PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on October 23, 2024, 08:07:39 PM
-
With undue respect to azure’s bullshit about mmgw, the truth is out there.
Leftists refuse to accept that the planet and our weather are cyclic, but that doesn’t make their lies truth.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/globalist_misinformation_no_the_earth_is_not_warming.html
-
Man Made Climate Change is another false issue to be used as a tool to control, limit and restrict the Non-Elite.
Sadly, many self described "intellectuals" belive the PROPAGANDA.
-
The information in that article is generally known to anyone possessing a passing acquaintance with earth’s physical history, and two brain cells to rub together. Climate change hysteria is a power and money grab, period.
-
(https://resources.arcamax.com/newspics/311/31100/3110082.gif)
-
The information in that article is generally known to anyone possessing a passing acquaintance with earth’s physical history, and two brain cells to rub together. Climate change hysteria is a power and money grab, period.
Well, it's left-leaning activists taking advantage of science to advance leftist causes, that much I agree with.
Look, most of the thinking on this issue is fuzzy on both sides. The idea that the planet is warmer now than it has ever been is ludicrous and any student of natural history knows it's false - it was about 8ºC warmer than it is now during the Eocene thermal maximum, and there have been geological eras during which Earth's polar regions were bare of ice and covered with vegetation for millions of years. What that article says is well known to anyone with even a vague idea of what geology and paleontology have taught us about our planet's history.
The Earth is NOT going to turn into Venus because we're burning fossil fuels. At the moment, we're just getting a taste of the Eemian, the interglacial period about 130,000 years ago and the last major interglacial before the Holocene, that was about 2ºC warmer than the historical climate. If the Sherwood et al. estimates are correct, we'll surpass the Eemian eventually, probably by at least a couple of degrees. There will be lots of extinctions. Almost certainly homo sapiens won't be among them, we've survived much worse before. Current coastlines will be under water and the total habitable land area will be somewhat smaller, but there still will be temperate zones with temperate, if significantly warmer, climates.
But we don't know how the warmer climate will affect global food production. Will the planet be able to support 8, 9, 10 billion of our species? We just don't know the answer. We could face a Malthusian crisis in a few decades or centuries, and see the human population drop to a fraction of what it is today. Anyone who doesn't see this as a possibility has their head in the sand, IMO. The coming decades will be challenging, assuming the current warming isn't just part of a multi-decadal cycle (and as I've written before, if it IS just natural variability, then we ain't seen nothing yet).
Since we can't do anything to change what is happening to the climate without crippling the economy, we need to think more seriously about what we can do to adapt - through technology - and to what roles the private sector and government should play in the process.
-
Well, it's left-leaning activists taking advantage of science to advance leftist causes, that much I agree with.
Look, most of the thinking on this issue is fuzzy on both sides. The idea that the planet is warmer now than it has ever been is ludicrous and any student of natural history knows it's false - it was about 8ºC warmer than it is now during the Eocene thermal maximum, and there have been geological eras during which Earth's polar regions were bare of ice and covered with vegetation for millions of years. What that article says is well known to anyone with even a vague idea of what geology and paleontology have taught us about our planet's history.
The Earth is NOT going to turn into Venus because we're burning fossil fuels. At the moment, we're just getting a taste of the Eemian, the interglacial period about 130,000 years ago and the last major interglacial before the Holocene, that was about 2ºC warmer than the historical climate. If the Sherwood et al. estimates are correct, we'll surpass the Eemian eventually, probably by at least a couple of degrees. There will be lots of extinctions. Almost certainly homo sapiens won't be among them, we've survived much worse before. Current coastlines will be under water and the total habitable land area will be somewhat smaller, but there still will be temperate zones with temperate, if significantly warmer, climates.
