strength. Trump can’t afford to lose the Senate.

They will have conflicting agendas, and in those conflicts, the extreme partisans who they used to grab back power will excise their pound of flesh. The thinking, of course, will be, “If we are the majority, we should be able to get whatever we want!” But if what you want is hair-raisingly unpopular, if it’s not what many of your voters signed up for, you might find yourselves losing votes, or seeing successful filibusters or other blockages when everybody is telling you you ought to be winning. I’m guessing there are plenty of Senate Democrats itching for revenge, and a nice neat number of critical, moderate Republicans who might find Trump or the Tea Party’s agenda appalling, or problematic for their states.

You think you’re on the rise, but the reality is, you are on the edge of being irrelevant, and your tendency to believe that any victory is a license to remake the whole country is one of your biggest weaknesses. For conservatives, you seem to lack care, patience, and are curiously unable to to reassure most people that your party is safe, unthreatening and supportive of today’s society. As the world has changed more and more, your party has made itself more and more radical. That comes at a cost. Radicalism invites a retreat into esotericism. That is, you get very interested in very peculiar causes, very peculiar beliefs, etc.

It can seem new and fresh at first, but if it doesn’t work, people will come to think that your thinking was left outside the box for a reason.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 10:57 PM
Comment #410676

Haven’t you learned anything from this election?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #410677

Right. Anyone who claims voter fraud is not insignificant is a racist, eh?
The motives for ignoring voter fraud is obvious, and claims of voter suppression by requiring voter ID is nonsense.

The fact is, there is possibly (and probably) enough voter fraud to affect the outcome of some elections.

More evidence:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund

DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail…
Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2016 11:16 PM
Comment #410678

Saying it is possible to commit voter fraud does not mean it is being committed. The penalties for breaking the law are harsh.

It is also a fundamentally stupid way to try to affect an election. That might have been the way to do it a century or two ago, but taking the risk of showing up in person and pretending to be someone else in order to cast one fraudulent vote is an absurdly ineffective way to change the outcome of an election, and very vulnerable to being caught, since a lot of people would have to participate in the fraud for it to work.

Seriously, you have to be pretty stupid to buy into this.

Really stupid.

There IS a very effective way to commit voter fraud, and that is to attack the system at its most vulnerable point, namely, hacking the computers and servers that tabulate the vote. A small number of people can change the outcome on a wide basis, and if it is done right, the fraud will be difficult to detect.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/

We already know many state voter registration databases were subjected to cyber attacks a few months ago, and at least four states were known to have been successfully hacked. The Russians have been identified as the culprits.
As the CNN article mentions, “Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines…”

Does that mean the outcome was affected? We may never know, but it is certainly worth conducting an audit.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2016 11:36 PM
Comment #410679

Weary Willie-
Bush was forced to consider raising taxes by the sheer magnitude of the deficit he faced. Clinton actually did, and following that, we recovered from that era’s deficit. After which, it seemed your people missed spending money you didn’t have, and decided on a tax cut again. So, the deficits got huge once more.

Aaaaaannnnd what are you about to do now? That’s right, another tax cut. For the sake of avoiding the political fallout from a promise made unwisely almost thirty years ago, your people have been instrumental in multiplying our debt. The debt that was so damn important under Obama, and is once again forgotten under Trump.

Whereas Democrats like myself actually do something about the debt, cleaning up your messes, even as you insist defense spending doesn’t count and all the cuts have to come out of what liberals want!

We’re not going to get out of this until people on the right start dealing with the budget like frigging adults, rather than like teenagers with a credit card.

As for your response to phx8?

I try my best to leave the discussion open, not to censor even hostile views, because I think people like me should engage, debate, not retreat into safe spaces. But I will not tolerate Breitbart style abuse. YOU DO NOT GET TO SAY WHO CAN OR CANNOT COMMENT HERE.

I’m usually easygoing, but I’m not going to tolerate a commenter who abuses others, or who tries to hijack the thread without regard for other’s ability to participate in the discussion.

d.a.n.-
Surveys that depend on people to choose to report back are very unreliable. That’s nothing new. That’s how the Literary Digest poll picked FDR’s opponent Alf Landon as the likely winner of the 1936 election. They sent the polls to their readers (who tended to be wealthier) and also to automobile owners and those with telephones.

Randomization and direct surveying, rather than write in or internet polling, tend to work best. When people have to take the initiative, or when the people you’re polling are all part of one segment of society that shares many of the same biases, those biases will seep into the poll.

So, I don’t really have to discredit your politician there. I can simply point out his methods would not be a true sample of whatever population he aimed it at.

As for Fund? Tell me, how much money did it cost to pay those people to commit voter fraud? It isn’t that difficult to commit the fraud at a small scale. It’s large scale fraud, though, that you folks bring up. They probably had a few dozen employees at best, all who were compensated for their time, who were organized by them. But folks like you speak of an operation with MILLIONS involved, and you speak of it implying that there is a directed fraud, rather than just casual, personal misconduct.

That is a whole different level of logistics. But you guys never satisfactorily deal with those questions, because they’re irrelevant to your real political aim: denying as many Democratic party voters as you can their franchise so that the political system tilts in your desired direction.

You claim to fight partisan political warfare, but you’ve thrown your lot in with the most cynical and debauched of political operations, operations basically intended to bias the elections against one party, rather than win them through fair contests. This also serves to reinforce incumbency, because if the more Democratic voters don’t show up at the polls, then in many states, which are tilting toward Democrats, the incumbents will retain their advantages.

I believe that automatic registration for qualified voters should be a thing, and that the strictest tests should have to be met for people to be taken off those rolls. I think encouraging more voting means encouraging more casual voters to come into the system, voters who won’t necessarily follow standard patterns. You want incumbents to remain, you keep supporting what you’re supporting here. You keep pushing the poorly proven claims of widespread voter fraud, meant to justify widespread voter suppression and protect Republican seats and Republican districting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2016 11:38 PM
Comment #410681
phx wrote: Seriously, you have to be pretty stupid to buy into this. Really stupid.
You wish.

Voter fraud exists on a much larger scale then you and Democraps claim, and anyone who believes otherwise is who is “Really Stupid”.

It does not matter in this election anyway, since popular vote doesn’t matter, which apparently has a lot of cry babies all bent out of shape.

By the way, I did not vote for Trump or Hillary (I voted for someone who was better than either of them).

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2016 12:06 AM
Comment #410682

OK. Enough of reading whatever a bunch of whinny cry babies are writing. The hysteria on MSNBC is more entertaining!

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2016 12:13 AM
Comment #410684

Are you going to start pulling Remers, Stephen Daugherty? Your threats are unfounded and unwarranted. phx8 has been wrong every time he pens a comment. He has no humility and continues to spew fallacy. He was wrong about the Oregon Ocare website calling it the best thing right up until it folded. He was wrong about Brexit and the British stock market. He was wrong about Hillbilly winning the election. He was wrong about the senate going to the Democratics. He was wrong about the U.S. stock market after the election. yada yada yada wrong wrong wrong!

He’s been wrong 100% of the time and you defend him with threats? You want to join in phx8’s narcissism and back it up by threatening my contribution to WatchBlog?

Just who do you think you are?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 10:02 AM
Comment #410686

Stephen,
Thank you for defending me, but it is not really necessary. On the one hand, Weary Willie is probably harmful to WB, in that his personal attacks deter new people from posting. On the other hand, I think it is important to hear from racists and the least educated among us, no matter how awful, ill-informed, and offensive their points of view may be. It may be unpleasant, but we all learn from reading comments from people like him, even if it means putting up with personal attacks. These are the kind of people who voted for Trump. This is the kind of behavior that is now common online, on virtually any web site. Understanding the point of view of the Wearie Willies of the world is important.

Let him be.

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2016 10:20 AM
Comment #410687

Racist. Yawn. I should take it as a compliment.

Question: How is pointing out someone is WRONG considered being racist?

Answer: It isn’t. It’s just a knee jerk response. It’s like when the brain signals an arm or leg to twitch to let it know it’s still alive.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 10:53 AM
Comment #410688


Comment #407282

Thank you, WW. Your contribution to WatchBlog is greatly appreciated!
Posted by: Liz at September 9, 2016 4:38 PM

Sorry, phx8! You’re WRONG again!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 10:56 AM
Comment #410689

Dan-
Why don’t you try 4-chan. They’d love your work.

Weary Willie-
Unwarranted?

The rules your posting makes you a party to explicitly forbid questioning a person’s right to post. It wouldn’t even be a question. Your own hand has typed the proof that would convict you.

If he’s wrong, you should argue the nature of his errors in response, and then he’ll the chance to defend his claims in return, and so on and so forth. It’s not just the Watchblog way, it’s the American way!

phx8 has a right to post here until the management here says otherwise. I’m not as strict as David R. Remer was, but I will cut people off if they don’t take my warnings at face value. I’ve let you guys get away with a lot because I prefer an open space to a safe space, but the level of threat to other commenters should be limited to the typical partisan rhetoric, not this Gestapo-style intolerance of disagreement.

I believe in my country, and part of my participation in this forum is based on that love of my country. I believe in that model Michael Douglas’ character talked about at the end of The American President:

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ‘cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

That’s my sentiment. I don’t let you comment and say your nasty things because I’m not strong enough to respond in kind. I let you comment and say your nasty things because I believe that reflects the strength of my nation’s ideals, that it can take having people speak in error, that there is enough reason and ability to recognize error, even after the fact, that we need not take that freedom away. People can figure it out for themselves.

I believe that is a key part of citizenship. If you aren’t permitted to think for yourself, speak for yourself, acknowledge in the world what you see fit to acknowledge, then you can’t use this country’s democratic and republican institutions to correct those things. You also, though, cannot learn wisdom without making mistakes in the course of trying to solve those errors.

I can yell at people til I’m blue in the face, but I think, as Bush’s mistakes taught people the error of supporting him, Trump’s mistakes will do the same. Or you can look at it from the other direction, substituting Barack or Bill. Point is, people really only learn how to be the best citizens they can be if they’re allowed the space to make those errors within.

You think you’re without error and phx8 is without a clue. I think you’re wrong, and so do a lot of other readers. They’ve got a right to think that way, no matter how this ticks you off.

You will go before he goes, if you keep this up. Now quit clogging up my discussion about Trump’s outlandish claims concerning voter fraud with this meta trash.

Let’s get back on topic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2016 11:34 AM
Comment #410690

Trump can make any outlandish claim he chooses and his minions will allow it and support it. Let’s see where this molester gets himself in a year or so, if he is still there.

Being wrong is one of the things we are allowed on this blog. Being abusive and intolerant is not. Speaking of being wrong, we all know you have had plenty of experience doing that here.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 30, 2016 11:55 AM
Comment #410691


Comment #410674

phx8, if I even tried to make sense of that comment I would still come to the conclusion you were WRONG! Why should any of us on Watchblog consider your point of view? You’re always WRONG!

Why should we listen to you? You should spend less time writing your posts and more time reevaluating your opinion. You should consider the very basic fact that you have been wrong much more than you have been right! Why do you think your comments are relevant? Why should any of us listen to you?
Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:55 PM


No where did I say phx8 should stop posting. Never did I say he should be prohibited from commenting. I simply pointed out he should think before he speaks because he’s always WRONG!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 12:40 PM
Comment #410692

Speak4all, you would be the first to tell me I’m wrong when I am. You people insist I’m wrong every time I comment. I’m just not as thin skinned as some.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 12:44 PM
Comment #410693

Re read the first comment to your post, Stephen Daugherty. I agreed with you that Trump jumped the gun.

Perhaps he “acted stupidly”. If you could admit it, it isn’t the first time a president jumped to conclusions, yes?
Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 12:46 PM
Comment #410702

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “You think you’re on the rise, but the reality is, you are on the edge of being irrelevant, and your tendency to believe that any victory is a license to remake the whole country is one of your biggest weaknesses.”

Clairvoyance is the only word I can think of regarding Stephen’s comments about the future.

I lived the same political history as you did Stephen, and much of the history that you missed for being unborn. I understand very well how political winds change with time and events.

Over the long haul, The Right is in ascendancy in our cities, counties, and states.

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “As the world has changed more and more, your party has made itself more and more radical.”

I do understand that perhaps Mr. Daugherty can’t help himself when he writes such nonsense. I suggest he take a look at European politics. Is progressive socialism on the rise?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #410711

Weary Willie-
You’re blatantly attacking the messenger, and you seem to be insisting that he not post until he agrees with you more. That’s up to him, not you to decide, and meanwhile, here, you are not the unilateral judge of who’s right or wrong. This is a forum for debate. Try using sources and facts to counter other’s arguments, rather than just disdain. It might actually make things interesting. I’ve found that a lot of ideological arguments tend to be pre-ordained by nature. One dogma responds to another. It’s like tennis between robots.

Royal Flush-
I didn’t rely on clairvoyance in my response, I listed the last three ultimate majorities, talked about how long they tended to last. Then I talked about the relative level of popular support for Republican Presidents, and how low the support for Republicans have been compared to Democrats. The future, I argue, will, if not repeat history, then rhyme with it.

You say the Right is in ascendancy, but when your best election in the last twelve years has you down by two million votes, losing two senate seats and eight house seats, I think what you really have here is a barely avoided collapse, helped in part by a great deal of foreign intervention and questionable behavior by the FBI director.

I think what you will find, like I have twice within my lifetime, that the constitution deliberately makes this position a very slippery one for those who wield power. I don’t think you folks have the political capital to go after SSI or Medicare, nor can you afford any real scandals for Trump. You won by putting forward an impressive effort, and convincing the rightfully disgruntled working class voters that your candidate represented change. Keep in mind, though, many of your voters lacked the kind of ideological rigidity that would have kept them from voting for Obama.

If your idea of how to keep these voters is to put Wall Street Bankers in key positions, vulture capitalists up at commerce, and so on and so forth… good luck!

Very often, when people succeed at gaining the power they’ve long dreamed of, they screw it up, because they always dreamed of that power, and never really took a nuts and bolts look at what they were going to do with that power, and how to balance the political questions involved. You have plenty of ambitions, but your plans… your plans are more aspirational than practical, and the real world is going to be vicious and unforgiving about that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2016 7:22 PM
Comment #410712

There are 3,141 counties in the country
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57 of them.

