Beto Should Drive Through Baltimore

Beto is in the race and for the Man from El Paso, it’s all about immigration. One suspects he coveted the presidential race from the moment he realized he had a Texas-sized fundraising machine fairly early during the race for the Senate seat held by Ted Cruz. But he insists that his most recent awakening was due to the protest rally (is it ok to call it an alt-rally?) on the border at El Paso while President Trump was speaking nearby. The people need me to fight for open borders, or something like that, seems to be his raison d’etre.

Here's what Beto O'Rourke said in his comments to ABC on Thursday morning (like really early Thursday morning if you're in Texas) about the upcoming race and immigration and the times we live in:

With the eyes of the country upon us, all of us together are going to make our stand, here in one of the safest cities in the United States of America. Safe not because of walls, but in spite of walls. Secure because we treat one another with dignity and respect.

Nice, safe center-left rhetoric that almost achieves lift-off.

But there's a few problems with this broad, sweeping sort of sentiment about borders and about how a society orders itself and decides what to allow and what to prohibit.

It doesn't work.

While most people trying to cross the southern border without a visa or work permit or any other document that proves they've followed America's immigration and labor laws, are doing so to find work and to earn a better life, they are not the only ones.

There is a criminal element at work amongst these economic migrants that corrodes and overwhelms any reasonable attempt to ensure America in fact does have a border between its territory and that of Mexico. And when drugs and people both become commodities to be smuggled for excessively large cash profits, then violence - especially against women and children but also against police officers and border patrol officials and ordinary citizens - becomes the norm.

While Stephen Miller's policy of housing kids in temporary shelters has been a political disaster, the real violence is done away from the media's cameras in the empty scrubland that smugglers use to route people up into America. When you do away with obeying smaller things, larger things that have been lurking in wait in order to pounce suddenly find it easier to prey on their victims. Women being raped. Children being sexually abused. People even being killed for trying to avoid the exorbitant fees of the coyotes.

And that applies to any situation where crime suddenly increases, and re-establishing order of some sort becomes nearly impossible.

Consider Baltimore.

ProPublica (very much a liberal site) has a long-form piece on the city and its recent history, written by Alec MacGillis. It deals with top-down policies of leniency, especially in the wake of Freddie Gray's violent death at presumably the hands of the cops who accompanied him in the police van to the station after arresting him for possession of a small knife back in April of 2015. In the riots that followed there was clash between the views of seasoned police officers who often grew up in Baltimore's more troubled neighborhoods, and city and state officials who saw things differently and preferred less of an emphasis on enforcement of bylaws like those against loitering on street corners. The riots that followed Gray's funeral provoked this response from Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby:

Mosby -- whose policing request may very well have led to Gray's arrest -- held a televised news conference announcing a long list of serious charges against six officers, including "depraved heart murder," or causing death through indifference. "I have heard your call for 'no justice, no peace,'" she declared.

Police - because of a belief that they were being scapegoated for Baltimore's problems - seem to have gone on a sort of strike, or a very rigorous work-to-rule since then and parts of the city have reportedly become a war zone. And residents of those neighborhoods are desperate for a little law and order from their city's police force.

Yes, Baltimore needs opportunities for those from its tougher neighborhoods and that's a long-term project. But how do you build community centers and better schools and employer outreach programs when people are ducking bullets? Giuliani went after the vandals and the graffiti artists as much as he did the hardened criminals he had pursued as a DA and helped build the base for NYC's astonishing remake in the 90's. Yes, global growth and Clinton's sensible policies were key. But Rudy did the dirty work of cleaning up the streets and bringing enough order for outreach and opportunity to be able to actually reach those who need it most.

Opening up the borders because of photos of small children separated from their parents (or the adults who are using them to enter the country) is not sustainable. It may make for heart-warming soundbites but what all policy needs to go forward is an environment where the basic rules of a civil society are being followed to a sufficient degree that healthy, open civic life is in fact possible.

Let's see if Beto's open borders help him win a very competitive primary where he happens to be a white male approaching 50. He might have the fundraising list and he might have a fawning media, but by any reasonable standard he does not have the right policy. But in today's Democratic Party, the Overton Window has shifted so hard and fast that Beto is indeed a top contender for the Democrat Presidential Primary.

If and when he does win that primary, he's going to have to think about turning his promises into workable policies. And when you advocate open borders, that's a near impossible task. He should just ask Germany's departing Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Or take a drive through some of Baltimore's angrier neighborhoods.

Posted by Keeley at March 15, 2019 5:13 PM
Comments
Comment #439864

Thanks Keeley.

I don’t often make political predictions. I will this time. Robert Francis O’Rourke will not make it past the first round of debates.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2019 5:44 PM
Comment #439865

What nonsense you write. You’re talking about the same border that’s been there for generations. The problem with the border is that it attracts crazy reich wingers who are looking for trouble, just like Trmp the FILTH’s disciple in New Zealand, and all his other terrorist murderers.