But we don't know how the warmer climate will affect global food production. Will the planet be able to support 8, 9, 10 billion of our species? We just don't know the answer. We could face a Malthusian crisis in a few decades or centuries, and see the human population drop to a fraction of what it is today. Anyone who doesn't see this as a possibility has their head in the sand, IMO. The coming decades will be challenging, assuming the current warming isn't just part of a multi-decadal cycle (and as I've written before, if it IS just natural variability, then we ain't seen nothing yet).
Since we can't do anything to change what is happening to the climate without crippling the economy, we need to think more seriously about what we can do to adapt - through technology - and to what roles the private sector and government should play in the process.
That won’t be a problem. We are already well on the way to a massive global-wide population collapse. Yes, the human population will drop to a fraction of what it is today, and it has nothing to do with food shortages or climate change. It’s happening because of extreme technological advancement and prosperity. It seems our species has not been able to evolve fast enough to eliminate the primitive program to halt reproduction if resources are too plentiful and life is too comfortable. Presumably to prevent extinction through runaway overpopulation. Population rapidly increases when we prosper, but then turns around and crashes when some point of extreme prosperity is reached.
It seems to have screwed up our sexual reproduction programming. Males and females are mutually hostile, the average age of marriage (pair bonding) is rising rapidly, narrowing the female window of reproductive opportunity and it has even come to the point we are now literally sterilizing healthy adolescents, due to a mass psychosis epidemic of denying the reality of binary sex, which is 2 billion years old.
And to half the U.S. the most important matter facing us right now is keeping it legal to kill our young before they’re even born.
The human species has a problem alright, but climate change ain’t it.
-
That won’t be a problem. We are already well on the way to a massive global-wide population collapse. Yes, the human population will drop to a fraction of what it is today, and it has nothing to do with food shortages or climate change. It’s happening because of extreme technological advancement and prosperity. It seems our species has not been able to evolve fast enough to eliminate the primitive program to halt reproduction if resources are too plentiful and life is too comfortable. Presumably to prevent extinction through runaway overpopulation. Population rapidly increases when we prosper, but then turns around and crashes when some point of extreme prosperity is reached.
Well, we've never been in this situation, with the level of prosperity we're at today, so I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about the future based on current trends. It seems to be true that the drive toward reproduction is less when the need for offspring to maintain the tribe's numbers in the face of hostile forces (including natural ones) is not as urgent. It's not clear to me that this will continue once the population has dropped sufficiently, and tbh I doubt it will. What evidence do you have that this isn't just a beneficial negative feedback working the way it should?
It seems to have screwed up our sexual reproduction programming. Males and females are mutually hostile, the average age of marriage (pair bonding) is rising rapidly, narrowing the female window of reproductive opportunity and it has even come to the point we are now literally sterilizing healthy adolescents, due to a mass psychosis epidemic of denying the reality of binary sex, which is 2 billion years old.
I think the trans phenomenon, which has always been real but very much on the fringes, and in the noise as a factor in human reproduction on a large scale, has turned into a fad that will eventually burn out. Combine the "woke" epidemic, peer pressure, and adolescent humans whose brains still aren't fully developed, and you have the current situation, which will lead to lots of desperately unhappy young adults regretting their and their parents' decisions in a few years. But it won't contribute significantly to a population crisis, IMO.
And to half the U.S. the most important matter facing us right now is keeping it legal to kill our young before they’re even born.
I think abortion, whatever your position on it as a moral issue, is likewise in the noise, not a significant factor affecting the population size.
A massive downturn in the planet's ability to feed us, on the other hand, could be the event that takes us to the tipping point.
I'm not saying that WILL happen - we don't know for certain how agriculture will be affected. It's just a possibility.
-
The abortion issue is all about ego.
Leftists love the idea that they can legalize the ability to kill. Their egos are obsessive and the need to prove to themselves their own importance overrides any concept of wrong, or evil.
Attached to that is the 1950’s communist agenda which prominently promoted destroying the nuclear family and reducing, if not eliminating God from personal life, and abortion does both. Dehumanize children and make any urge to marry and raise the children one created works hard against creating, holding families together.