There are 62 counties in New York State
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16 of them.

The counties that encompass NYC are Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond and Queens. Clinton received over 2 million more votes than Clinton

These 5 counties accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote.

Those who want the EC done in need to do the math on where the population of the states and counties are. The areas of CA and NY would decide the outcome of any presidential race the other 48 states would have no say so.

Those 3 million voters that voted in southern California what were illegals were more than the alledged 2 million margin that Clinton was to have won by. If the 2 million were subtracted from the 3 million then Trumps margin of popular vote would have been 1 million. Then there were other locations where some fraud was reported, but not confirmed also.

Posted by: tom humes at November 30, 2016 7:29 PM
Comment #410713

Stephen, I like the fact that Mr. Trump continues to be underestimated by the Left as they are confounded by those who color outside the usual political lines.

Consider that your party has just reelected Ms.Pelosi as minority leader in the house. Your party has learned nothing. Your party remains stuck with yesterdays glory which has faded and not likely to return without new ideas and new blood.

The working class, which was once a reliable voting block for your party, has awakened to your decades of false promises. When the minority voting block wakes up to your Party’s broken promises you will never recover power. You will be left with the social malcontent vote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 7:44 PM
Comment #410714
Stephen Dauhgerty wrote: Dan- Why don’t you try 4-chan. They’d love your work.
My work? Oh? You mean the link to a photo? I thought you posted that portrait! of yourself!?

You guys are hilarious.
Please continue the entertainment.
It’s almost as good as MSMBC.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2016 7:51 PM
Comment #410715

Tom Humes, thanks for the statistics.
That’s interesting.
The left likes to pretend voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2016 8:03 PM
Comment #410719
Those who want the EC done in need to do the math on where the population of the states and counties are. The areas of CA and NY would decide the outcome of any presidential race the other 48 states would have no say so.

The Five Boroughs of New York City plus Nassau County constitute half of New York’s population.

New York and California are less than a fifth of the total US population.

The areas of CA and NY would decide the outcome of any presidential race the other 48 states would have no say so.

The other 48 states control over 80% of the vote. That sounds like a lot of say-so to me.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 11:27 PM
Comment #410723

WP
Check your math and get back to me when you make the corrections.

Posted by: tom humes at December 1, 2016 2:15 AM
Comment #410725

Tom,
Are you blind? I linked to WolframAlpha to show my arithmetic.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 2:21 AM
Comment #410727

WP
My numbers are correct
For you GIGO.
You don’t count children in the population totals where the voting numbers are used.
I should not have to tell you that.
The numbers that should be used are eligible voters and then the numbers are hardly more than 30%.
So if 30% of the registered voters do vote then there would be about 5 states that would amount to the winning totals.

Posted by: tom humes at December 1, 2016 4:48 AM
Comment #410729

So if 30% of the registered voters do vote then there would be about 5 states that would amount to the winning totals.


I said that when this topic came up. They are New York, California, Texas, Ill Noise, and Florida.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 10:30 AM
Comment #410730

Fine. Split hairs if you want: New York and California have 20.61% of registered voters, which is not substantive different from their 18.2% share of total population.

My analysis still stands. The other 48 states control roughly 4/5 of the votes so it won’t be just New York and California calling the shots.

The numbers that should be used are eligible voters and then the numbers are hardly more than 30%. So if 30% of the registered voters do vote then there would be about 5 states that would amount to the winning totals.
Where is this 30% figure coming from? Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 10:30 AM
Comment #410734

tom humes-
The argument has a key flaw: most of those counties are mostly empty space. Let me illustrate by a comparison. I live in Harris County, around Houston. That’s got 4.337 million as of 2013. It’s the biggest of them all in Texas.

The top forty counties almost all contain more than 100,000 people. The Next 128 contain more than 10,000, less than 100,000. The next 83 contain less than 10,000, more than a thousand. The last eight have less than a thousand.

Those top forty counties contain 20,624,961 people, or about 75% of the 27,469,114 million people in Texas.

One out of five of those people in those forty counties live in Harris County. By the time you’ve included the ninth most populous country, you’ve got over half of Texas Residents accounted for. 9 out of 253. Or, roughly 3.6%.

About one quarter of the top forty counties account for half the population, and the next 25% are accounted for by the next 31.

The next 203 Counties after that account for just 25% of the population of the state.

I would bet you that this pattern applies to most counties in most states.

Counting Trump’s victory by county in any state is an exercise in mathematical ignorance. Most counties won’t contribute much to victory or defeat. The power law means that unless something very weird is going on, most of the population is going to be in just a few of those counties, with a huge chunk in the largest of those cities.

What Trump and you are fighting against is a fundamental law of nature. I really doubt you have three million false votes. I really do. The procedures for creating voter registrations tend to filter out illegal immigrants from the get go.

There’s a lot of reasons to disbelieve the supposed results from your voter fraud survey. Where’s the verification? Where’s the complaints?

What this amounts to is Republicans trying to convince their voters that they won more broadly and profoundly than they really did. Based on what?

An unverified report from a Republican party hack, publish on twitter, picked up by conspiracy theorist and lunatic Alex Jones, and then subsequently shared by Donald Trump on Twitter. The party hack, supposedly, gets his information from a voter fraud reporting app, so what we have here could be as simple as a bunch of other GOP hacks making a report anytime they saw a latino or a black person in line. The reports are not based on any documented discrepancies, just volunteered evidence by decidedly non-disinterested parties.

The cities in America are growing, as are legal Latino and minority populations. Years of counterproductive economic policy have slowed the birthrate for whites, so the majority that once kept Republicans firmly in the lead now is breaking down.

You can blame voter fraud, but that’s just avoiding the truth: that you will have to address the interests of minorities, of women, of people other than white males, in the decades to come.

The more you try to prop up a majority based on gerrymandering and locking down just the whites in America, the more you will end up having to escalate the hysterics to achieve what you did this election. As it is, you had to really lay on the bull**** thick in order to push Trump past the finish line. You had the advantage of a President with no political record, and a unified conservative press behind it, sugarcoating his behavior, sugarcoating his disturbing business practices.

Royal Flush-
Can I be blunt? You already used the working class to turn things around on us. The trick is, there’s no more playing around for you. You are now in our position, as it was eight years ago. If you don’t deliver, or if you screw things up for those Working Class people, it’ll be your turn to lose ground.

Keep in mind, you have at best 52 votes in the Senate, down from what you had before the Election. You lost eight votes from the House, too. Margins matter, especially if you’re wanting to break filibusters and pass anything out of the Senate. You also have to make sure that your Tea Party Fanatics don’t get a bug up their rears about compromises. There will be fewer of them without Obama in place, but when they do become necessary (as a filibuster by Senate Democrats might make them), the level of conflict between Establishment and Tea party might flare up again, perhaps even requiring Democratic votes to pass basic housekeeping. Nobody is so blockheaded or stubborn as the person who is convinced they deserve a certain result after winning power.

I wonder what happens the next time you have to pass a debt ceiling increase, or an incomplete repeal of Obamacare, rather than the complete one they promised. I wonder what happens when people who have been told all decade that when they get the White House, they’ll be able to do whatever they want, find out that it doesn’t necessarily work that way.

I mean, really, they sold you a pack of lies, and now they have to make good on their lies. If the policy change results in a crisis, if things don’t work out like you intend, which will happen easily in cases where the policy is built on dishonest appeals, then that will work against you.

In fact? I would venture this: this has been the bane of your party’s fortunes these last thirty years, corroding at it at a basic level. When Reagan started deregulating things, started encouraging businesses to play more fast and loose with their workers, that began the decline of the working class. Even as early as the 1992 campaign, Bush was having to deal with the problems that created. It even divided the party, to a certain extent. Clinton easily won on a economics-based agenda. Your people succeeded in pounding him down on morals, leading people to vote their culture rather than their pocketbooks. Result being? Bush. But Bush, being so chummy with Wall Street, with a Republican Majority equally the same, fails to head off either the outsourcing or the deficits in job creation associated. Instead, he builds up an incredible boom based on the financialization of real estate, which, after the real estate market crashes, turns into one of the all-time biggest crashes.

Y’all lose the White House after that to Obama, who then proceeds to keep one of the longest streak of job growth in American history going. After the losses of the first year or so, it’s almost all gains.

And now… now it’s all in your hands. You don’t have the luxury of being able to oversee outsourcing of jobs. you can’t let Wall Street punish consumers too much. YOu ran as frigging populists, but all that is dependent on you somehow improving things, and improving them for real. If you don’t… People will feel in their gut that it was all a mistake.

Don’t tell me that you’re going to fix the economy, make it grow more. I’ve been told that by Republicans again and again over the course of my lifetime. Show me. Show all of us. If you’re so frigging good at it, by God be good with it, and don’t give us any bloody excuses about it! Don’t say, well, Obama did this, Obama did that- Obama left you years of growth, years of Job increases, a healthcare bill that increased people covered, decreased many problems, etc.

You tried to make Obama look bad, but the truth is, unless you outperform him on almost every level, unless you prove yourself superior, the story will be, “Obama was followed by the insurgent Republican Donald Trump, who reversed many of the improvements that the Democrat’s Administration oversaw.”

Maybe the upper class will find Trump the better President, but the upper class doesn’t have the votes to keep Trump or future Republicans in office. This is not the period to screw around, because if Trump screws the pooch for 2018, you could lose a lot of those legislature, lose a lot of those Governor’s mansions. They don’t belong to you, and you shouldn’t act like you’ve bought them outright with the results of the last few actions.

Have some damn humility here, and get it through your heads that you have a job to do, and a steep hill of expectations to climb. You’ve cut us out, claiming we were inferior, that we were wrecking things. Don’t screw it up, because if you do, you’ll look twice as bad for having been as vociferous of critics as you have been.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 1, 2016 11:48 AM
Comment #410744
The trick is, there’s no more playing around for you. You are now in our position, as it was eight years ago. If you don’t deliver, or if you screw things up for those Working Class people, it’ll be your turn to lose ground.

Does anyone think Stephen Daugherty associates this attitude to why his party lost the election?

I should call him a racist, yes? When Republicans said basically the same exact thing 8 years ago they were met with insults and charges of racism and being obstructionists.

Can I get away with calling Democratics racists and obstructionists for the next 8 years? I doubt it. Not with double standards ruling the day.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #410746
I should call him a racist, yes? When Republicans said basically the same exact thing 8 years ago they were met with insults and charges of racism

Please do share an instance where a mainstream commentator called Republicans racist for having the same sentiment just expressed by Stephen.

Can I get away with calling Democratics racists and obstructionists for the next 8 years?

If Democrats wield the filibuster and other arcane Parliamentary tools to obstruct the GOP agenda in an unprecedented manner, then the obstruction label would apply. However, the GOP has set a very high bar with their abuse of these tools during the Obama years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 2:54 PM
Comment #410748

Very interesting Mr. Daugherty. You do recognize that your party has lost many working class people in the current election. But then, you write; “Obama, who then proceeds to keep one of the longest streak of job growth in American history going…”

Which is it Stephen?

Or perhaps, is the Obama job growth a fairy tale consisting of low wages and meaningless labor statistics?

You really should review what you write for the many inconsistencies we often find.

Mr. Daugherty adds; “Don’t tell me that you’re going to fix the economy, make it grow more.”

OK, I won’t. However, if President Trump follows thru on the promises that got him elected, I expect a significantly measurable improvement in jobs and the economy.

Now, let me also be blunt with you Stephen. You believe the revisionist history you write and that’s OK. But, you continually warn against consequences that are purely fictional at this point. That’s not OK as it has warped everything you read and believe. It’s bad for you Stephen. It makes your writing crass and not worthy of being read. You present nothing new, you rehash the past according to Stephen and do the same with the future.

For your own sake Stephen, open your mind to possibilities. There will be plenty of time to trash Trump if he fails.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2016 3:14 PM
Comment #410766

Royal Flush-
That first part is not an either or proposition. it can happen because your people have convinced them of a lie. The lie is that Democratic policies are at the heart of what’s taken their jobs.

The bitter truth is, you ran the car off the road deliberately. Your party ran basically on restoring the strength of those of the upper-class to take as much money from the lower classes as could be born. The problem is, you didn’t realize that compromising their interests would ultimately compromise everybody. The rich, it turns out, need everybody else a lot more than they thought they did.

Even so, they’re still greedy, still wanting to force things to work their way.

They can wish in one hand and… well, you know, in the other. See which fills up first.

Simple fact is, people will react, even if in the wrong direction, to a situation where their interests are perpetually put in jeopardy. If your people don’t work out to be the saviors you sold yourselves as, they will try something else, someone else. They might even go for real socialists! I don’t want that. I like capitalism, once you put the right issues in check, and let everybody have a share in the prosperity. You really just have to give people enough so they don’t have to worry about making ends meet.

It’s not revisionist history to say that, it’s regular history. The greatest contentment with capitalism has been with the greatest prosperity for the middle class. To the extent that most people start falling into poverty, the tolerance for capitalism goes down. There’s only so far you can push ideology for populism before people start wanting food in their stomachs and cash in their pockets.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 1, 2016 7:44 PM
Comment #410770
Weary Willie wrote:Does anyone think Stephen Daugherty associates this attitude to why his party lost the election?
Yeah. Probably.

Also, I don’t recall the members of the OTHER parties acting so badly after losing an election.

Maybe Democrats should think about all the whining and violence and rioting, and how it affects their repuation?

Also, America’s ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common:
All are led politically by Democrat mayors.
Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time.
For example:
(01)Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation’s most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961.
(02)The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977.
(03)Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991.
(04)Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949.
(05)Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989.
(06)Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967.
(07)Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908.
(08)Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975.
(09)Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933.
(10)And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor in a quarter-century.