A lot of people are doing a lot of fundraising in opposition to the party of Capone and the corrupt administration with the stochastic terrorist traitor that watches tv in the white house when he’s not golfing at some property “bought” with someone else’s money. He should have been arrested on “russia if you’re listening” day, but the FBI fell down on the job. Now he’s just hanging around waiting for someone to try to indict or arrest him, while he creates as many problems as he can for the country and future generations. As David Milch once wrote. “You can not f*ck the future, the future f*cks you.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2019 5:47 PM
Comment #439930
Ed O’hrealy wrote: What nonsense you [Keeley] write.
HHMmmmm … yet, look at the nonsense (i.e. nasty, racist, hate speech) that Ed O’hrealy has been writing since 2006 or earlier.
Nothing nonsensical about any of that, eh? Ed O’hrealy, who only comes here to try to make people angry with his nasty, racist, hate speech. Anyone who spews such nasty, racist, hate speech must be a very unhappy and disturbed individual.
Little does Ed O’hrealy know (or care) that he is doing wonders for the popularity of the Democrat party, which (lately) seems like it is becoming more like Ed O’hrealy.
Fortunately, the vast majority of U.S. citizens are not like Ed O’hrealy.

Many thanks to Ed O’hrealy for being the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2019 9:52 AM
Comment #439942

Many thanks to Ed O’hrealy for being the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2019 9:52 AM

I second that comment d.a.n. We need the rabid political haters as contrast to reasoned factual comments.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2019 2:37 PM
Comment #439946

I found this quite interesting. Is “Beto” capable of matching this rhetoric by Bernie as reported by CNN?

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

“In 1976, Sanders went even further: calling for the state to seize ownership of Vermont’s private electric companies without compensation to investors.”

“We need public control over capital; and the capital must be put to use for public need not for the advancement of those who made the investments.”

“During his 1974 Senate run, Sanders said one plan to expand government included making it illegal to gain more wealth than person could spend in a lifetime and have a 100% tax on incomes above this level. (Sanders defined this as $1 million dollars annually).”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2019 3:02 PM
Comment #439954

Some random thoughts on the 2020 campaign…

I like O’Rourke. He has the charisma and energy and positivity that it will take to win the nomination and the general election. He also has an ungodly ability to raise contributions. Like any candidate, he has drawbacks: he is young, he has only served three terms in the House, his positions on issues needs development, and he lost to Cruz, albeit in TX. But every candidate has drawbacks, and as what O’Rourke really has is ‘it.’ You know as soon as you see him speaking. This will be the right man for the right time, not necessarily because of his stand on any one issue, but because he offers a positive vision of what the country can be.

Biden and Sanders have a lot to offer. Biden’s experience is without equal, and on balance, he is a good man. Sanders has energized the progressives and some of his ideas will take, even if he does not. However, both are from a previous generation. In a nutshell, both are too old. It is time to move on.

There are a lot of other candidates. Some are running for name recognition and to develop a national reputation. Others are running for a cabinet seat. And others are running for VP. The only other serious contender to possibly win it all will be Harris. She comes from the right state, should be able to raise a sizeable war chest, and has the benefit of any early primary. I would also give Castro an outside chance.

A lot of others will try to catch lightning in a bottle. An unknown mayor from IA, Buttigieg, has made an amazingly strong case. Unlikely? Very. But there’s no denying, this guy is good.

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2019 6:02 PM
Comment #439955

Thanks for your reasoned assessment of the Democrat race for presidential nomination phx8. Interesting comments as to what you are looking for in a candidate.

As a Texan, I watched and listened carefully to RFO during his attempt to defeat Cruz. He has plenty of energy and charisma. And, he was flooded with both in-state and out-of-state money. His campaign message was rather subdued in its appeal to the Left wing of the party. The press was all over him and his coverage was much greater than that given to Cruz. We didn’t read or hear much negative about him despite his having some that will now be highlighted.

Some of his campaign tactics worked state-wide, but will never work as well on the national stage. I found it odd that a person with a DUI record would have a “Beer With Beto” slogan.

His congressional record is truly mundane and, in the last two years, O’Rourke was among the top fifth of all lawmakers voting against his own party’s positions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2019 6:36 PM
Comment #439959

People are trying to smear Harris with an infidelity charge/sleeping with her boss. I’m sure it won’t be an issue for her campaign considering Trump’s reputation. It pretty much puts that issue to bed. She does have a problem with abusing her employees, I’ve heard. It sounds sort of Hillbilly-ish to me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2019 8:10 PM
Comment #439975