Pretending otherwise is just the egos of liberals to pretend the obvious doesn’t exist.
-
Well, we've never been in this situation, with the level of prosperity we're at today, so I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about the future based on current trends. It seems to be true that the drive toward reproduction is less when the need for offspring to maintain the tribe's numbers in the face of hostile forces (including natural ones) is not as urgent. It's not clear to me that this will continue once the population has dropped sufficiently, and tbh I doubt it will. What evidence do you have that this isn't just a beneficial negative feedback working the way it should?
We haven't had the level of technology we have now but we have had prosperous successful civilizations and it seems when they reach a zenith - the key here is large cities - they inevitably do two things: 1. Print inflationary money and 2. The population begins to decline. I was taught the fall of Rome was due to the invasion of barbarians, but recently found out that the reason the barbarians could invade is the native Roman population was in decline.
Humans evolved to live in tribes of no more than 150 to 200 people. That's the maximum capacity we have for personal relationships; when communities get larger we lose intimacy with them all, and they become strangers in our midst. This seems to inevitably lead to the decline of cities, and where cities are the hubs around which civilizations thrive, it puts the whole civilization on a cycle of growth, then decline.
The difference today is global trade and the extent to which every single aspect of our lives is dependent on it, and virtually every product we use has mutliple steps in it's production from distant parts of the world. We're not talking about a civilization with an economy limited to a single continent, and even then in the past the great majority of the support of a city was within a couple hundred miles. A decline of one civilization didn't necessarily affect another on the other side of the planet. So no we've never been in quite this predicament before.
I think the trans phenomenon, which has always been real but very much on the fringes, and in the noise as a factor in human reproduction on a large scale, has turned into a fad that will eventually burn out. Combine the "woke" epidemic, peer pressure, and adolescent humans whose brains still aren't fully developed, and you have the current situation, which will lead to lots of desperately unhappy young adults regretting their and their parents' decisions in a few years. But it won't contribute significantly to a population crisis, IMO.
I hope you're right, that it burns out real soon. It might be a small part but it is a part of the general societal dismanteling of reproduction and the nuclear family as N7 just posted.
I think abortion, whatever your position on it as a moral issue, is likewise in the noise, not a significant factor affecting the population size.
Likewise abortion isn't per se the biggest part of the problem, but when combined with all the other many factors attacking normal human mating and reproduction, it is. The problem isn't "abortion is available", the problem is "Why do women want abortion?" They've lost the desire to have babies! A huge part of that is the perception that they cannot afford children, the men feel the same way. Something us older folks haven't really grasped is we were blessed with the post WW2 economic explosion where the U.S. was the most powerful and prosperous nation to have ever existed. We could easily raise 5 kids on a modest salary, in a nice neighborhood, with a stay at home mom. But the country just isn't like that anymore; most young folks today cannot support a family on one salary, and buying a house is becoming unreachable.
A massive downturn in the planet's ability to feed us, on the other hand, could be the event that takes us to the tipping point.
I'm not saying that WILL happen - we don't know for certain how agriculture will be affected. It's just a possibility.
More CO2 and a warmer planet will INCREASE the amount of plant growth and agricultural land. Food is not going to be a problem. Shipping it around WILL be a problem, because a lot of the world is fed by food grown elsewhere, overseas, and it is the United States that guarantees safe shipping lanes. As the U.S. weakens and loses respect in the world, that will begin to change and we will have pirates again, both private and state sponsored. Everything will become massively more expensive as shippers will need to weaponize the ships, have smaller, faster ships, etc. People don't appreciate the importance of the U.S. patrolling the high seas, reminding all nations about the mutually beneficial agreement to leave shipping alone. If we lose that respect and that agreement, it all comes apart. That's probably the future we face.
-
The abortion issue is all about ego.
Leftists love the idea that they can legalize the ability to kill. Their egos are obsessive and the need to prove to themselves their own importance overrides any concept of wrong, or evil.