Also, consider the following:
In 1865, a Democrat killed Abraham Lincoln, POTUS;
In 1881, a Democrat killed James Garfield, POTUS;
In 1963, a Socialist killed John F. Kennedy, POTUS;
In 1975, a Democrat shot at Gerald Ford, POTUS;
In 1983, a Democrat shot Ronald Reagan, POTUS;
In 1984, a Democrat killed 22 people in a McDonalds;
In 1986, a Democrat killed 15 people in an Oklahoma restaurant;
In 1990, a Democrat killed 10 people at a GMAC office;
In 1991, a Democrat killed 23 people in a Luby’s in Killeen, TX;
In 1995, a Democrat killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory;
In 2001, a Democrat killed 8 people at a church service;
In 2003, a Democrat shot at the White House during G.W. Bush’s term;
In 2007, a Democrat killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant;
In 2010, a Democrat killed 32 people at Virginia Tech;
In 2011, a Democrat shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and kill 6 others;
In 2012, a Democrat killed 12 people in a movie theatre;
In 2013, a Democrat killed 7 people in a school in Newtown, CT;
In 2013, a Democrat killed 12 people at a Navy Ship yard;
Not a single one were NRA or Tea Party members.

HHMMMmmmmm It is a wonder they ever win any elections!?!

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Fortunately, Extreme #2 has is not yet the majority, but Democraps are working hard to change that.
Of course, both Repugnican and Democrap politicians despicably pit Ameridcan citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and cheap labor, but the Democraps are also trying to turn states solid BLUE with uncontrolled illegal immigration, and pandering to immigrants with promises of another amnesty (like the one in 1986, which quintupled the problem).

I am not a Repugnican or Democrap, but I don’t think I could ever align or identify with the Democrap party (i.e. Extreme #2).
It ain’t too hard to see on this board who belong in Extreme #2.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election, at least, until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 1, 2016 8:53 PM
Comment #410772
Royal Flush wrote: Now, let me also be blunt with you Stephen [Daugherty]. You believe the revisionist history you write and that’s OK. But, you continually warn against consequences that are purely fictional at this point. That’s not OK as it has warped everything you read and believe. It’s bad for you Stephen. It makes your writing crass and not worthy of being read. You present nothing new, you rehash the past according to Stephen and do the same with the future.

For your own sake Stephen, open your mind to possibilities. There will be plenty of time to trash Trump if he fails.


Well said.
But … Good Luck with that!
Posted by: d.a.n at December 1, 2016 9:14 PM
Comment #410797

Wow D.A.N you seem to be one of the extremes you are talking about. I call BS on your foolish claim on of mass murders being dems. Total BS, a myth and you really should be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating such a myth. When you spread myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies it causes one to wonder about the veracity of the rest off your work.

https://humidcity.com/2014/05/31/absolute-undeniable-verifiable-proof-mass-shooters-democrats/

Now perhaps you have jumped on the Trumpsters bandwagon and have denied that facts exist but that only makes you wrong my friend.

But I can understand why you may have thought this myth to be true. Oh H**l….no I can’t it is ridiculous to think this crap is real. Especially from someone as intelligent as yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 2, 2016 1:03 PM
Comment #410798

Wow D.A.N you seem to be one of the extremes you are talking about. I call BS on your foolish claim on of mass murders being dems. Total BS, a myth and you really should be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating such a myth. When you spread myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies it causes one to wonder about the veracity of the rest off your work.

https://humidcity.com/2014/05/31/absolute-undeniable-verifiable-proof-mass-shooters-democrats/

Now perhaps you have jumped on the Trumpsters bandwagon and have denied that facts exist but that only makes you wrong my friend.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 2, 2016 1:06 PM
Comment #410799

But I can understand why you may have thought this myth to be true. Oh H**l….no I can’t it is ridiculous to think this crap is real. Especially from someone as intelligent as yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 2, 2016 1:07 PM
Comment #410800

Royal Flush-
Look I was born just before the Reagan era, and thought the world of him and the first Bush. But when that recession hit, it didn’t matter what Republicans thought was best, people chose somebody else.

But one thing I valued then, and value now, is concrete demonstration over ideological commitment. Science over personal feeling. People are capable of imagining a lot of things are true, but confront many of those things with real evidence, and things don’t work out like expected. Truth is separate from, more solid, more consequential than belief. That is what my kind of liberal, my kind of progressive is meant to be open to, is meant to take into account when trying to improve society with their policies.

Here’s the thing: I’m finding that far too many of the arguments that are handed to Republican voters fall apart on closer examination. Folks bash Obama employment numbers as the result of people getting holiday or summer jobs. They forget that the numbers typically reported are seasonally adjusted, which is to say, deliberately calibrated to exclude the fluctuations as those temporary jobs are filled and lost.

Or, take a typical argument regarding global warming, that it may be solar irradiation. A scientist might sarcastically go, “why didn’t I think of that!” Which is to say, of course they’ve been tracking solar irradiation from the get-go. It’s one of the first things they looked at.

In fact, they’ve known for quite some time that a) sunshine by itself, and its relatively level, could only warm the Earth by so much, if the atmosphere didn’t insulate it, and b) that the change in the relative levels cannot explain warming, and in fact, on certain occasions, ran counter to it. When a factor decreases or remains flat as it’s supposed effect increases, that’s a good sign that there’s another factor involved.

But too many Republican voters don’t know that, haven’t thought it through. So it works. They get told about ONE year being colder than average SOMEWHERE, and that this disproves GLOBAL Climate Change, which is about averages over long periods of time, not merely one year or one region’s weather.

It’s more a social game of who to believe than a real discipline of what to believe, and as long as those people get away with it, they shape your perception of reality… even if reality itself disagrees, and with force. I don’t mind conservatism. Everybody’s got an opinion about how to live their lives, what sort of things they’d like others to do… What bothers me, pains me in fact, is when illusion and deception are promoted just so a precious few can get what they want.

I am, at heart, a results oriented person. If you get the whole process right, and the political parties are pleased, and the result is a flaming mess, my sense would be that folks messed up. At the same time, I understand the need for a process, a need to involve others in the decision making. What set me off in the 00’s wasn’t that Republicans were in charge, but rather that, being in charge, they were confronted by one set of bad results after another and only seemed to care about playing the political game.

I don’t care much for ideology. It’s often warmed-over, secondhand BS that folks who don’t think for themselves substitute for policy ideas. Real policy can’t depend on ideals alone, because it always intersects with a reality that will wear away illusion at the expense of those who depend upon it. We don’t need an ideological response to science, we need a scientifically literate, humble approach. We don’t need a radical, boat-rocking approach to economic affairs, we need one that acknowledges the complexity of both the market and the people whose behavior it is built of. If we ignore history, we’re doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 2, 2016 1:13 PM
Comment #410806

j2t2, So what part of those facts are false?
As long as Democraps keep calling everyone else racists, xenophobes, islamaphobes, KKK, white-supremacists, and claim facts are false, they will will continue to lose elections.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2016 2:40 PM
Comment #410808

d.a.n.,

Except Democrats aren’t calling everyone else those things. Those words are reserved for a specific set of people who display a specific set of behavior.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 2:50 PM
Comment #410811

As for voter fraud, it is happening:
On what scale is unknown, and Democraps like it that way.
But the following are facts:
(1)illegal aliens are voting in elections;
(2)few states require voter ID;
(3)IF there is opportunity, people will cheat;
(4)Democraps pander to immigrants and illegal aliens with promises of amnesty, and Democraps and Repugnicans both despicably pit illegal aliens and US citizens against each other for cheap labor and profits.
(5)IF 18% of illegal aliens admit to voting, then it is not a leap of logic to see how it can be affecting the outcome of some elections;

It is no mystery why Democraps pander to immigrants….that is their plan to turn states BLUE. Despicable.

Yet, wikileaks released hacked emails show the DNC consider Hispanics as nothing more than a “Target Consumer”.

And let me know if you find any of those facts that are false.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2016 2:58 PM
Comment #410814
Warren Potter wrote: d.a.n., Except Democrats aren’t calling everyone else those things. Those words are reserved for a specific set of people who display a specific set of behavior.
All you have to do is turn on the TV or google “democrats call trump supporters white supremacists”.

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Team Accuses Trump Strategists of Appealing to White Supremacists.

Of course, not all Democrats are doing it.

But there is certainly enough of that sort of thing, and the rioting, which is not going to help the reputation of the Democrat Party.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2016 3:08 PM
Comment #410816

Democrats aren’t calling McMullin supporters racists.
Democrats aren’t calling Gary Johnson supporters racists.
Democrats aren’t calling all Trump supporters racists either.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 4:51 PM
Comment #410819

j2t2,


You are mostly right about the following:
In 1865, a Democrat killed Abraham Lincoln, POTUS;
In 1881, a Democrat killed James Garfield, POTUS;
In 1963, a Socialist killed John F. Kennedy, POTUS;
In 1975, a Democrat shot at Gerald Ford, POTUS;
In 1983, a Democrat shot Ronald Reagan, POTUS;
In 1984, a Democrat killed 22 people in a McDonalds;
In 1986, a Democrat killed 15 people in an Oklahoma restaurant;
In 1990, a Democrat killed 10 people at a GMAC office;
In 1991, a Democrat killed 23 people in a Luby’s in Killeen, TX;
In 1995, a Democrat killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory;
In 2001, a Democrat killed 8 people at a church service;
In 2003, a Democrat shot at the White House during G.W. Bush’s term;
In 2007, a Democrat killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant;
In 2010, a Democrat killed 32 people at Virginia Tech;
In 2011, a Democrat shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and kill 6 others;
In 2012, a Democrat killed 12 people in a movie theatre;
In 2013, a Democrat killed 7 people in a school in Newtown, CT;
In 2013, a Democrat killed 12 people at a Navy Ship yard;
Not a single one were NRA or Tea Party members.

A few are true, many are false, and many are unsubstantiated.

It is just as ridiculous as the rioting by liberals, blaming the results of the election on white people, and calling Trump supporters White Supremacists.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2016 6:05 PM
Comment #410823

Dan-
You claim facts. I could claim:
1) I rode to work on a unicorn;
2) Defeated three Ninjas running up the rail of the stairs;
3) Broke through a nine-dimensional magic warding;
4) That I found out Trump was one of the ancient Lizard Kings, and intends to sacrifice us all to resurrect his kin.
5) And that I was the last of the Merovingian Line of kings, claiming our descent from Christ…

But those facts would all be false. I could, however, spin a story about how the GOP, The Rotary Club, and the Shriners all conspired to conceal the evidence, playing on your fear and paranoia to get you to forego critical thought (and asking for real evidence) But that would be an exercise in manipulation, rather than actual delivery of knowledge.

You might want to sugarcoat it, but Trump was supported by racists, xenophobes, etc., who were so delighted by his election that the LITERAL founder of the Alt-Right went “Hail Trump, Hail Victory,” and had his followers sieg heiling the stage. Given that he didn’t suddenly go, “You morons, don’t give the Hitler salute, you might make us look like Nazis!” I think he was okay with it. After all, he talked about his own haircut as “Fashy” which is to say rather fascistic, so I don’t think he takes offense at being compared to this centuries most hated political figures.

Each party had over 60 million voters. Because of that, it’s an almost mathematical certainty, given the proportion of racists, sexists, and other deplorables in our population, that we had some supporters in each party that fall into the basket of deplorables. The main difference, I would say, would be proportion, and whether the environment for one side is encouraging or not. We don’t like to encourage racism, which is why so many on the right are attempting to turn that accusation back on us. We don’t like to encourage sexism, in general, so, same thing.

We have a general idea of playing out America’s promise of religious tolerance, racial equality, gender equality and general freedom from the rest of the worlds more vile bigotries to its fullest extent. That doesn’t make us perfect, but it does mean that we’re not excusing or sugarcoating that stuff. It means we’re more likely to correct those flaws, or at least the behavior they might encourage.

In general, the attitude towards illegal immigrants amounts to this: the business owners and industries were coddled on this during the Bush era, and years before that. Because of this, a process of supply and demand brought millions of these people here. The mess is intractable without what would have to be a brutal, expensive, and altogether self-defeating process.

So, what do we do? Partly what we’ve already done: deporting or turning away folks who are trying to get in illegally now. Discourage further development of the problem. The truth here is that we also have to clear the decks of the wreckage, and that means we get them to come in from the cold, get documented, and out of the shadows.

But that’s too complicated to put on a bumper-sticker. It’s too adult. It actually solves the problem, too, which if you really think about it is the last thing the GOP wants. It needs chronic problems to keep its appeal up. If the economy actually does better across the board, people have no reason to vote to trade away their rights as workers, as wage-earners. Let the rich eat up your paycheck on the off-chance, the dim hope that they might deign to pay you better, or even let you keep your job, which you should be grateful for, you balance-sheet liability.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 2, 2016 7:28 PM
Comment #410824

We could split up deplorables into three categories. Those on the left, those on the right, and those Stephen Daugherty labels as deplorable.

After all, he talked about his own haircut as “Fashy” which is to say rather fascistic,

“Fashy” could also be a term used for “Fashion” and probably more likely considering he was talking about his hair. But, why quibble with accuracy when falsely labeling someone reinforces an opinion of them. How did you start your last comment, Stephen Daugherty?

Trump denounced the so-called Alt-Right, Hillbilly didn’t denounce her Alt-Left. She embraced them. She and Obama encouraged them, so your castigation rings hollow. It also distracts from the facts d.a.n put forth concerning Democratic control of cities and their high crime rates.

Have you ever considered spending as much time trying to convince your own side to be less violent instead of spending it fighting partisan battles?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 7:46 PM
Comment #410826

1) That’s literally the name of his haircut. The guy is deplorable.

2) It’s also not the so-called Alt-Right. That is literally the name of the movement Richard Spencer founded

3) I blamed the exploitation by landlords and real estate speculators segregating cities racially and economically. Democrats became more popular because we don’t act like people caught up in those forces, with neighborhood deed restrictions and draconian housing contracts restricting their good fortunes inflicted their fate on themselves.

4) No, I have not, because I don’t buy into FOXNews propaganda that paints EVERY demonstration as a riot. I’ve seen plenty of situations in which Democrats, confronted with such behavior, denounce it. You didn’t see Obama try and rationalize police getting shot. I do see plenty of Conservatives rationalizing black people getting shot, rationalizing rather angry and intolerant attitudes towards Latinos and Muslims. I see Trump cheering on the people who sucker-punch, kick and stomp protesters. There may be tensions and a few disruptions here and there, but we’re not stupid, and we know our media doesn’t protect us from disgrace if we let ourselves go.