Buttigieg is from Indiana.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 8:44 AM
Comment #439984
phx8 wrote: I like O’Rourke. He has the charisma and energy and positivity that it will take to win the nomination and the general election. He also has an ungodly ability to raise contributions. Like any candidate, he has drawbacks: he is young … and as what O’Rourke really has is ‘it’. You know as soon as you see him speaking. This will be the right man for the right time, not necessarily because of his stand on any one issue, but because he offers a positive vision of what the country can be.
Biden and Sanders have a lot to offer.
phx8 also wrote: AOL [AOC (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)] is awesome. You are seeing the future. She is charismatic, her political instincts are excellent, and she has already proven adept at using social media. This is what Millennial politics will look like. She is only 29 and she has a lot to learn. But she [AOC] comes from a generation that was destroyed by conservative Republican politics. An entire generation found itself graduating from college with enormous debts, health care was unaffordable, and Global Warming threatened the long term future of the planet; meanwhile, thanks to tax cuts and corruption, the wealth of the past four decades was increasingly concentrated at the top, … She [AOC] is the political forerunner of a generation that is tolerant of race, gender, and religion, and intolerant of the racism of Trump and his ilk. Is it any wonder conservatives are both fixated and terrified of her? They should be. She [AOC] is the future, and that future does not include the darkness and greed and destructiveness offered by conservatism. To paraphrase AOL [AOC (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)]: the dark hates the light.

phx8 never saw a socialist extremist that he didn’t like, eh?

Royal Flush wrote: Some of his campaign tactics worked state-wide, but will never work as well on the national stage. I found it odd that a person with a DUI record would have a “Beer With Beto” slogan.
Not only that, on 27-SEP-1998, Robert Francis O’Rourke tried to flee the scene of the accident, but a witness blocked his escape route.
Then, in Robert Francis O’Rourke’s first debate, he lied about trying to flee the scene of the accident (which he was arrested for DUI).
Despite all of that, his felony was reduced to a misdemeanor, and then the charges were dropped in OCT-1999.
Robert Francis O’Rourke was also arrested in 10-MAY-1995 for burlary, but the charges were later dropped.

This week, Robert Francis O’Rourke said that he wanted to tear down all of the walls and fences along the U.S./Mexico border.
That’s lunacy. That is not what the majority of U.S. voters want. Also, that is not what all Democrats want.

Many Democrats may forgive, and go along with all of that, but the majority of voters are not likely to do so (especially open-borders).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 10:50 AM
Comment #439986

At dinner with a group last night including Sanders supporters and a pair of nominally Democratic voters, and the conversation briefly turned to politics. It was unanimous. O’Rourke.

The only other candidate who received much of a shout out was Warren. Oddly enough, her support came from the couple who was generally not much interested in politics, and what really resonated with them was her support for subsidizing child care. I have to admit, as an older male, that doesn’t usually occur to me, but it is huge for younger people with children, especially women.

My sense is that voters will want the opposite of what we are seeing today- a president who addresses the real needs of middle and lower class voters, such as child care subsidies, the costs of college education, Medicare-for-all or some version of universal health care, and Climate Change.

It will probably be paid for by raising taxes, as AOC suggested. 70% on incomes over $10 million seems reasonable. It only affects 75,000 families, but it would make a huge difference to the debt, deficit, and ability to pay for the basics society needs to succeed. No one believes there should ever even be such a thing as a billionaire. There is literally nothing a human being can do that justifies that kind of concentration of wealth.

One other topic that really resonated was the issue of fantastically wealthy people buying their children access to the best education by, basically, bribery. Yeah, it has been that way for a long time, but that stuff is not going to fly with most people.

Last observation on O’Rourke. He could have a tough time with the primaries, due to Harris probably winning CA in an early primary, and Biden & Sanders controlling enough money and support to run deep if they want. But O’Rourke will be absolutely deadly for the GOP in the general election. O’Rourke could spend his time in TX and force the GOP candidate (presumably Trump) to defend that state. Pouring resources into a red state that should be a given will be pure poison for Republicans. A Gallup poll right now may not worth much, but states with 50% or better approval of Trump have 102 electoral votes, while states with lower than 40% have 201.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 11:49 AM
Comment #439987

Nice. phx8 not only believes 70% tax on income above $10 million is OK, but phx8 also believes [bizarre as it sounds to some] no one has the right to be a billionaire.

First of all, people making over $10 million would simply move (or move their assets) to another country, before being raped with a 70% tax.

And what does phx8 suggest we do to billionaires (who have not broken laws to justify such confiscation)? Take their wealth away from them?

Many thanks to phx8’s revealing comments, and being the gift that keeps on giving!

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 12:00 PM
Comment #439989

“… people making over $10 million would simply move (or move their assets) to another country, before being raped with a 70% tax.”

Why is that a problem?

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 1:04 PM
Comment #439991
d.a.n wrote: First of all, people making over $10 million would simply move (or move their assets) to another country, before being raped with a 70% tax.
phx8 responded: Why is that a problem?
IF you don’t know, then anyone telling you why is pointless.