They have no problem killing babies, but protest execution of heinous criminals.
-
They have no problem killing babies, but protest execution of heinous criminals.
And defund the police results in lots of CHILDREN ending up killed in the crossfire of criminal gangs but the left doesn’t give a shit about innocent children or the safety of black neighborhoods. The biased news media refuses to publicize these cases and the leftist prosecutors in the cities refuse to prosecute the killers. But they erect statues to George Floyd and talk about how evil cops are. Meanwhile the black mother whose child just got shot can’t get police to patrol and protect her neighborhood.
-
We haven't had the level of technology we have now but we have had prosperous successful civilizations and it seems when they reach a zenith - the key here is large cities - they inevitably do two things: 1. Print inflationary money and 2. The population begins to decline. I was taught the fall of Rome was due to the invasion of barbarians, but recently found out that the reason the barbarians could invade is the native Roman population was in decline.
Humans evolved to live in tribes of no more than 150 to 200 people. That's the maximum capacity we have for personal relationships; when communities get larger we lose intimacy with them all, and they become strangers in our midst. This seems to inevitably lead to the decline of cities, and where cities are the hubs around which civilizations thrive, it puts the whole civilization on a cycle of growth, then decline.
The difference today is global trade and the extent to which every single aspect of our lives is dependent on it, and virtually every product we use has mutliple steps in it's production from distant parts of the world. We're not talking about a civilization with an economy limited to a single continent, and even then in the past the great majority of the support of a city was within a couple hundred miles. A decline of one civilization didn't necessarily affect another on the other side of the planet. So no we've never been in quite this predicament before.
All of this is quite true. Globalization also makes it possible for pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 to quickly spread planet-wide in a matter of a few weeks. It increases our vulnerability to a catastrophe from any source - I just don't see an inevitable population collapse coming from a blunting or weakening of the instinct to reproduce.
I hope you're right, that it burns out real soon. It might be a small part but it is a part of the general societal dismanteling of reproduction and the nuclear family as N7 just posted.
That's likely a part of what is going on, but I think it has more to do with adolescents looking for their own "tribe", some group of people with whom they feel they belong. Some lost souls latch onto the trans fad. It's very hard to say in any individual case - studies have shown that a large fraction of boys who think they are trans girls turn out to be simply gay boys. But I think that's probably less true today and that it's more often about personal and group identity.
Likewise abortion isn't per se the biggest part of the problem, but when combined with all the other many factors attacking normal human mating and reproduction, it is. The problem isn't "abortion is available", the problem is "Why do women want abortion?" They've lost the desire to have babies! A huge part of that is the perception that they cannot afford children, the men feel the same way. Something us older folks haven't really grasped is we were blessed with the post WW2 economic explosion where the U.S. was the most powerful and prosperous nation to have ever existed. We could easily raise 5 kids on a modest salary, in a nice neighborhood, with a stay at home mom. But the country just isn't like that anymore; most young folks today cannot support a family on one salary, and buying a house is becoming unreachable.
Yes, that's a big part of the reason in this country - younger people can't afford to raise children in today's economy. In fact that may be a better explanation for the reduced birth rate than the reproductive urge weakening due to overpopulation. It's odd: abortion has been normalized in public thinking as a "right", as an aspect of "reproductive choice" - the fact that the baby to be aborted is a separate human being by any definition by the third trimester, and by many definitions well before that, has become secondary to "my right to control my body". Given that view, it's surprising that abortion doesn't happen more often. It doesn't because of the overwhelming influence of biology and biochemistry on psychology - most women do NOT want to abort their babies. That's another reason I don't think it's a significant factor in population decline. Yes, everything taken together adds up to the phenomenon we observe - I just think abortion is too small a part of it to consider significant.