Republicans are the ones embracing violence and bloodymindedness, an internal state of perpetual warfare.

I don’t see the need to give Democrats any special attention on the subject because they tend to act like adults on violence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 2, 2016 10:15 PM
Comment #410828
It is just as ridiculous as the rioting by liberals, blaming the results of the election on white people, and calling Trump supporters White Supremacists.

Not even close D.A.N. Trump has many followers that are in fact white supremacists. Some liberals protested not rioted. Unless of course you can prove those that went beyond protesting were liberals not anarchist, unaffiliated opportunists or police provocateurs that incited violence.

Either way that has nothing to do with perpetrating myths. However your integrity has shown through as you have confirmed the mass murder myths. I applaud you for that.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2016 12:51 AM
Comment #410829
After all, he talked about his own haircut as “Fashy” which is to say rather fascistic,

Why would you say talking about his hair is fascist? I don’t get it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 12:58 AM
Comment #410838
Also, America’s ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democrat mayors.

Well for starters I guess congratulations are due because this conservative talking point did not make the the top 10 list of bizarre correlations.

Unfortunately it exposes the conservative mindset that is willing to accept any type of BS to prove what ever it is you are trying to prove D.A.N.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2016 12:49 PM
Comment #410840

Chicago probably should have been on that top-ten list.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2016 1:18 PM
Comment #410841

/ number of j2t2’s posts
/ and
/ number of excuses for denial


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 1:30 PM
Comment #410845

Stephen, there is good and reasonable evidence of global climate change many times in earth’s past. Man was not involved.

Stephen wrote; “What bothers me, pains me in fact, is when illusion and deception are promoted just so a precious few can get what they want.”

Well it gives me a pain in the nether regions also when I consider the lies and deception used to promote and pass Obamacare, Irancare, shovel ready jobs, and more.

Question for Stephen. Perhaps we will agree that Liberalism lives and dominates at most of our nation’ colleges and universities. Can we agree that conservatives “rights” have been curtailed and diminished at many of these schools? Can we agree that conservative guest speakers are being denied permission to speak at many of these schools?

Where is the equality, liberty and freedom of thought at these institutions Stephen. These students will be our future movers and shakers. Do you subscribe to their behavior?

Stephen wrote; “I don’t see the need to give Democrats any special attention on the subject because they tend to act like adults on violence.”

Partially correct…YOU DON’T SEE!

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 3, 2016 2:55 PM
Comment #410848

The Earth has turned into a giant white snowball at least four times in the past.
We should probably be more worried about that than global warming?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2016 6:19 PM
Comment #410849

*Facepalm*

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2016 7:54 PM
Comment #410850
Chicago probably should have been on that top-ten list.

You forgot New Orleans and Atlanta as well. But your spurious correlation is still bogus. I can make the same case for repub controlled states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

I can also make the case politics don’t have a damn thing to do with it and we are a 3rd world nation along the lines of Mexico and Brazil in the Americas with our murder rate.

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


/ number of j2t2’sWeary posts
/ and
/ number of excuses for denial lame comments

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #410851

If you get rid of the top 7 cities the murder rate drops to near the bottom of the list.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 11:34 PM
Comment #410852

Royal Flush-
Let’s start with your first paragraph. I don’t know why folks like you insist on this argument. At best, what you could be arguing is that climate change might happen all by itself. That’s not a dispute! Nobody says that you have to choose between them! Hell, you can have natural variability confounding the results of what we’re doing.

A comparable metaphor? If I’m on a lake that has waves on it, and I run my motorboat over it, you will have both the waves from my wake, and those naturally produced by the winds. They’ll interfere with each other, peaks and troughs canceling each other out, peaks intensifying with peaks, troughs deepening with troughs, but you’ll never see one set of waves stop and yield the way to the other.

If the sun’s output goes down for the next millennia, that natural variation will affect things whether or not we continue to pump out CO2 like we’re doing now. Same thing if there’s some titanic volcanic explosion. However, the CO2 we put out will have it’s effect. Why?

When we boil things down to it, there isn’t a separate box of rules for how the things we affect change the world around us, and for how nature changes itself. If it were swamps pumping out CO2 in a runaway catastrophe of some kind. or some release of clathrates, or whatever, the results would be similar to what we’re doing. We’re not apart from nature. When a beaver makes a dam and it gives way, the flood that goes downstream behaves no differently than if humans built the dam, apart from the materials we might be using. If we burn down a forest by carelessly failing to put out a campfire, the behavior of the forest fire is little different than if a lightning strike caused it. Once we’ve set things in motion, they wrap into the way nature is unfolding at a given range of time.

I think it’s key to understand that, like an avalanche, starting something doesn’t necessarily mean you’re controlling it, from beginning to end. We don’t control CO2 after it escapes from the tailpipe, nor can we control, entirely, how the climate responds to the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2. If you start an avalanche, you lose control of it almost immediately, because yours is not the only forced unleashed.

CO2 is a trace gas, present at a fraction of a percent, but hugely influential on our climate for that small amount, so the kinds of small changes to the atmosphere that humans are capable of, given the gigatons of CO2 we’re pumping out, are well within the range of plausibility.

As far as lies go? Obama said people could keep their doctor. Most people did. Most people kept their policies. Healthcare remained private. The insurance companies, which remained private, terminated those policies.

Republicans cried wolf. Several years have come and went, and private policies remain the norm. Republicans earned power on a lie, a fevered, panicked lie.

Iran? If your people don’t screw it up, we have Iran not making nuclear weapons, not able to make it because we’ve had them fill their reactors with cement, and limited what technologies they can import. In return, the country normalizes, opens up somewhat, which, in the course of things, tends to weaken authoritarian governments. They need people constantly scared, constantly panicked, constantly worried that, say, some professors might be teaching willing students things that traditionalists and right wing radicals might not want them learning.

You guys actually have watchlists, and you think it’s not all disturbing to try and intimidate professors out of teaching willing students things you don’t like. As for guest speakers, I was not aware that every college had to invite any sort of speaker no matter what. I mean, does Liberty University have to invite Eve Ensler, Neil Gaiman, or… God Help Us… J.K. Rowling?

No. While I’m much more of a mind to support open dialogue, people can do things like, say, oppose a visit from that guy who said, “Hail Trump, Hail our People, and Hail Victory.” To a bunch of sieg hieling amateur goosesteppers!

I think what you’re doing is transparently trying to wrest any kind of power to express views not your own out of the hands of other people. I think you’re trying to win in the marketplace of ideas by burning down everybody else’s stalls, and I think it’s high time you guys started trying to do things the right way, rather than insisting on learning every possible kind of manipulation instead.

I actually don’t like the idea of safe spaces, and think trigger warnings can be taken a little far. I think people need to develop some kind of skills to deal with folks that disagree with them. However, I don’t object to safety being a concern if you have people who, if their rhetoric is taken at face value, are pushing for something more than just a change in policy. If you have men who are saying they they have the right to dominate, abuse, and rape women, I’d say their activities need to be watched closely, if not outright curtailed. If you’re saying that you and your friends will break out the guns and have a revolution if you don’t get the outcome in the election you wanted, I’d say somebody needs to keep an eye on you, and act if you begin to attempt your little revolution.

As far as not seeing the need to lecture my people on violence? Look, I hear Republicans crying out, every time a bunch of people are shot up that people will take their guns out of their cold dead hands. You have people like Trump’s favorite nutball Alex Jones claiming that many of these shootings were complete frauds. Same guy who doesn’t bother with evidence when he claims millions of votes were illegitmately cast. Same guy who raves about satanic possession, literally demonizing his opponents with claims that they get their aromatherapy from the fire and brimstone section of Bed, Bath, and Beyond.

If an individual were doing what the GOP has been doing, we would be concerned for their mental wellbeing, but since it’s a flood of people who have taken leave of their senses, take tales of demonic possession seriously, listening to raving lunatics claiming that by special arrangements of punctuation, they can claim government authority, we’re calling it a political movement.

I can’t see how my people at this point are worse. I tell my people that I don’t want them pushing BS like the 9/11 Trutherism, which, by the way, Alex Jones pushes. I don’t want them alleging things they can’t bring good evidence behind, because I value my credibility!

Your people?

There is Truth, actual truth, and there is Pravda Truth. Pravda Truth doesn’t require you to expend much effort. You can spout it like a good little ideologue, and please the authorities you’ve raised up. But here’s the thing: If you drape a sheet with a picture of a lamb over a raging bull, it won’t become a lamb. It will remain as it is.

Putin can lie to himself that a situation like in the Crimea is to his benefit, but he suffered profound consequences for his action, and thousands of Russians are dying for that mistake of his, that rash impulse. What happens to Russia the moment he drops dead of a heart attack, or contracts cancer? When you balance everything on one fearless leader, put all your hopes and dreams on them… well, when they fail, everything fails.

Republicans have repeated the mistake they made with Bush with Trump. No amount of Pravda Truth draped over BS can make a cow cookie a chocolate chip cookie. The guy just violated a key diplomatic policy with China, one of our big trading partners and holder of much of our debt. Now your Pravda Truth specialists are trying to spin it as a positive thing. But that doesn’t make it so, and worse, trying to wish away that it was a mistake means that you’re not telling this particular Emperor he’s naked. You won’t fool anybody who doesn’t want to be fooled, or convince skeptics that he isn’t screwing things up.

The only people being fooled are those who want to be.

Dan-
You know, making statements about how climate has been over geological time comes with a key set of issues. One, that in many cases, you had a continental arrangement that encouraged a great deal of the state of the climate. The fact we have a continent at the Antarctic, and a large landmass covered with ice up north, has had a profound effect on our climate. Also the fact that there’s an Isthmus of Panama keeping the major Gulf currents from flowing towards the equator through the Strait that once was there.

The question is not how climate would behave in those periods, because those arrangements are now a thing of the distant past.

The question is how the arrangements are working now. The evidence is showing that we are pretty far away from the global averages that characterized periods when we were about to dive into another ice age. You don’t worry about the dog you had put to sleep five years ago tearing up the couch. You don’t treat yourself for altitude sickness when you’re sitting in the valley before the climb. If average global temperature suddenly plunge and stay plunged for the next few decades, we can worry about that. The evidence shows us warming is the trend, and that beyond what we’ve ever seen in historic times.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2016 12:27 AM
Comment #410853
If you get rid of the top 7 cities the murder rate drops to near the bottom of the list. Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 11:34 PM

And when Trump makes America great again all out problems will go away….right Weary?
Seriously are you suggesting some sort of ethnic or demographic cleansing to rid America of roughly one fourth of it’s population?

BTW When you get rid of the top 7 cities in Brazil and Mexico do they drop to the bottom of the list as well?

Thanks Weary for agreeing that the correlation D.A.N described has no merit. I mean Mexico and Brazil do not have dems as mayor yet they have high murder rates…right? Many states have high murder rates and they aren’t states with the top 10 cities on D.A.N’s list. Hell D.A.N’s list doesn’t include Chicago or New Orleans how valid can it be lol? So how does that work with you guys do we just say f**k the facts let the myth’s prevail or what?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 4, 2016 1:53 AM
Comment #410854

Weary Willie-
See my response on the County Canard. You take the Top seven Metropolitan Statistical areas in the country, and you get about 69 million people. Top twenty, and you get 122 million people. Eighty percent of our population lives in or around the cities. There’s a reason the concerns of the cities are growing more and more prominent for American politics: We’re getting more citified.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2016 2:55 AM
Comment #410858

My goodness, Stephen Daugherty! You spend the first seven paragraphs trying to explain how motorboats and waves interact with each other as a parallel to global warming, and then in the next paragraph you say, don’t look at us, it was the insurance companies!

WTF!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 11:02 AM
Comment #410862

We’re getting more citified.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2016 2:55 AM

True. And…our cities are getting more “socialistic”.

Stephen’s reasoning behind the denial of freedom and liberty at our institutions of higher learning is simply hyperbole.

Stephen believes the limited science indicating MMGW. I don’t. Global warming is a fact, it’s correlation with man is not.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2016 5:20 PM
Comment #410863

It’s strange how the left fears both global warming and population growth. Global warming could be the facilitator of population growth when you consider how plants grow larger and faster in a CO2 enriched environment.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 6:21 PM
Comment #410864

Weary, over the decades we have had many prominent writers scare us with “end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it” tomes. Usually it is the hair-on-fire Lefties promoting junk science for profit. We were told we were running out of food, fossil fuels, breathable air, clean water, and more.

None of their predictions have been worth the paper they are printed on, just like their political promises.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2016 6:34 PM
Comment #410865

So… If virtually all the scientists of the world are wrong, and they are just promoting a hoax in order to garner research grants, or weaken the US and promote socialism…

Should the Trump administration stop funding NASA and the NOAA and Livermore Labs? Should they stop data collection, since the data being collected must be fake?

Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2016 7:00 PM
Comment #410866


NASA, before Obama, was a worthwhile and very productive part of human evolution.

NOAA could actually be replaced by the many private weather gathering stations across the U.S. Every time you watch the weather on your favorite propaganda station you are watching the same product NOAA produces.

And, we could always use a few more nuclear weapons, right phx8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 8:07 PM
Comment #410867

Think about this!

Back when we were still cooking with fire and just getting used to having white lines on the roads, the United States decided to go to the moon and back. We did it in less than 15 years.

Today, it takes that much time to replace a building in New York City.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 8:09 PM
Comment #410868

My oh my. So many conservative commentators have no idea what they are talking about. You can only bury your head in the sand and ignore these facts for so long:

CO2 has increased in concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Mankind is responsible for nearly all of this increase. The natural carbon cycle exchanges roughly a 100 Gt C between the atmosphere and biosphere each year. A similarly humongous quantity of CO2 cycles between the atmosphere and hydrosphere (roughly 90 Gt C). Humans emit about 6 Gt. While this is small compared to the natural cycle, it is significant because it is a one-way mass flux rather than the two-way cycles that occur naturally. The natural sinks compensate a little, sequestering half of anthropocentric emissions into the biosphere or hydrosphere, but that still leaves the other half to accumulate in the atmosphere without bound. After a century and a half, this accumulation has raised CO2 concentrations by 43%.