Let’s just say that you don’t have a clue about basic freedoms, individual rights, or the U.S. Constitution. The government can tax, but it cannot so easily single-out the wealthy.
Would you also like to impose Jus Primae Noctis too ?

So, what should happen to billionaires? Should they be arrested and have all of their wealth confiscated too?

But thanks for your revealing comments and being the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 1:26 PM
Comment #439992

… because all the programs enacted into law based on that confiscation of income would be without the funding needed to keep them going.

When that happens you will then need a “comprehensive reform Bill” to keep those programs going and the new funding will come from millionaires instead of billionaires.

After that it’s wash, rinse, and repeat.

If you need factual evidence of this behavior and how it works, just take a look at the history of the Social Security program FDR put into place. It started as an insurance policy paid for by the top 1% of wage earners and the rate was 3%. Take a look at the level of extortion needed to fund SS now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 1:28 PM
Comment #439996

d.,
You are making assumptions about the concentration of wealth in the US. About 50% of the wealth in this country is inherited. It is concentrated in a very small number of people. Today, there are 75,000 families in the US with an income of OVER $10 million a year, and the AOC proposed rate would only apply to money earned after the first $10 million. (Personally, I think the top rate could be lower, but let’s just work with that number for now. Remember, the Clinton tax raise much less, and even that was enough to stabilize the debt & turn annual surpluses in just a few years).

This 70% was the tax rate (or higher) in the decades after WWII generated a time of exceptionally fast economic growth, with programs such as the GI Bill, and state educations providing some of the best in the world. Again, remember, before Reagan the University of CA system was one of the best in the world, and at that time, Berkeley generated more Nobel prize winners than anyone else.

And to be clear, a progressive tax rate is NOT socialism.

We have seen an incredible concentration of wealth among a very small number of people. Citizens United enables them to buy politicians with impunity. Far right talk radio & FOX demand we ignore the concentration of wealth, and instead that the poor and middle classes should blame other poor people, especially legal and illegal immigrants, rather than look at the proverbial elephant in the room of wealth iniquity. Wages have remained flat for the past few decades, even as productivity has increased a great deal. Yet there was a lot of money generated. We know where it went.

I would also argue that the 75,000 families that earn more than $10 million in income a year are fungible. They are not only replaceable, they are EASILY replaced, and if they want to leave… Buh-bye! And don’t come back!

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 2:01 PM
Comment #439997

phx8, Thanks again for you input. Really. All kidding aside.
All of your comments are revealing, and demonstrate that you do not have much respect for basic freedoms, individual rights, or the U.S. Constitution.

We are already aware (based on these comments H E R E) of your feelings about “white” people, but you now prove that you believe that you (and government) are entitled to exorbitant percentages of income from wealthier people too.

I agree that some of the wealthy in the U.S. are not paying the same percentage of their total income to taxes as are many people making under $85K per year, but that does not justify “sticking it to the rich”.

Ordinary Income Tax Rates:

  • 2017 ____ 2019-to-2025___single____________married
  • 10% _____ 10%________ $0-$9,525 _________$0-$19,050
  • 15% _____ 12%________ $9,525-$38,700_____$19,050-$77,400
  • 25% _____ 22%________ $38,700-$82,500____$77,400-$165,000
  • 28% _____ 24%________ $82,500-$157,500___$165,000-$315,000
  • 33% _____ 32%________ $157,500-$200,000__$315,000-$400,000
  • 33%-35% _ 35%________ $200,000-$500,000__$400,000-$600,000
  • 39.6% ____ 37%________ $500,000+ _________$600,000+

I think (and most people agree) that a FLAT income tax percentage is a fair system.
Our current tax system is NOT fair, because a person making $85K per year is paying over 40% in federal income tax, S.S. taxes, and Medicare taxes, but, a person (like Mitt Romney in 2012) paid 15% on $42 Million. So, we have a regressive tax system in that respect, and that is NOT fair IF you believe a FLAT income tax is fair.
Also, there is a cap on the S.S. tax, which also makes it a regressive tax.
In addition, there are S.S. and Medicare taxes on earned income (payroll), but not on capital gains, which are taxed from ZERO% to 15% (or 20% for over $425,800 in capital gains income filing single)?.

We need a fair tax system.
Not a system that tries to punish the wealthy.
Even when there used to be a 90% income tax bracket (prior to the 1980s), there were so many tax loop-holes, few (if anyone) actually paid 90% of their income to federal income taxes.

Corporate taxes are mostly a tax on consumers, because corporations simply pass the costs along.
Taxing corporation more than the global average is also stupid, and simply encourages businesses to also move out of the U.S. Many business and money returned to the U.S. after the corporate tax was reduced from 35% to 21%.