More CO2 and a warmer planet will INCREASE the amount of plant growth and agricultural land. Food is not going to be a problem. Shipping it around WILL be a problem, because a lot of the world is fed by food grown elsewhere, overseas, and it is the United States that guarantees safe shipping lanes. As the U.S. weakens and loses respect in the world, that will begin to change and we will have pirates again, both private and state sponsored. Everything will become massively more expensive as shippers will need to weaponize the ships, have smaller, faster ships, etc. People don't appreciate the importance of the U.S. patrolling the high seas, reminding all nations about the mutually beneficial agreement to leave shipping alone. If we lose that respect and that agreement, it all comes apart. That's probably the future we face.
Some studies have suggested just the opposite - that while plant growth is faster and total plant mass grows with increased CO2, the nutrition content seems not to and in some crops, may actually decrease. As a lukewarmist myself I used to think this, but I'm not so convinced today and consider what will happen to nutrition density in agricultural products another of the many unknowns of having more CO2 in the atmosphere.
What you say about the future of shipping is one of those things that could come to pass but definitely isn't written in stone, and it's really the only aspect of this discussion that really begs for a political solution. This is where I disagree most strongly with the MAGA movement - not only US military superiority, but also our alliances are vital to keeping the shipping lanes open and free for commerce. If America turns inward the way we did in the '30s, and abandons our allies and capitulates to terrorists and autocrats, we could wake up to a new world order with Russia, China, and Iran in control and what's left of the free world seriously crippled and unable to compete.
-
The leftist academic horde constantly try to dismiss the sheer magnitude of the dead preborn, as usual incapable of rational examination.
Remove millions and millions of what would have been live births per year, then index that number for the number of children they would have had, and combine that with the next five to twenty generations and the drain on the population is spectacular. Liberals are ignorant about anything but zero sum bullshit.
-
What you say about the future of shipping is one of those things that could come to pass but definitely isn't written in stone, and it's really the only aspect of this discussion that really begs for a political solution. This is where I disagree most strongly with the MAGA movement - not only US military superiority, but also our alliances are vital to keeping the shipping lanes open and free for commerce. If America turns inward the way we did in the '30s, and abandons our allies and capitulates to terrorists and autocrats, we could wake up to a new world order with Russia, China, and Iran in control and what's left of the free world seriously crippled and unable to compete.
Putting America first is not turning inward. Alliances with other countries is also not the US doing the majority of the funding and being expected to go in and do the fight on everyone else's behalf.
Allies are not being abandoned, they are being asked to do their fair share. As to capitulating to terrorist, that comes from democrat left.
Before this disaster administration currently in power, we had Iran under control as well as China and Russia. It was the Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris administrations that has capitulated to these regimes and now has the world in the mess it's in today.
-
All of this is quite true. Globalization also makes it possible for pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 to quickly spread planet-wide in a matter of a few weeks. It increases our vulnerability to a catastrophe from any source - I just don't see an inevitable population collapse coming from a blunting or weakening of the instinct to reproduce.
But it’s happening right before our eyes. True, the urge to reproduce is there, but other urges are trumping it. In men, they actually want a family, it’s what they live and work for, but seeing the high divorce rate and terrible financial devastation on men, it’s just too risky. And they’re having trouble finding marriageable females anyway. The woman seem to dislike men. They might use them for sex, but want nothing to do with long term commitment, unless the man happens to earn in the high six figures and there simply aren’t enough of those to go around.
As for the women, they are putting career first, delaying any thought of marriage, then baby hunger kicks in during the 30s as they see their window of opportunity closing, but still remain picky about their choice of men, then finding there is a shortage of males who want to marry older, “independent minded” (translate: kinda bitchy) career women.
These are descriptions of proximal causes, but what are the underlying dynamics leading to them? Our entire societal structure including the devaluation of the currency, which seems to inevitably plague any powerful empire. (I use the term loosely, I realize the U.S. isn’t technically an empire, but instead a global superpower.)