With mankind on the hook for this tremendous increase in CO2 concentrations, we look at the radiative forcing from CO2. Abundant evidence tells us that in the absence of greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface temperature would be around 252 Kelvin. This is much less than the average surface observed temperature of roughly 288K. This 35 Kelvin difference is a testament to the potency of the greenhouse effect. While most of this warming is caused by Water Vapor, CO2 plays a significant role as well.

The physical mechanism for the greenhouse effect is explained well by spectroscopy. Inside a laboratory, it cah be easily observed that these gases are transparent to the wavelengths of light associated with incoming shortwave solar radiation, but they are opaque to the outgoing terrestrial longwave radiation. The opague gases absorb the energy in the outgoing terrestrial longwave radiation and return it to the Earth’s surface. Measurements of down-welling infrared radiation tell us that H2O has a forcing of 75 watts per square meter and CO2 has a forcing of 32 watts per square meter.

Fortunately, the potency of the greenhouse effect is a logarithmic function of the CO2 concentration. Increasing CO2 by 40% does not increase the radiative forcing by 40%. However, the increase is non-negligible. Combined with various feedback mechanisms, estimates indicate that the forcing from anthropocentric CO2 in 2100 will be on the order of a few watts per square meter. To give a sense of the range we are talking about, burning every gram of fossil fuels that is economically feasible would likely lead to a forcing of less than 8.5 watts per square meter in 2100. However, it is far more likely the radiative forcing will be a bit less, perhaps 4.5 or 6.0 watts per square meter. If we can limit the radiative forcing to 2.6 watts per square meter, then we avoid all the deleterious consequences of climate change on the economy.

Regarding the geologic record (such as snowball Earth), there are numerous natural impacts that can make the Earth’s climate vary on a scale much larger than what Mankind can do with our puny CO2 emissions. However, those swings operate on time scales at least 1000x longer than what we’ve observed with recent global warming trends. Paleoclimatologists have explanations for all those shifts and they all involve natural forcings that we are certain are not in operation today.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 4, 2016 8:10 PM
Comment #410869
NOAA could actually be replaced by the many private weather gathering stations across the U.S. Every time you watch the weather on your favorite propaganda station you are watching the same product NOAA produces.

NOAA (and their counterparts overseas) do the vast majority of the heavy lifting to produce those weather forecasts. NOAA builds, develops and runs operational simulations of the Earth’s atmosphere each and every day. There is no business model to enable the private sector to raise an equivalent amount of capital because a weather forecast is a non-rival good. There already is a robust network of private businesses prefaced upon taking NOAA’s publicly available forecasts and translating them into a format easily accessed by the general public. Still more private businesses sell products whereby NOAA’s forecasts are tailored to fit the individual needs of particular companies. I used to work for one such outfit making forecasts for insurance companies.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 4, 2016 8:29 PM
Comment #410871

I was only pointing out to phx8 that there is always alternatives and the earth will not crumble to dust if NOAA wasn’t funded.

Humans have been rearranging our environment for the better since we broke the first rock. They did it without fear and paranoia. How do you know we are not creating an environment that will sustain much larger populations with our increase in CO2 production? How can you be certain we are destroying the earth’s environment with increased CO2 emissions?

I’m all for a transition toward renewable resources. However, the predictions of the panic mongers of the 70’s turned out to be just that, panic. New York City isn’t under water. The ozone isn’t burned away. There are still birds in Central Park so we know people aren’t starving to death. Given the total breakdown of the panic predictions, how can you expect anyone to believe you now? You’re still saying the same things!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 9:07 PM
Comment #410872

WO,
“Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.”
Wikipedia

That is where we are now.

“And so Mr. Trump’s tweet amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up.”

“One thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts. Everybody has a way, it’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true.”
Nell Scottie Hughes, Trump surrogate

Stephanopoulos: “It’s his right to make false statements?” asked.

Pence: “I think one of the things that’s refreshing about our president-elect. I think he made such an incredible connection with people all across this country because he tells you what’s on his mind.”

Stephanopoulos: “But why is it refreshing to make false statements?”

We are in a new place, in which falsehoods are “refreshing.”
There are no facts. This is the new GOP, the new conservatism. This is the Trump administration. This is the time of post-truth.

Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2016 9:15 PM
Comment #410873
How do you know we are not creating an environment that will sustain much larger populations with our increase in CO2 production

The problem isn’t the absolute concentration of CO2 or the absolute mean temperature. Indeed, temperature and CO2 have varied quite dramatically throughout the eons and Life has always found a way to thrive.

The problem is a result of the CHANGE in the climate. For instance, rising sea levels would undoubtedly flood much of Bangladesh, losing a great deal of some of Earth’s most productive agricultural land. However, it is quite plausible that a warmer Earth would have new breadbaskets in Siberia or Northern Canada as the boreal forests and tundra give way to productive grassland. The new arable land could produce more food than the lost land in Bangladesh. This means Earth can now support a higher population.

However, petty politics means that this cannot be realized in an ethical manner. Bengalis will not be permitted to move to the new fertile landscapes in Canada and Siberia. Instead, those Bengalis will be forced to suffer and die while those northern parcels of land get populated by Russians and Canadians (or Chinese in the case of Siberia).

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 4, 2016 9:32 PM
Comment #410874

But couldn’t Bangalis develop a agriculture based off of those flooded lands? People are not static. They find a way to survive. What we can’t survive is a sudden and catastrophic change. Environmentalists predicted that flooding would have already occurred and it hasn’t. Aren’t they setting themselves up as a Chicken Little?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2016 9:48 PM
Comment #410878
But couldn’t Bangalis develop a agriculture based off of those flooded lands

You can’t grow rice on the bottom of the ocean.

People are not static. They find a way to survive.

Yes, they do. The easiest solution would be to declare war and seize land from another nation. This has always been the traditional solution to climate change throughout human history (witness the displacement of Southern Africa’s original inhabitants with Bantus after the enlargement of the Sahara or the Hunnic invasions of Europe sparked by desertification of the steppe in their homeland or the migration of Nahua people from Aridoamerica to Mesoamerica to rule over the original inhabitants as the Aztec Empire).

What we can’t survive is a sudden and catastrophic change.
Exactly. Compared with previous episodes of climate change wrought by nature, anthropogenic global warming is happening far more quickly, which is why it is more problematic.
Environmentalists predicted that flooding would have already occurred and it hasn’t.

I am unaware of such predictions. The closest I can think of was the erroneous prediction that the Himalayas would be ice free by the 2030s, which received a lot of press after it mistakenly appeared in an IPCC report.

Aren’t they setting themselves up as a Chicken Little?
Chicken Little’s forecast of impeding catastrophe was rooted in a spurious observation and flew in the face of any common sense understanding of how the world works. The opposite is true for climate scientists. Using the scientific method, we have explored and learned so much about the climate system that we can create computer models of the Earth’s climate that simulate it with reasonable accuracy. While they aren’t good enough to predict interannual variability that might cause December 5, 2017 to be warmer or cooler than today, they do provide a framework for understanding Earth’s energy budget. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 5, 2016 10:08 AM
Comment #410887

Royal Flush-
Look, if you want to pretend that Johnny and Jane can move back to the farm if the city jobs don’t work out… well, that idea was unworkable by the Great Depression. It’s not hyperbole to say we are a more urban society than we once were. That is the literal truth: we are more than 81 percent urban. that, as opposed to the split in 1930, which was at 56.1%/43.9%. over the last 85 years, the distribution of the population has changed.

As for the science of the attribution? Well, if you think that science is soft, then you’re unaware of the isotope profiles that indicate the carbon is from fossil sources, and folks like you have yet to successfully account for the change in atmospheric concentrations.

That’s bluntly why I don’t buy the political propaganda. I’ve long been a big science nerd, so I consult them first, rather than relying on sources trading more in politics. If you want to know what is really going on, and why the Consensus is on anthropogenic global climate change, then you really need to step back from the politics, because, quite frankly, the political sources in your party work for the industry we’d have to regulate to make a difference. The Republican Party has a conflict of interest with being honest with their voters about the hazard that climate change poses and the causes of that climate change.

Weary Willie-
Our civilization is based on a certain set of climate patterns. We need water for crops, drinking, and sanitation. We need to design the system to handle rain or its lack over the year. We’ve also gone and put much of our civilization at the edge of our oceans. A huge percentage of Americans live fairly close to the sea, so sea-level change is no minor affair.

In any given economic situation, you pay a certain amount in capital in order to maintain the civilization. You pay so much for your water, for your houses, your property, the businesses on the waterfront. Long before the waters swallow what’s on the water’s edge, the storm waves will be wreaking their havoc. The issue is, we put a bunch of our chemical infrastructure there, too, including our oil.

Think of the expense of relocating all that!

If we want to pretend like it’s an easy or simple thing to deal with climate change, like the change in the way the climate behaves is a trivial thing, just consider the change in the weather over the past weak.

What essentially happened is that we went from a situation where warm air had pushed far into the North American Arctic, to one where a whole mass of cold air from Siberia jumped over the pole and froze our happy little asses. We’re getting this because the polar ice has melted back to a record extent, leaving a whole bunch of warm water to disrupt the polar winds that kept the jet streams from doing stupid little things like that.

It’s the same weakening of the winds that are letting the Antarctic Sea ice spread as far as it has to the south. The Antarctic is always sort of cold in the winter, thanks to its position, but the sea ice has normally been broken up by the rough seas that the circumpolar winds create. Things don’t work by one simple mechanism.

A similar issue showed up during the summer months. Normally, the Equatorial updrafts create a difficult to penetrate barrier to the movement of winds from the Southern Hemisphere to the North and Vice Versa, but this summer, a jet stream from the north actually dipped down and connected with one from the south, funnelling warm summer air into the Southern Hemisphere from the north.

We’ve been going around thinking that things like seasons are these nice, stable, permanent things, when in fact, they’re far from it. They are a result of the way our climate’s been organized, a gift from nature that we’re on the verge of destroying.

It’s not just that climate will get warmer, it’s that it’s going to behave more chaotically than at literally any time in human history. Natural climate change has been hard enough for Humanity to weather as it is. Civilizations have risen and fallen as a result. If your interests are America’s interests, you should be willing to do what you can to keep the climate as close to what we’ve developed under as possible, because the alternative may not be compatible with America remaining a major world power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2016 1:55 PM
Comment #410890

To all
Climate warming is caused by the increase in population. That increase is based on leftist people who must breathe. When the increase in population is done and the amount of CO2 is expelled into the universe, that causes global warming.

I know that is only a theory, but it makes more sense that that other pablum from the leftwing gerbers factory.

Posted by: tom humes at December 5, 2016 4:34 PM
Comment #410891

We are WOWED by the climate science education Warren’s parents purchased for him which is on display here. I suggest even more scientific words and concepts from patrician Warren to dazzle us mere plebeians. He’s almost got that “sow’s ear” made into a “silk purse”.

Mr. Daugherty just can’t be honest. I said hyperbole was being exercised by those claiming freedom and liberty was still evident at our colleges and universities. I wasn’t writing about urban versus rural America. GET A GRIP STEPHEN

Stephen has read some books and is now expert enough to castigate us MMGW questioners. Well…that settles it in my mind. Guess I will go over the the “dark side”. Foolish me, my science degree and all the books and articles I have read are just worthless.

Stephen has even explained why arctic air is moving Southward as it never has before…REALLY?

Stephen has revealed that by being patriotic we can keep climate from changing. OK, I am willing to stop using fossil fuels just as soon as my know-it-all Pals do.


Posted by: Royal Flush at December 5, 2016 4:51 PM
Comment #410893
We are WOWED by the climate science education Warren’s parents purchased for him which is on display here. I suggest even more scientific words and concepts from patrician Warren to dazzle us mere plebeians. He’s almost got that “sow’s ear” made into a “silk purse”.

Cheeky sarcasm doesn’t prove anything other than your immaturity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 5, 2016 5:51 PM
Comment #410894

tom humes-
Well, your average expelling of hot air might carry with it the functional equivalent of an automobile burning gallons of gas, but most people fall short of the ability of a car to exhale CO2.

More to the point, the stuff those cars, powerplants, and homes are putting out is not the same carbon that’s been circulating out here in the atmosphere for the last few million years. No, you’re taking stuff that has been buried for tens, even hundreds of millions of years, and burning it all in the space of a century and a half.

That’s a rather large kick of extra CO2 to the system that wasn’t being fed in there before the industrial revolution.

Royal Flush-
Most of our arctic cold fronts move down from Canada and the poles. It’s far less likely for this to happen, the author describing it as a homerun, enabled by big twists and turns in the polar jet streams. Up until this point, we’ve had an extremely unusual warm spell, in part due to the odd way in which the polar regions are warming up, thanks to a lack of ice cover reflecting light and heat to space.

It’s an interlocking system, really. One part is the unusual warmth in the polar regions. That decreases ice cover, which exposes dark, heat absorbing water. That decreases the differences in temperature and pressure that drive circumpolar jets, meaning they become more turbulent, more apt to bend and twist. The bending and twisting means that normally contained masses of cold air that don’t make it so far south push down into lower latitudes, and in other parts of the globe, warmer than average masses push their way up, often exacerbating the melting, the lack of ice cover.

You need to pay attention to not just the existence of cold air, because global climate change doesn’t call off winter, it changes its shape, how it behaves, it’s level of consistency.

Also, though… You’re not questioning Anthropogenic Global Warming, you’re denying it as an article of your faith in right-wing politics. Your politics is telling you what position to take, not evidence, not conclusive counter-theories. This isn’t string theorists arguing with Brane theorists about the nature of physics we’re decades away from being able to practically prove. This is a system we can directly observe to test models, and your broad brush assertion that the models are all fatally flawed runs right into evidence we’re seeing that the models have properly predicted the outcome. Record temperature anomalies, erratic climate behavior, the behavior of oscillating systems is fitting with what the scientists are describing.

What your politics are doing is making you the last people in the room to acknowledge the ugly truths of what’s going on.

As for patriotism, I am not going to risk the future of my nation and the welfare of our civilization just so a few rich bastards in a few companies can make more money! If the risk was half of what reliable climatologists were saying, the GDP gains by letting those twits push their agenda are dwarfed by the long term costs. EVERYBODY else with a long term view is pricing climate change into their calculations. The insurance companies are taking it seriously, the European community is taking it seriously, the Military is taking it seriously.