By the way, a flat income tax is already progressive in the sense that an income of $100K is taxed an amount that is already 2 times greater than the amount that $50K is taxed, and $1M is taxed an amount that is 10 times greater than the amount that $100K is taxed.
But that’s not enough for you?
You seem to want to stick it to the wealth too?
I do not think the things you want are fair and just.
In fact, it is fascinating how some people try to disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equality.

Regarding taxes during Bill Clinton’s 8 years, he only came close to balancing the budget during his last year in office, and the National Debt still increased in that last year. The National Debt has increased every year since 1959.

j2t2 wrote: I would also argue that the 75,000 families that earn more than $10 million in income a year are fungible. They are not only replaceable, they are EASILY replaced, and if they want to leave… Buh-bye! And don’t come back!
Fortunately, it’s not up to you alone. Everything you are describing is essentially socialism, and unfair in my opinion.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 3:03 PM
Comment #439999

“My sense is that voters will want the opposite of what we are seeing today- a president who addresses the real needs of middle and lower class voters…”

phx8 goes on to list his priority of issues.

Please give Americans credit for more sense than you indicate phx8. When did “jobs” “lower taxes” and freedom from over regulation become “opposite” to what voters want?

When did it become popular to ask me to pay for the care of a child so parents could keep more of their money?

When was it determined that MMGW is a scientific fact?

The high cost of college is a function of failed government policies and not a lack of taxpayer funding.

Medicare for all translates into poor medical care and high costs for all. (See higher education)

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 17, 2019 3:27 PM
Comment #440000

“I would also argue that the 75,000 families that earn more than $10 million in income a year are fungible. They are not only replaceable, they are EASILY replaced, and if they want to leave… Buh-bye! And don’t come back!”

Wow phx8, what a cavalier attitude you have towards the wealthy. If any Conservative were to write the same thing about poor people you would be enraged.

Your level of hypocrisy is matched by the level of ignorance it takes to believe that the loss of those producing the taxed income, would not affect the collection of those very taxes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 17, 2019 3:44 PM
Comment #440003

phx8 should read Ayn Rand. She wrote a book about exactly what phx8 supports.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 4:13 PM
Comment #440006

I think that people like Cortez believe people worth billions are sitting on top of a huge pile of cash, twisting their mustaches. I truly think they believe it’s just cash and if it was gone it would be the same as the pile being sat on.

I think they fail to realize those billions are actually assets that employ people and commodities that they eat and use every day.

Would phx8 be so cavalier if he suddenly didn’t have any dish soap, or toilet paper? How about electricity? Can he live without that? Woudn’t/couldn’t happen?! Take a look at Venezuela.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 4:22 PM
Comment #440007

Perhaps a more reasonable and fair approach in dealing with this argument would be to kill the dollar. Those who had no money to begin with would be without still, and those with billions would end up with nothing.

I wonder if Alex, The Civilization Killer, Cortez would agree with that approach.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 4:26 PM
Comment #440013

HHHmmmm… . anyone who thinks it is OK to tax the hell out of anyone making more than $10 Million is bizarre. And more bizarre is that phx8 doesn’t understand why anyone would disagree.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 5:48 PM
Comment #440014

At any rate, back to BETO, I don’t think he can win with an open-borders agenda.

Voters are getting wise to that scheme.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 5:53 PM
Comment #440015

If there’s cheating and fraud going on, I think it will be more obvious during this election. People are looking for it. They’re looking for the double standards and the dirty tricks.

They’re going to see through the bovine excrement, because Trump showed people how politicians should talk to the public and to other politicians. If they’re peddling bull then the opponent needs to call it out, not go with the flow like Bernie Sanders did. He’ll never get elected because he knuckled under to Hillbilly.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 6:38 PM
Comment #440016

Right. Bernie endorsed Hillary.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2019 6:44 PM
Comment #440019

Just to be clear, O’Rourke has not gone into a lot of specifics at this point. My guess is that whoever turns out to be the Democratic nominee will push for some version of tax increases, a Green New Deal, and addressing health care costs, day care for children, and college.

WW,
I have read just about every word Ayn Rand ever wrote and taught it at the high school level. She is wonderful for a teenager discovering their own independence for the first time. Most people outgrow it, especially as they raise their own families and discover there is more to life than self-actualization.

RF,
Global Warming is a fact. We have put off acting for too long. I don’t think any amount of conservation or carbon taxes will help. There is already too much heat absorbed at depth in the oceans, and too much CO2 in the atmosphere- 405 ppm as of 2017. It is slowly but steadily increasing every year, and that is not going to change soon, not even with drastic action. CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 80 years, and the ocean acidity is also changing as it absorbs it. We waited too long, and IMO it will take nearly miraculous technological developments to save us. We can do it, but that is a heck of a way to approach a problem.

To put this into perspective, the last time the atmospheric CO2 was 500 ppm was 16 million years ago. The sea level was 130 higher than today. We will hit 500 ppm in about 50 years.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 9:17 PM
Comment #440020
IMO it will take nearly miraculous technological developments to save us.

Yes, it will.

Let’s tax anything that moves.

Let’s funnel everyone onto one path.

Let’s make sure no one will contradict anyone directing the flow.

Let’s try to disprove 400 years of developing the real world and do our best to return to the dark ages.

Let’s spread disease and equalize poverty around the world so everyone has a chance to be poor.


To put this into perspective, the last time the atmospheric CO2 was 500 ppm was 16 million years ago. The sea level was 130 higher than today.

How many humans were there 16 million years ago, phx8?

How much economic activity was there 16 million years ago?

How did human activity effect CO2 16 million years ago?

You don’t see how you are defeating your own argument, do you? You try to use fact to prove your fiction! The fiction is human economic activity is destroying the atmosphere, yet you say 16 million years ago the atmosphere is the same as it is today! WTF, phx8!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 9:51 PM
Comment #440022

WW,
Human activity is not “destroying” the atmosphere. It is changing it.

In the past, the climate changed as a result of predictable cycles. For example, the earth does not orbit the sun in an unchanging, perfect circle. Over very long periods of time, the shape of the orbit changes and becomes a little elliptical. In addition, as the earth rotates on its axis, there is tilt and precession, kind of like a spinning top. These are called Milankovitch Cycles.

What that means is that in the past, climate has changed at predictable intervals.

Incredibly, scientists can measure past temperatures and even the make-up of the atmosphere through core samples. It really is very clever. We can deduce temperatures and measure how much greenhouse gas was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, or how little, with great precision, and match it up with the Milankovitch Cycles.

Right now, none of those astronomical changes should be in play, and yet, greenhouse gases are increasing, and the climate is measurably warming. The ocean is warming too, and its acidity is measureably changing as it absorbs CO2.

The energy being put out by the sun has not changed, so that is not the cause. What is going on? It is pretty straightforward. The Warming is due to greenhouse gases- carbon dioxide, methane, and others- trapping heat. And human beings are producing the greenhouse gases.

As I keep repeating, all this is measureable. The experiments can be repeated and produce the same results. Every field of science supports the same conclusion- the earth is warming. The climate is changing. And I do mean EVERY field of science- physics, chemistry, geology, zoology, botany, you name it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 10:40 PM
Comment #440023

In the past…

What does that mean?

I am aware of the North Star’s “wobble”. A not so reported effect of this wobble would be the necessity to re calibrate GPS software. We wouldn’t want jet liners to end up hundreds of miles away from where they were supposed to land, would we?

How can you possibly believe human activity could effect that?

I get it!

You’re changing the subject!

You don’t want to talk about Bernie’s obedience to Hillbilly, do you?


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 11:14 PM
Comment #440024

phx8, do you know what is not measurable? Actual climate behavior. We’ve only been recording it for about 300 years, by instruments created in that time.

We don’t know crap about climate change.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 11:20 PM
Comment #440026

Hey phx8! What do we know about the climate of Earth before the ice built up in the poles?

How can we rely on ice core samples if there was no ice?

duh..

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 11:22 PM
Comment #440027

Congratulations! I am an accomplice to changing the subject from the 2020 election to global warming and climate change.

I’m guilty. Let’s give the Democratics and phx8 another victory for avoiding the subject.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 11:27 PM
Comment #440028

WW,
Human activity does not affect Milankovitch Cycles.
Those occur over long periods of times- thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years.

“… do you know what is not measurable? Actual climate behavior. We’ve only been recording it for about 300 years.”

“How can we rely on ice core samples if there was no ice?”

Core samples taken from ice measure the chemical make-up of the atmosphere. In addition, core samples have been taken from river beds, the bottom of the ocean, and elsewhere. The results are the same. A record of climate can be measured going back millions of years, and that includes a record of the atmospheric make-up, CO2, and so on.

I have no idea why you want to talk about HRC and Sanders. HRC is a private citizen and will not run again. Sanders is running and his name recognition makes him an early favorite, but a lot of people- even the Sanders supporters I mentioned at dinner last night- think his time has come and gone. A new generation of Millennial politicians is coming up, including O’Rourke and AOC. They are identifying several main issues and ways to address them. Climate Change is one of them, and perhaps the biggest. And this new Millennial generation is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2019 11:45 PM
Comment #440029

I wanted to talk about the 2020 election, but you decided to change the subject to climate change.

Have you no shame?

You defy the Rules of Participation. You discount the Rules of Participation by continuously trying to change the subject of the article posted.

Stick to the program, phx8. If you don’t like the topic, submit your own post.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2019 11:51 PM
Comment #440030

Why don’t we go through the list of Democratic candidates.

It would be a toss up between a counterfeit Native American, A “hands on” Old man, Spartacus, and a loud mouthed adolescent with a formidable undergarment requirement.