The only people not taking it seriously are the people running the GOP’s participation trophy junk science squad, making one excuse after another as to why to disbelieve the vast majority of professional climate scientists.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2016 5:57 PM
Comment #410895
Climate warming is caused by the increase in population. That increase is based on leftist people who must breathe. When the increase in population is done and the amount of CO2 is expelled into the universe, that causes global warming.

I know that is only a theory, but it makes more sense that that other pablum from the leftwing gerbers factory.

Respiration does not affect the long term equilibrium concentration of CO2 because every carbon atom exhaled by a person or other animal was taken out of the atmosphere sometime in the past few years. This contrasts with burning fossil fuels, which liberates carbon which has not been in the atmosphere for millions of years.

Alternatively, you can look at it as a matter of balanced fluxes. The Respiration and Photosynthetic fluxes balance each other exactly (I think 100 Gt C of carbon cycles between the atmosphere and biosphere each year). In contrast, the flux from burning fossil fuel exceeds the geologic sequestration rate by many orders of magnitude (we extract fossil fuels at a far greater rate than the Earth creates them). This results in higher atmospheric CO2 levels and diminished lithospheric CO2.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 5, 2016 6:13 PM
Comment #410896

It’s fun talking about global warming on here. You can give a one sentence reply or statement and the leftists will type 15 or 20 paragraphs trying to prove you wrong.

Posted by: tomdobson at December 5, 2016 6:33 PM
Comment #410897

Using words and concepts gleaned by Warren pursuing his degree to impress us plebeians doesn’t prove anything either Warren except your hubris. Learning and using words not familiar outside a given field of science is a transparent attempt by Warren to veil how little he actually knows.

Both Warren and Stephen are asking us to close our minds to scientific inquiry inconsistent with their hypothesis. Settled science is a name that adequately represents their arrogance.

With regard to the European community Stephen, have you noticed that the number of G5 leaders of earlier this year has dwindled to ONE, plus ONE leaving office soon? These leaders left office because of their stinking liberal thinking. That includes unproven MMGW.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 5, 2016 6:40 PM
Comment #410898

Shhhh tomdobson…don’t let them know the game we’re playing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 5, 2016 6:42 PM
Comment #410900

tomdobson-
Real knowledge and wisdom, real, high quality arguments take patience and an attention to detail. We will put together several paragraphs to describe what’s going on because we don’t simply trust that stating things we think are right proves a damn thing to people who aren’t already on our bandwagon.

Or, put another way, we actually do prove something with our arguments, if you’re paying attention! We back our conclusions with both logic and evidence.

If you want to argue everything from bumperstickers, be my guest, but it’s a bit like playing an infinite tennis game where each side’s biases make them think they’re winning the argument. I like the style of argumentation I’m using because there’s a reality check built in, and there’s some way of objectively telling the difference between right and wrong. It’s not merely a question of your taste in political parties or dogmas, or which authorities you prefer.

That’s what makes science important, in my view. Rather than letting people’s imaginations run away with themselves, it gets people to stick to both making claims that can be confirmed or found to be false, and it lets people clear their minds of junk so they can find the results that don’t follow their expectations.

Scientists didn’t want to think of light as a wave that travels without need of a substance to travel through. Their experience of waves was water waves, sound waves, so they thought light traveled through something called aether. Well, they did this famous experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment where they tried to find where the motion of the planet made certain light waves lag behind. They found no such deviation.

At some point people had to admit that light was a special kind of wave that propagated itself. Elements were discovered as people learned how to distinguish them through their chemical and then mass and nuclear properties.

We hardly know a fraction of what the world has to show us, but that fraction we don’t know has no dependence whatsoever on our expectations of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2016 7:07 PM
Comment #410901

Royal Flush-
Close your minds? How about acknowledge the evidence? Your mind only sees in the sciences what it wants to see, what fits in your worldview!

I’m going to argue that the confidence in that science is justified to a greater degree. Climate scientists have earned greater credibility through their hard work and discipline than the so-called skeptics have with their repetition of canned arguments, provided with the patina of science bronzed over them, without the hard work done to verify the conclusion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2016 7:20 PM
Comment #410902

Mr. Daugherty I applaud your attempt to become better informed in various disciplines of earth science outside a formal setting.

May I suggest that a superior education requires thought, reflection and logical application of knowledge combined with advanced study.

You appear to approach scientific study ass-backwards. You accept a conclusion advanced by others and then only study their work. A closed mind is a mind in atrophy. Don’t be that guy.

And please, don’t fall into a habit that has trivialized Warren’s writing. Using big words and scientific theory that are not understood by the reader are meaningless and merely an effort to aggrandize ones-self. The best writing is the writing that is understood by the reader.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 5, 2016 7:28 PM
Comment #410905

I tried this exercise once before and got nowhere with it. I could not get a definitive answer. Not because of the question, but because they had no answer.

I’ll try it again with MMGW.

Stephen Daugherty and Warren Porter, what do we have to do to satisfy your quest to stop global warming? What must we do to satisfy Mother Nature and prevent her from steaming us like spinach? What is the end result of your attempts to convince us we are destroying the environment?

I don’t want any more lectures of how and why GW is happening. I want to hear what our environment will be like after you are satisfied we’ve done what you think we must do.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 5, 2016 11:34 PM
Comment #410906

Royal Flush-
I don’t think you really understand how I approach science at all. Before I was really political, I was interested in science. I read my brother’s science text books, and other such stuff, before I was eight. My brother is three years older than me. So, I’ve been dealing with basic facts and concepts of science since I was a child.

I don’t like it when politics intrudes on science. Politics to me is a step you take AFTER you’ve gathered facts and dealt with your data and drawing reasonable, non-fallacious conclusions from it. I hear far too much about conspiracy theory, nowhere near enough solid fact or evidence from the so-called skeptics, who I can’t seem to get to question their own beliefs, as a good skeptic should.

I don’t like people playing up a martyr complex without having first done the work to merit better treatment.

Don’t criticize Warren for his big words. They actually mean something. He’s not just jumbling **** up to impress you. I think it is egalitarianism’s backwards cousin to try and force people to use small words, especially when dealing with science that often is chocked full of specialized terms. don’t trivialize him or yourself. Educate yourself to understand what he is saying. Then you’ll really be on equal terms with them.

Education isn’t just what somebody else does to you, it’s what you do with yourself. Me and my classmates had equal access to the same resources. The main difference is that I sought out knowledge, while others didn’t.

The truth matters more than what people can handle.

Weary Willie-
Definitive answers? Climate are sensitively dependent on initial conditions. Whole different sequences of evolution take off from different starting points. The key here is range of outcomes. As for what we do to stop it? Pump less CO2 into the atmosphere. How that is achieved… up to you!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 6, 2016 12:31 AM
Comment #410907

What, hold my breath? C’mon. Either say what you expect us to do or tell me you don’t have answers.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 12:38 AM
Comment #410911

SD

You speak of conspiracy theories

The climate change you speak of is a conspiracy theory. The facts don’t line up with your massive misgivings. The models that are used on computers are just models. Just to remind you that a model is a small replica of the real thing. In this case the real thing barely exist as a real life situation. The climate change that the big wheels of society is like politics, the rules are for other people and not for the wheels. One example is the number of airplane trips that the wheels use on a daily basis and the CO2 expended. One can use all the theories at ones disposal and at the end of the hour they will still be just theories. And just to be clear theories are not fact, only opinions. Those opinions have changed over time from one extreme to another. At least the CUBS won the world series and that is a fact.

Posted by: tom humes at December 6, 2016 1:00 AM
Comment #410918

Weary Willie-
Greater efficiency in engines and generators- pumps less carbon out for unit of energy released. Bonus, you use less fuel to do the same work.

Alternative forms of energy generation- Solar, Wind, hydrothermal, hydroelectric, etc. preference for natural gas generators over coal when we use fossil fuels for generation, use of grown materials that take carbon out of the atmosphere that’s already there, as opposed to buried carbon that puts it back.

There, two easy responses.

tom humes-
It’s not a conspiracy theory. I should know. I once believed in them. The thing that marks a conspiracy theory is that the evidence for the theory is always somewhere else under the conspirator’s lock and key. That’s not the case here. The evidence is all around us. The evidence is publicly available It’s just a theory yes, no conspiracy added to it.

As for the rest of the comment? Theories are like designs for explanations. You find the one that best fits the facts, and the way they seem to interact, and then if one better comes along, you trade up to the better designed explanation. But ONLY IF.

Models benefit from that interaction. They get better as we better understand what principles and variable to put into play, and what not to. The current cold snap was anticipated a month ago according to a model. Models help us track the likely path of hurricanes. They’re not perfect, but compared to what? Absolute ability to predict the future? We don’t have that. Even a relatively flawed model that gets it right some of the time is better than a complete lack of any predictive tools.

As for that whole “It’s just a theory” line of BS?

Look, Quantum theory enabled us to build computers, LEDs in all kinds of colors, tap nuclear energy, whether as a weapon or as a source of power. Now the theory isn’t perfect, and reality may differ in a profound way, but already, the approximation of that truth, through theory, allows us the ability to engineer devices and processes we otherwise wouldn’t know how to create.

Already, the models we’ve created to predict weather, climate oscillations, and other such phenomena let us predict things like the Siberian express we’re dealing with right now. I didn’t realize it, but one of my sources up there was from a month ago, back when the unusually hot temperatures still held.

It isn’t just, oh hell, believe anything you like, because it’s all just your opinion, man! No, there are ways to be right, and ways to be wrong, and ways to be somewhere in between, but on the right track. The real question is, knowing the factors that determine weather and climate (literally determine it) How well can we predict how it behaves. Your sources are lying to you, or they don’t know the truth themselves. They work for the real conspiracies, that of people who want to protect their profit, and find willing co-conspirators in a party that pretty much claims whatever the industries paying them want them to claim. If they want to sell cigarettes, they tell people to say cigarettes don’t cause cancer. If they want to say asbestos isn’t a hazard, they’ll say that. If they want them to say that lead in our gasoline is a problem, they’ll say that.

Those are the people who you ought to watch out for: the folks who don’t get paid unless they reach a certain conclusion. You want to act like this makes you a rebel, to dispute science. But you’re not asking questions, really. You’re taking at face value somebody’s rhetorical objections, rhetoric designed to be persuasive to those who don’t know enough of the science to roll their eyes at what was just said. You’re being manipulated by those who know better, and misled by those who don’t.

I believe in egalitarianism as a means to unleash the capacities of all, as a means not to squander the gifts each person has, because they aren’t some rich legacy, or part of an upper class. Each of us has an ability to learn, and we never know that capacity until we put it to the test. To learn things, though, you must realize that much of what we think we know isn’t all that solid, and mostly, people are muddling around following their best guesses.

Now the question is, when evidence comes along that tells you that you missed your guess, that something’s up, do you see a challenge to your ego, to your sense that you know a lot about the world, or do you see an opportunity to test the world, to see what really might be true?

The scientific method basically means, you do your best to try and run towards that challenge, and make the best of it. You try and see whether that difference between what you expected and what did happen follows certain rules, or whether it was mere chance, a freak occurrence.

As for that last part? Let’s do a thought experiment: If you were there when they won, how do you prove that it actually occurred, that it is indeed a fact? If you weren’t there, how do you know it wasn’t all a staged production, all meant to deceive you?

The trick of it all is, at some point we need to trust some set of information we’re getting so we can make actual, rational decisions, so we can accept a certain amount of the reality around us, so we can function. So it’s a balance. We accept a certain amount of the reality that’s apparent around us, but we also need to test that reality, probe it, in order to discern what’s true from what’s false, explanations that are close to the truth, from those far from it.

I think taking this approach is superior to taking the one that seems to figure that somebody is running a satanic child molester ring out of a god-forsaken pizza shop. And I figure our results in society, for the most part, will be much better if we don’t have people running around believing in horses*** conspiracy theories while disbelieving accountable, provable, testable science. Response to the first will just create fiascos, because reality will match what they’re perceiving only by chance. Responses to the second? Well, we can’t know anything for sure, but we’d be a lot closer to doing something useful if we followed what the evidence seems to prove is worth doing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 6, 2016 8:40 AM
Comment #410919

We’ve already done that, Stephen Daugherty. I had a car in the shop once and the guy said, “Don’t try to kill yourself with this car, you’ll only be wasting gas!”. Clean coal technologies have made generating 77% cleaner.

Try again, what else do you want us to do before you’re satisfied we’re not going to end up living on mountain tops?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 9:36 AM
Comment #410920

If the Cubs didn’t win, how do we know your scientific “facts” aren’t all fiction as well?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 9:47 AM
Comment #410924
Using words and concepts gleaned by Warren pursuing his degree to impress us plebeians doesn’t prove anything either Warren except your hubris. Learning and using words not familiar outside a given field of science is a transparent attempt by Warren to veil how little he actually knows.

Your ability to perceive my intentions is dead wrong. I choose my words with three goals in mind: accuracy, clarity and succinctness. If I fall short of those goals, feel free to point that out and I will try again. If you don’t understand the meaning of any words, let me know and I will happily explain.

Instead of following this reasoned approach, you have chosen to whine about your limited vocabulary like a child. I know you are an intelligent man with a penchant for using words that require me to consult with my dictionary on occasion. I know you are capable of much more than this. Grow up and take the initiative to learn and grow. Treat Watchblog as an opportunity for education rather than a circus freak show where you can gawk and deride people who are different than you and it will take you far.

Anyway, was my discussion of fluxes in the carbon cycle the source of your angst? In this context, a flux is a transfer of mass (Carbon in this instance) from one reservoir to another. Major reservoirs of carbon include the biosphere, the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere If you don’t understand how the carbon cycle operates or if you don’t understand one of the terminology I used to describe the aforementioned reservoirs, let me know, I can share with you a reputable reference that you can learn from and I can happily answer any questions you might have.

WW,

Stephen Daugherty and Warren Porter, what do we have to do to satisfy your quest to stop global warming? What must we do to satisfy Mother Nature and prevent her from steaming us like spinach? What is the end result of your attempts to convince us we are destroying the environment?