Who’s best for America?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 18, 2019 12:07 AM
Comment #440106

The Warren/indian stuff has run its course and will not be a factor. She is running on the victim hood and ‘freebie’ talking-points that appeal to the left. Simply being female gives her extra points in the lefts identity politics.
At best, she will be a VP candidate.

At best, Booker is a pandering opportunistic ideologue looking for a cabinet position.

O’Rourke is a doom and gloom nut trying to position himself as some kind of progressive savior. Nothing notable in his past for him to run on, so he pretending everything is worse than it actually is in order to appeal to the crazy leftist base and have them carry him through the primary. Being a straight white male is a huge ding against him.

Harris checks off all the boxes of the leftists identity politics and is saying what the left and leftists want to hear. See’s herself as the female Obama and believes she can also just float in the wind and have the media do all the work for her.
A Harris/O’Rourke ticket is a good bet.

Biden would probably easily take down Trump, with the right running mate. Biden/Harris or Biden/Warren would be pretty tough for Trump to counter. Unfortunately, he is pandering to the leftists right now, when he should be working on normal Americans. He too gets dinged for being a straight white male.

Sanders is an anti-America nut. The media has been propping up AOC and her ilk to make him look sane, but he always has to out leftist them.

Sadly, Tulsi Gabbard, the best option to unite the country, will be soundly rejected by this new leftist democratic party.

Posted by: kctim at March 18, 2019 10:12 AM
Comment #440109

kctim, good analysis of potential candidates.

phx8,
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about -18°C (0°F), rather than the present average of 15°C (59°F). So, some greenhouse gases are needed to avoid turning into a snowball again (which has already happened several times).

The following are the most damaging to the atmosphere:
Sulphur oxides (SOx) – Mainly Sulphur dioxide (SO2);
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - NO2 is one of the most prominent air pollutants. Nitrogen (N) compounds, emitted as NOX and NH3;
Particulate matter - such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants, etc.;
Ozone (O3) - formed from photochemical reactions and other emissions
Carbon monoxide (CO) - a product of incomplete combustion of fuel such as natural gas, coal, wood, combustion engines;
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration;
Heavy metals, such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and nickel (Ni);
Benzene and benzo(a)pyrene;
Ammonia (NH3) - emitted from agricultural processes;
Volatile organic compounds;
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs);
Methane;

phx8 wrote: Human activity is not “destroying” the atmosphere. It is changing it.
There is no doubt that the activity of 7.71 Billion humans (i.e. cars, planes, power generation plants, farming, ranching, burning wood, etc.) has some impact on the atmosphere, and the environment.
As the human population grows (currnently by 235,000 per day), the impact on the atmosphere and environment will also grow.

The human population doubled from 1.0 Billion to 2.0 Billion (from 1804 to 1922) in 118 years.
The human population doubled from 2.0 Billion to 4.0 Billion (from 1922 to 1974) in 52 years.
The human population will have doubled again from 4.0 Billion to 8.0 Billion (from 1974 to 2021) in 47 years (which is increasing by 235,000 per day, and the rate is still increasing each year; for example, the rate of growth was 211,000 per day in year 2006).

Do you, or anyone else, know of a way to prevent the human population from doubling again in 47 (or less) years?
Today, about 24,641 people die per day (9 Million per year) due to starvation and starvation-related diseases, and world hunger is on the rise since 2016. Yet, the total human population still grows by 235,000 per day (85.8 Million per year), which includes all births minus all deaths, per day.

IF humans cannot control their own population, then limited resources and human nature will, when over-population leads to inevitable and increasing global famine, wars, disease, and death.
The last time the human population decreased slightly was during “The Black Death - The Plague” in 1348-to-1351, which killed 1.5 million people.
Compare that 1.5 million people in 1351 to the 9 million that starve to death today, and the annual growth of 85.8 Million per year.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2019 10:34 AM
Comment #440114

“Ring around a rosie, a pocket full of posies. Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 18, 2019 11:59 AM
Comment #440127

O’Rourke just set a record among Democrats for raising the most money on the first day, $6.1 million. Now let’s see if he can put together a national organization. I always see that as an indicator of how good a candidate might be as a future president. It is rarely mentioned, but Obama was absolutely superb in this regard.

HRC was good, but obviously not as good as Obama. She was better than Trump, but came under attack from the Russians. Trump was terrible, but that Russian attack provided his campaign with HRC’s data analytics.

Let me explain. Data analytics are essentially the game plan for a political campaign. They are like a game plan for a Super Bowl. If an opponent knows every likely play to be called, even an inferior team has a chance of winning.

So let’s see how good O’Rourke is at creating a nationwide organization in a short amount of time. Will he find the right people and put them in the right places?

The people from Trump’s campaign ended up going to jail, or being indicted, or plea bargaining.