I don’t want any more lectures of how and why GW is happening. I want to hear what our environment will be like after you are satisfied we’ve done what you think we must do.

***Here’s the tldr: limit CO2 concentrations in 2100 to somewhere between 450 and 550 ppm.***

Firstly, there’s no way to “stop” global warming. As long as mankind’s industrial economy inhabits the planet, temperatures will rise. A certain amount of global warming is inevitable. Likewise, the Earth undergoes natural variations in climate that have nothing to do with Man. No matter what we do, global warming will continue for at least a century.

What we CAN do is mitigate the deleterious effects of that warming (although there are beneficial effects as well). The most important component of any AGW mitigation is to decrease the rate of warming and reach a point in a hundred years where anthropogenic GHG forcing on the climate has stabilized instead of following the current growth rate.

One popular symbolic threshold is to commit to limiting the global mean surface temperature in 2100 to less than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The only way to virtually guarantee that we stay below that threshold is to limit CO2 concentrations to below 450 ppm. Already, this seems to be impossible. Instead, we are likely to play chicken with the climate and exceed the threshold with fingers crossed in the hopes nothing catastrophic happens. Of course, we want to minimize the extent to which we exceed those thresholds.

Personally, I would be fine with a global commitment to hold CO2 concentrations below 550 ppm. There’s still substantive risk bad stuff happens in that scenario, but I am still comfortable with the overall odds. Now, some people at GreenPeace might be convinced that a 450 ppm CO2 concentration represents a firm line that cannot be crossed, but I think that level of alarmism is not warranted. In the 550 ppm scenario, I expect perhaps a hundred thousand people living on coral atolls to lose their homes. Nations like the Maldives or Nauru may cease to exist, but the calamity of a permanently flooded swath of Bangladesh would be avoided. To caveat, this is my rough personal feeling. There is a lot of uncertainty with the computer models that estimate the impacts of a warmer climate on sea level and weather, which themselves get layered on top of the uncertainty regarding how sensitive the climate is to anthropogenic CO2. This in turn gets layered on top of uncertainty regarding future emission rates. As you can see, this is not a deterministic situation, but a probabilistic one. We weigh the odds and no matter what we will end up spinning fortune’s wheel.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2016 12:11 PM
Comment #410925

Weary Willie-
I’m not arguing you should disbelieve that the cubs won. Not unless something profound, with profound evidence behind it, came your way. You should maintain awareness, though, of the linkages of trust that convey that information to you.

You should acknowledge a simple truth: that we can’t be everywhere, or find out everything directly for ourselves. So, we take other people’s word for things. If people always knew, much less told us the truth, that wouldn’t be a problem.

All the roads we have to truth run East of Eden. We have to work to get good information, to hold liars accountable, to protect ourselves from behaving naively. In this world, only God knows everything, gets everything right.

It’s not a coincidence that science and our constitutional form of government come from the same age, the age of Enlightenment, when the idea was to challenge authority, to found our society and our systems of belief on more actively verified grounds. I think the Framers envisioned a society of people who, rather than deferring authority and the opportunity to become one of the elite to nobility and royalty, rather than ignoring the good of the people in favor of the good of the ruling class, rather than being bound to the religious dogmas of one sect’s authorities or another, would develop themselves as free-thinking citizens.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that this was meant to be done through their powers of reason. It wasn’t merely a matter of belief, because the Europe that the Framers knew was replete with belief, and plagued by all the wars and controversies that came with it.

The Framer’s model works best when people don’t simply settle for being fields of grass all mowed to the same height, but when each person does their absolute best to develop their abilities.

As for coal? To make it clean, you have to deal with two parts of the waste: the exhaust from the burning, and the fly-ash that’s left over. The issue becomes whether you can successfully sequester the gas, or otherwise take it out of circulation, and dealing with the literal toxic waste that is left when the coal is fully burned. There were more than a couple ponds of that sludge that got into the rivers and made an unholy mess of them.

Only after you deal with that can you actually speak of clean coal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 6, 2016 2:11 PM
Comment #410928

There is a lot of uncertainty with the computer models that estimate the impacts of a warmer climate on sea level and weather, which themselves get layered on top of the uncertainty regarding how sensitive the climate is to anthropogenic CO2. This in turn gets layered on top of uncertainty regarding future emission rates. As you can see, this is not a deterministic situation, but a probabilistic one. We weigh the odds and no matter what we will end up spinning fortune’s wheel.
Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2016 12:11 PM

CLAP, CLAP, CLAP…WELL DONE WARREN

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 6, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #410931

Like I said before, I’m all in for finding alternative fuel sources. That’s exactly what we did when we converted from wood to coal, from coal to natural gas. We’ll obviously, I think, convert from natural gas to solar power in due time.

But, where is the urgency coming from. Hillbilly and Obama are putting people out of work in an effort to force this change. Did anyone have to force the change from wood to oil? Oil was a nuisance before people figured out a purpose for it. The earth is a huge magnet. Magnets move electrons. Our next power source could very well be the earth’s magnetic field! How do we know unless someone thinks of a way of doing it? They’re not going to bother if they think they’re going to be punished or fined for it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 6:15 PM
Comment #410932

Contrary to what the Lefties would have us believe Weary, there really is little that can be considered “settled” science.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 6, 2016 6:35 PM
Comment #410933

I know! They act like we’re going to wake up one morning with water sloshing around our bedposts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 6:50 PM
Comment #410934

They want to limit population growth to curb global warming, abortion on demand.

They want us all to ride bicycles to work, punish oil producers.

They want us to limit greenhouse gasses, raise taxes.

These are all Democratic goals. It really has nothing to do with global warming.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #410935

RF,
I am not sure what you are clapping about. The uncertainties involved make most climatologists quite worried about our future. IF temperatures rise just 2 degrees C, we’ll probably be OK. If temperatures rise by 10 degrees C, our civilization is totally fucked. Now, I don’t think the 10 degree C scenario is terribly likely, but I am not interested in rolling dice with humanity’s future on the line.

I spoke about the difficulty of quantifying the deleterious consequences of a 2100 with 450 ppm of CO2 vs 550 ppm. Cliamte scientists, economists and policy makers disagree all the time regarding the subtle difference between a future in either of those scenarios. This is in contrast to scenarios where CO2 reaches 800 ppm, which is what we are projected to reach if no mitigation actions are taken. At 800 ppm, there is still uncertainty regarding the consequences, but that uncertainty is a matter of bad vs. worse. This is when ideas involving runaway feedbacks and sea level rises of 100 meters or some enter the picture. They still exist on the tail of the projection, but with a probability that is far too close for comfort.

In summary, I would be tremendously surprised if a world with CO2 stabilized at 450 ppm in 2100 suffered any sort of catastrophe as a result of global warming. At 550 ppm, the risk of a bad outcome is nontrivial, but I would be comfortable playing those odds. Above that, things can get quite grim. If CO2 ended up stabilizing somewhere between 600 and 750ppm, the chance of a pleasant outcome would be nontrivial and I would not be surprised if it happened, but we would have to be quite lucky to avoid a bad outcome with the truly catastrophic scenarios having significant probability as well. At 800 ppm, I would would genuinely surprised if things ended well.

Current trends have us on the path to 800 ppm. The activists like to cry over 450 ppm, but uncertainty in the models probably gives us a little wiggle room up to 550 ppm or so. Anyone who thinks 800 ppm doesn’t risk catastrophe is either lying or doesn’t understand what he is talking about.

But, where is the urgency coming from

There is significant risk of a catastrophic outcome if CO2 concentrations get too high. The costs associated with these scenarios are not factored into the price of fossil fuel energy. This gives the free market a perverse incentive to continue burning fossil fuel even though it might cause a horrific outcome. As long as we ignore these external costs, we are effectively subsidizing fossil fuels. I don’t want the government to force a change to any particular energy source, but I don’t want the incumbents subsidized either.

putting people out of work in an effort to force this change
The change from horse transportation to automobile transportation was facilitated by paved roads funded and built by the government. I assume this put many makers of hose-buggy whips out of business.

It is the nature of technology that increased mechanization and efficiency means the amount of labor need to make stuff is constantly going down. This has always put some people out of work, but the general trend has been for displaced workers to find new occupations in different industries.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2016 7:18 PM
Comment #410936

I understand your concerns Warren. Do you understand our concerns about our unfunded liability of nearly $200 Trillion?

You can’t frighten me about scenarios of catastrophe in 2100 when today’s Left shows no concern of subsidized living today off the debt of tomorrow.

You can’t frighten me about climate catastrophes in 2100 when the Left invites economic catastrophe with unlimited, and sometimes very dangerous, immigration.

The Left wipes its collective brow and considers our agreement with Iran means no nuclear standoff or war in the next decade; not in the year 2100. The Left doesn’t worry about anything beyond the next election except for MMGW.

There are many scenarios that scare me in the immediate future, the things that can kill our nation today or tomorrow, that don’t include fossil fuels use.

The Left needs to get its priorities straight to even be considered in the game.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 6, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment #410937

When the debt to gdp ratio rises to 104%, as it is projected to do under Trump, it is very worrisome. The same goes for those unfunded liabilities. The funding structure for entitlements need reform. I see no reason why we cannot fight both these problems and the Global Warming issue at the same time. Indeed, I have been a longtime proponent of curtailing co2 emissions with a carbon tax and using the proceeds to mitigate the risks imposed by our debt and unfunded liabiloties. It kills two birds with one stone quite nicely.

Part of the reason I voted for Gary Johnson last month was because I did not trust HTC to handle our debt.

On the other hand, the claim that high levels of immigration are delterious to the economy fly in the face of reality. There are no academic studoes supporting your ideas. All previous waves of immigration have strengthened out nation.

Likewise, I expect Iran to refrain from developing nuclear weapons long after those provisions of the Iran deal sunset in 9 years provided Trump doesn’t do anything to violate the terms of the agreement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2016 9:34 PM
Comment #410938
Indeed, I have been a longtime proponent of curtailing co2 emissions with a carbon tax and using the proceeds to mitigate the risks imposed by our debt and unfunded liabiloties.

There it is. Eventually you get to the motive.

How is a cap and trade program for CO2 going to reduce the debt? If Warren Porter actually believes taxes on CO2 will be applied to the general fund to reduce the debt, he doesn’t understand how cap and trade programs are supposed to work.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2016 10:27 PM
Comment #410941

Weary Willie-
Actually, there was a lot of manipulation necessary. Hell, the very way we deal with our streets, the very idea that the streets mainly belong to cars, with pedestrians venturing into the road at their peril, most of the time, was the result of heavy lobbying by the auto interests. The Teapot Dome Scandal of the early 1920s tells you that oil was a big corrupting influence even in the days of Warren Harding.

Take this passage from an article on energy subsidies:

Similarly, several measures to aid oil companies passed in the early 1900s remain of key importance to the industry, Healey notes. These include one provision passed in 1916 to speed up depreciation of drilling costs. A second one, the oil depletion allowance, which became law in 1926, gives oil companies a tax break for depleting an oil reservoir. President Obama has sought to end these breaks but has been overwhelmed by the opposition from industry and its congressional allies.

These policies are perfectly clear to you, the way the water fish swim through is perfectly clear to them. You don’t see it because you assume that the status quo was always the status quo, and that it just simply, naturally, organically sprang into existence. You don’t realize it, but there was a day and age when automobiles were vilified for the fact that they kept killing the children that would run into the street. People in those days were used to walking into the street, to having horse-drawn wagons and other such vehicles move through. Only later do the laws get changed to effectively keep people to the sidewalks and out of the street, while the cars zoomed through.

As for our goals? Do yourself a favor and stop speaking for us. We’re right here. We’re speaking for ourselves. I for one am a creature of modern times, and though I don’t have much animus against public transportation, I’m perfectly happy with people having cars. I’m open to different possibilities, but the propaganda you’ve been stewing in makes you think that we either have to stick with the status quo of everybody driving big SUVs around, or else we all have to ride bicycles around.

Not that I object to bicycle riding. It’s actually good to get the exercise. But I’m not married to the idea that we have to sacrifice everything to achieve a more sustainable, cooler future. In fact, if you guys stop digging in your heels, you might be able to use the free market and innovation to find ways to preserve these luxuries we enjoy, even as we make them less harmful to the environment. The sooner you do so, actually, the more like you are to prevent the kind of austerity that comes along when the problems become crises and people become panicked.

I’m for solving this problem in more relaxed, more consumer-friendly way.

But that won’t happen if all your people do is deny, deny, deny.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2016 8:59 AM
Comment #410950

Good grief Warren…

Fix our debt with another tax burden on the middle class?

High levels of “illegal” immigration does not help any country. A nation must actually choose who it desires to allow to live in their country and become citizens.

What you expect from Iran is simply wishful, and very dangerous, thinking.

When you get your understanding straight of the very real problems facing us today, we can discuss MMGW and possible catastrophe in 2100.

Streets: Not for pedestrians

Sidewalks: Not for cars and trucks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2016 3:18 PM
Comment #410951

The first automobile was electric. If electric vehicles are so great we would all have been driving electric vehicles since the mid 1800’s. Tried and failed and replaced by gas powered vehicles.

Even today’s electric vehicles are powered by coal and gas burning generators. Electric vehicles are more expensive than gas powered vehicles. They’re more costly to run. Repair is almost equal to purchasing a new one.

The only way you are going to get everyday people to switch to electric vehicles is to get the government to force them to switch. You might as well concentrate on convincing the people to live under a dictatorship.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2016 5:18 PM
Comment #410954
How is a cap and trade program for CO2 going to reduce the debt? If Warren Porter actually believes taxes on CO2 will be applied to the general fund to reduce the debt, he doesn’t understand how cap and trade programs are supposed to work.

Weary Willie, you seem a bit confused. A carbon tax is not the same thing as a cap and trade program. The revenues from a carbon tax CAN be applied to the general fund to reduce the debt. Now, if you want to argue that we can’t trust Congress to actually do that, then I’m all ears, but it is theoretically possible to do this.

When you get your understanding straight of the very real problems facing us today, we can discuss MMGW and possible catastrophe in 2100.

MMGW is a far more “real” problem than any involving immigrants or Iran’s defunct nuclear program.