One thing I am sure about with O’Rourke and the other Democratic candidates. None of them will ever, ever be described the way a mass murderer described Trump, as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 18, 2019 4:31 PM
Comment #440131
phx8 wrote: HRC was good, but obviously not as good as Obama. She was better than Trump, but came under attack from the Russians.
So, how many vote were changed due to Russians?
phx8 wrote: Let me explain.
Oh, by all means. Please do. So, how many electoral votes were changed due to Russians?
phx8 wrote: The people from Trump’s campaign ended up going to jail, or being indicted, or plea bargaining.
A few. Just some low hanging fruit. Where’s the proof of Russian collusion?
And what were the crimes of the few? Tax evasion, perjury, and bank fraud? IF Mueller investigated everyone in Congress the same way, half (or more) of Congress would be found guilty. Perhaps some Democrats should be investigated too, for all of this crime, corruption, and lies, which Democrats have so conveniently ignored ?

Trump has a large cabinet (which includes Vice President Mike Pence and the heads of the 15 executive departments – the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General. Additionally, the Cabinet includes the White House Chief of Staff and heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Management and Budget, United States Trade Representative, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Small Business Administration).

How many of those people were indicted for crimes?

phx8 wrote: One thing I am sure about with O’Rourke and the other Democratic candidates. None of them will ever, ever be described the way a mass murderer described Trump, as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”
So, do you think whatever some nutcase writes about Trump must be true, or somehow a demerit for Trump?

Also, are you [phx8] the best person to be talking about prejudices, when you have written at least 13 statements (shown here) that denigrate “white people”. Nothing racist about any of that, eh?

Are you still “proud” of those statements, or would you ever entertain an apology?

Again, many thanks to phx8 for being the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2019 5:16 PM
Comment #440134

Previewing your Comment

None of them will ever, ever be described the way a mass murderer described Tr-mp, as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” Posted by: phx8 at March 18, 2019 4:31 PM

The reich wing loves their mass murderers and the mass murderers love their fuhrer. Apparently he did an interview with Breitbarf:

I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers For Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough - until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

He had clearly been talking to Putain, who had just signed a law

“that imposes strict fines for publishing “fake news” and online comments that show “blatant disrespect” for the state, Reuters reports. Individuals who disseminate information that officials determine to be false will be forced to pay up to $6,100 if the information sparks a “mass violation of public order.” If the information shows “blatant disrespect“ for Russia, the Kremlin, the public, or the flag, individuals can be fined up to $1,525—and can be jailed on repeat offenses. The law also allows officials to block websites that refuse to remove allegedly false information”


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/04/night-wolves-russian-motorcycle-club-or-kremlin-militia.html

Nicknamed Putin’s Angels, they are widely seen as a sort of militia that operates in a variety of roles at the Kremlin’s behest while, at the same time, affording the Russian government the luxury of denying any responsibility for their actions….The group, many of its leaders and several of its affiliated companies, has been placed on sanctions lists by the U.S., Canada and several European countries….in August 2018, the group opened a motorcycle clubhouse in Slovakia, prompting warnings from Andrej Kiska, the president of Slovakia, and from Slovakian intelligence agencies, especially after Radio Free Europe released drone footage showing that the clubhouse concealed a tank and an armored personnel carrier.

This “close friend” of Putain is going to be coming back into the news:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/sergei-roldugin-the-cellist-who-holds-the-key-to-tracing-putins-hidden-fortune


Posted by ohrealy at March 18, 2019 7:31 PM

Something went wrong with the website so I have to resend and retrieve. pdx8, you’re wasting your time splaining thing to people who were born yesterday. They’re goingn to forget all about that by tomorrow.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 18, 2019 7:34 PM
Comment #440137

Deutsche Bank details:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

Posted by: ohrealy at March 18, 2019 10:07 PM
Comment #440169

Ah. Just like clockwork.
We see the media cherry picking information to blame Trump for the NZ shooting, then we see it here.
We see the media cherry picking information to accuse Trump of making threats, then we see it here.
No links for truth. No links for context.

Posted by: kctim at March 19, 2019 9:35 AM
Comment #440180

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take the haters to blame Trump, and Chelsea Clinton, and others for the NZ shooting. Seems like Democrats and self-identified socialists have a habit of doing this.

After the shooting at synogogue in Pittsburgh on 27-OCT-2018 …

[21]j2t2 wrote: Now you [Roy Ellis] act surprised and try to deflect the blame! Go f * * k yourselves. Point the finger at yourselves for buying into the stupid propaganda you have bought into.

Then …
Ed O’hrealy wrote: pdx8 [phx8], you’re wasting your time splaining thing to people who were born yesterday. They’re going to forget all about that by tomorrow.

True.
Why should anyone take the rhetoric of phx8, Ed O’hrealy, and j2t2 seriously, when most of what they write (and link to) is mostly only more nasty, racist, hateful comments like THESE, or more non-sensical opinion-pieces and conspiracy-theories from other haters of similar ilk ?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2019 12:49 PM
Post a comment