240 years of American history have only demonstrated the benefits immigrants bring. Weary Willie only discussed immigration generically, which is why I did not append the “illegal” adjective in my comment. I whole-heartedly agree that hosting a large population of illegal immigrants in this nation is not a good idea. This is why I support transforming each and every illegal immigrant into a legal one. Because we both agree that there is nothing wrong with legal immigration, I believe such a transformation eliminates all immigration-related worries, no?

After some JCPOA restrictions expire next decade, Iran is still compelled to remain a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Violating the NPT would constitute immediate snap back of sanctions, which Iran is wont to avoid. If all these predictions amount to wishful thinking and nothing else, the worst case scenario is that the United States finds itself in the same position in 2025 that we were in last year. Except, we would be in a much more privileged position because a decade of inspections would inform us of many more details regarding Iran’s nuclear program than could have been gained through intelligence alone. Likewise, it would be much easier to implement new sanctions against a non NPT compliant Iran in 2025 than to try and maintain the ones we already had in 2014.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2016 6:27 PM
Comment #410959
Warren Potter wrote: I whole-heartedly agree that hosting a large population of illegal immigrants in this nation is not a good idea. This is why I support transforming each and every illegal immigrant into a legal one.
Even illegal aliens that have violated other laws (aside from illegal trespass of our borders)? Sure, let’s let everyone come here, eh? The 1986 amnesty quintupled the problem, so why do it again? Oh right; most of them will vote Democrat, eh? Nevermind the net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year for U.S. tax-payers.

Regarding global warming, I have seen no credible evidence that people are a significant cause of global warming.
Many scientists on both sides diaagree on the major causes of temperature trends. Volcanoes can have a much larger affect that lasts for many years.

(1)There is no significant and prolonged temperature changes since 1997;
(2)There is not Enough Historical Data Available, but it has been both hotrer and colder (colder in the last mini-ice age several 10,000 years ago);
(3)Arctic ice increased by 50% since 2012;
(4)Climate models used are proven to be unreliable, and early predictions about the effects of warming have been proven wrong;
(5)Global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century; that’s not much, and it is debatable about where some of the water is coming from, since there are oceans of water also within the mantle of the Earth;
(6)Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice every year between 2000 and 2006, but it is still a huge ice-cube. with a population of only about 60,000 people.

However, IF people are a major cause of global warming, then people should think about a world population that has doubled since the 1950s, and grows (all births minus deaths) by 111,000 per day (40.5 million per year). At that rate, the human population may double again in only 20 years.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2016 9:42 PM
Comment #410974
Even illegal aliens that have violated other laws (aside from illegal trespass of our borders)?

Thank you for pointing out my oversight. Illegal immigrants who commit additional crimes do not belong here.

Nevermind the net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year for U.S. tax-payers.

Are these “losses” any different for legal immigrants than for illegal ones?

Addressing your GW talking points:

There is no significant and prolonged temperature changes since 1997
So what? I seem to have missed the instance where AGW claimed global warming was going to be monotonic. Meanwhile, all the excess heat has been absorbed by the ocean. Heed figure 2 in particular, which shows Ocean Heat Content rising throughout the past two decades.
it has been both hotrer and colder (colder in the last mini-ice age several 10,000 years ago);

You have to look at the Eemian epoch 130,000 years ago to find a period in which temperatures were warmer than today.

Arctic ice increased by 50% since 2012;
So, you are complaining that not every summer breaks the record for minimum Arctic Sea Ice?. It turns out we only tend to break the minimum sea ice record every 5 years or so. 2007 was a record minimum. 2012 was a record minimum. 2016 reached a similar minimum to that reached in 2007, tying for the second lowest sea ice extent. But, as we head to 2017 Acrtic sea ice has experienced the weakest winter growth ever seen. Unless growth is able to pick up later in winter, 2017 will demolish the 2012 record to smithereens.
Climate models used are proven to be unreliable, and early predictions about the effects of warming have been proven wrong
Climate models are tools for helping better understand the way the climate system works. They are not Oracles due to the many uncertainties involved.
Global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century; that’s not much, and it is debatable about where some of the water is coming from, since there are oceans of water also within the mantle of the Earth;

Well, neither the Greenland nor the Antarctic Ice Sheets have melted by all that much yet, so the observed rise in sea levels is pretty minor. However, the fear is that once a certain threshold is reached, both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets would experience runaway melting events. That could raise sea levels by 10 meters or more, which is a very serious manner.

Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice every year between 2000 and 2006, but it is still a huge ice-cube. with a population of only about 60,000 people.

The Greenland Ice Sheet is 700,000 cubic miles. If it were to melt completely, then that would be catastrophic. The 1 degree C of warming humanity has already created is not a threat to the Greenland Ice sheet. However, if humanity were to increase CO2 concentrations to 800ppm, then the rise in temperature would absolutely doom all that ice.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2016 11:03 AM
Comment #410977

Weary Willie-
Touchscreens are nothing new. They’ve been around since at least the 1980s. It took some innovations to get where we needed to be for them to work reliably for people.

But when they did… They sure did work, didn’t they! The success of innovation is often dependent on context. I drive a part-electric vehicle. It carries quite a few batteries in the rear part of the vehicle to pull this off. Certainly, improvements in battery capacity and construction helped this work feasibly, at the energies necessary.

Wind generation is nothing new. But new rare-earth magnets helped make the big windmills more efficient for their size. The Photoelectric effect is nothing new, especially given the fact that one of Einsteins big, foundational papers in 1905 dealt with the photoelectric effect, using it to confirm that quantum physics was more than just a mathematical correction to classical physics. Today’s cutting edge semiconductor engineering, spawned by advances in microprocessor manufacture, helped vastly increase the efficiency and lower the price of solar panels.

As far as electric cars go, the issue was range and speed. That’s what allowed the gasoline car to get ahead. Now, though, those are moot points. There’s actual F1 racing with electric vehicles, and you can measure the range of electric and part-electric vehicles in hundreds of miles. My vehicle get over 400 miles for every full tank of gas. A person in a plug-in hybrid can do even better than that, because their engines don’t rely on the gasoline-driven part of the motor to power the drive train directly, but rather to generate electricity.

Your modern Tesla Roadster has 220 miles of range, A Model-S 300.

As for the issue of what powers it? The beauty of electricity is that you can always switch out the generation on the back end. It isn’t like your electric car or plug-in hybrid is obligated to coal or natural gas. It can be nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, or solar.

Your rationales seem to all say the same thing: stick with the status quo! Here’s the thing, though: I purchased a hybrid several years ago, and its a financial decision I’ve had no regrets about whatsoever, because whatever gas prices were, I could always get enough gas in the tank to do what I needed to do. In times with high gas prices, I was able to endure, and in times with low gas prices, I have been quite happy to pay a pittance for hundreds of miles worth of range. I mean, even now, I spent a little under twenty dollars for a full fill-up that can last me for two or three weeks easily.

As for the repair of such a unit? I guess you need to realize that an electric vehicle doesn’t need a complex transmission, and the complex mechanics that go into piston or rotary driven engines. All you need is a the electric motor itself and a single speed transmission. Gasoline engines need the big transmissions because they only really work well at certain RPMs. Electric motors like Tesla’s generate usable torque across a broad range of RPM.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2016 12:20 PM
Comment #410980

Dan-
That oceans worth of water is not readily available to just flow back into the oceans. It’s locked within a mineral called Ringwoodite as hydroxide (-O-H ) ions.

The presence of water in the mantle, actually, is thought to be a major factor in volcanism, because water-saturated rock melts at a lower temperature, allowing the otherwise solid (though plastic) mantle to create the magma we’re so familiar with. The other way rock melts is through decompression, when the rock is upwelling in the core, like at the mid-atlantic ridge.

As for the rest? If you go to mainstream science sites, you’ll find explanations or debunks for many of those points. Hell, you might find out that re-calibration of the measurements of air temperature shows a slight increase, rather than the flat rest. Folks like you also forget that Climate acts over decades, and we’ve only had a couple since 2007. Also, we need to keep in mind a couple of other facts: one, that the natural variability persists, and varies with and against the warming influence of our CO2, and two, that we’re still seeing rises in temperatures in places that are higher in certain places that normally cool off faster or retain less heat. The system doesn’t work as simply as you think.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2016 2:05 PM
Comment #410981

Mr. Porter wrote; “This is why I support transforming each and every illegal immigrant into a legal one. Because we both agree that there is nothing wrong with legal immigration, I believe such a transformation eliminates all immigration-related worries, no?”

Thanks for the hearty laugh Warren. When one legitimizes illegal behavior it is no longer illegal. What wisdom, what prescience, what great insight.

Warren seems unable to comprehend the danger Iran represents to world peace. His writing of “snap back” sanctions is adolescent. Obama and Kerry should be held accountable for every new act of terrorism committed by Iran.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #410986

Royal Flush-
I keep on coming back to the fact that what your people wanted during the Bush Administration was a war with Iran. Their war with Iraq seems to have spread political instability and chaos far beyond their borders. So, color me skeptical when someone argues about the danger Iran poses to world peace. The Republican policy seems in every case to be either, “isolate these people so we have absolutely no pull on them.” Or “let’s make war with them with uncertain consequences and success.”

As far as immigration goes?

You know, there are times you have to admit ugly truths. The Truth is, Obama was handed an illegal immigration problem by the previous President. The Truth is, while that Administration built a fence along long stretches of the border, and beefed up the border patrol, undocumented immigrants still came through quite easily, drugs were smuggled over without too much more additional effort.

The Truth is, it will be economically difficult to correct the results of that bad policy, of decades worth of bad policy. We can try and punish them and everything, but the people who should be punished are the folks who Bush and other Republicans turned the blind eye on. The business owners.

Here are my predictions about how things will really turn out: you will see more undocumented workers coming over the border. You will see lax enforcement on business owners. The Wall, even if built, won’t do s***, because this is the twenty-first century and jets and modern tunneling equipment exist, because Mexico is a trade partner, and those goods that Carrier is still going to make in Mexico are still going to need to come over the border in a timely manner. The wall, like everything else with Trump’s real estate career, is a huge, expensive boondoggle designed to impress people, but not designed, as a venture, in a way that will actually do much good.

We should admit the policy failed, and clear the decks of the wreckage. We should focus on internal enforcement, and aid that by essentially saying that if you crossed over before such and such a date, we’re going to ask these things of you: that you honestly and truthfully come forward and identify yourself; that as long as you stay here, you abide by the rules and laws of our country; and finally, that you pay fines over time for your failure to do things the right way, and you go to the back of the line in terms of the process of becoming a citizen. No complete amnesty, but a conditional one.

At the same time, we ought to reduce the level of fees and bureaucratic trouble for those who do things the right way. When it’s cheaper and less troublesome to do things the wrong way, we are ensuring by market forces alone that people will tend more towards the wrong way than we would like.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2016 3:00 PM
Comment #410987

” The Republican policy seems in every case to be either, “isolate these people so we have absolutely no pull on them.” Or “let’s make war with them with uncertain consequences and success.”

Really Stephen. Sanctions placed upon Iran during leadership by both parties didn’t work?

Even the brain-dead acknowledge sanctions brought them to the table…at which point, Obama capitulated as he doesn’t understand the danger either. Hell, he admitted today that he didn’t see the spread of ISIS. LOL…missed too many security briefings I guess.

Stephen’s predictions on the border “wall” are about as valid as phx8’s predictions on Wall Street stock prices dropping with the election of Trump.

I believe congress should increase our immigration yearly total. We should choose more carefully those we allow in to become citizens to ensure they will not be a burden on our resources and…most importantly, those who actually want to assimilate to OUR CULTURE.

Anchor baby nonsense must end as well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2016 3:19 PM
Comment #410988
I believe congress should increase our immigration yearly total.

That’s a far too sensical approach to the immigration issues. Stop it!

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #410990

I have advocated increasing immigration quotas before Warren. However, we must also choose wisely the people invited to become citizens.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2016 4:12 PM
Comment #411007

Royal Flush-
If you want the wall to be impregnable to undocumented immigrants, what would be logically necessary? Well, one trick with all this is that the border doesn’t necessarily cooperate in giving us the kind of terrain that makes border walls impregnable, but for the sake of argument, let’s hold back on logistical or practical arguments, and just assume that this thing will work as designed.

Mexico is a major trading partner. Goods go from there to here. That means transports. For it to really work, and not have the businesscritters squawking their heads off, you’ll have to be moving folks relatively quickly through the border checkpoints. Hell, you got to have holes in your wall in the first place. Even the Great Wall of China had gates in the wall.

Let’s assume that all the agents and inspectors on that wall are good and true. You cannot seriously expect to inspect every vehicle that comes through. But let’s assume that somehow, your beatific examples of integrity find a way to do just that.

What’s their response when somebody shows a legitimate work visa, or a temporary visitor visa? Well, if they’re doing they’re job, they’re waved right through! Then, once that happens, all they have to do is overstay.

Oh, and of course, unless they want to do some epic building project, the border wall can only stretch from the mouth of the Rio Grande to Baja. And no, you’re not going to get us to pay for the dome over the entire US required to seal us off from immigrants travelling to here by air.

The Wall is just another Taj Mahal Casino, a White Elephant for Trump to stand on and make himself look big.

Oh, by the way: when somebody says, “Your guy is missing security briefings,” and you respond, “Well, yours did, too.” The logical truth value of “Your guy is missing security briefing” remains true, regardless of the truth of your accusation. There’s a difference between deflecting criticism and defeating it. I think at this point, Obama’s score on security briefings is considerably better. He’s also done much better hitting the ground running with all the bureaucracies out there.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2016 9:50 PM
Comment #411010
I have advocated increasing immigration quotas before Warren. However, we must also choose wisely the people invited to become citizens.

This is in stark contrast with Jeff Sessions and other people on the Right. It is quite common to see calls for tightening the quotas along with tightening the border.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2016 10:17 PM
Comment #411076

The Left is a petty hate machine run by vindictive perverts and fascists.

Posted by: Gaius Caligula at December 10, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #411157

Gaius Caligula,

Those are some might fighting words you’ve got there. Care to share what led to you to that conclusion?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 13, 2016 11:25 AM
Post a comment