That's likely a part of what is going on, but I think it has more to do with adolescents looking for their own "tribe", some group of people with whom they feel they belong. Some lost souls latch onto the trans fad. It's very hard to say in any individual case - studies have shown that a large fraction of boys who think they are trans girls turn out to be simply gay boys. But I think that's probably less true today and that it's more often about personal and group identity.
In the case of women that’s definitely what’s going on. Adolescent girls do everything in groups, “tribes” as you say. And you are right, in males, they usually turn out to just be gay. Or some are straight men who have a cross dressing fetish. They’ve found that the trans movement enables them to exhibit their fetish openly.
Yes, that's a big part of the reason in this country - younger people can't afford to raise children in today's economy. In fact that may be a better explanation for the reduced birth rate than the reproductive urge weakening due to overpopulation. It's odd: abortion has been normalized in public thinking as a "right", as an aspect of "reproductive choice" - the fact that the baby to be aborted is a separate human being by any definition by the third trimester, and by many definitions well before that, has become secondary to "my right to control my body". Given that view, it's surprising that abortion doesn't happen more often. It doesn't because of the overwhelming influence of biology and biochemistry on psychology - most women do NOT want to abort their babies. That's another reason I don't think it's a significant factor in population decline. Yes, everything taken together adds up to the phenomenon we observe - I just think abortion is too small a part of it to consider significant.
It’s extremely difficult to quantify the impact of abortion. There is a very strong association between legal, easy abortion and laziness about birth control. When abortion is restricted the use of birth control goes up. But this has the same influence either way: women are making fewer babies. I do believe or at least hope that late term abortions are very rare except in the cases of severe birth defects. I have a hard time thinking that any woman or doctor can be involved in late term abortions of healthy babies unless they are outright psychopaths. But we do have a lot of those so…
Some studies have suggested just the opposite - that while plant growth is faster and total plant mass grows with increased CO2, the nutrition content seems not to and in some crops, may actually decrease. As a lukewarmist myself I used to think this, but I'm not so convinced today and consider what will happen to nutrition density in agricultural products another of the many unknowns of having more CO2 in the atmosphere.
What you say about the future of shipping is one of those things that could come to pass but definitely isn't written in stone, and it's really the only aspect of this discussion that really begs for a political solution. This is where I disagree most strongly with the MAGA movement - not only US military superiority, but also our alliances are vital to keeping the shipping lanes open and free for commerce. If America turns inward the way we did in the '30s, and abandons our allies and capitulates to terrorists and autocrats, we could wake up to a new world order with Russia, China, and Iran in control and what's left of the free world seriously crippled and unable to compete.
I’m unaware of those studies about C02.
But about the MAGA movement, you have been listening to anti-MAGA propaganda. Trump is strongly pro-having a strong military. Have the biggest, strongest military and then don’t use it, or don’t need to use it, because its existence is a deterrent. Where do you get the idea MAGA doesn’t want U.S. military superiority?
We’re not abandoning allies and capitulating to terrorists. Trump has strong foreign policy negotiating skills and during his first term we had the least problem with terrorists in decades, and nobody popped off a new war. The second he left office look what happened.
What you describe about a new world with China, Russia and Iran is exactly what’s happening under Biden.
-
The leftist academic horde constantly try to dismiss the sheer magnitude of the dead preborn, as usual incapable of rational examination.
Remove millions and millions of what would have been live births per year, then index that number for the number of children they would have had, and combine that with the next five to twenty generations and the drain on the population is spectacular. Liberals are ignorant about anything but zero sum bullshit.
You are correct about the math re: the impact of one lost person today means thousands of future descendants lost. However, it’s a fallacy that the abortion count is the same number of lives saved. You have to account for the impact of women using birth control and never getting pregnant in the first place.
In any case, either way, birth rates are way down. If abortion were totally banned you would have more births, but unless you also totally ban birth control, it would be fewer than the alleged numbers of babies saved from abortion.
You are spot on about the culture of death of the left. This is no longer simply “I have a right to control my body”, it is now joyful glee about murdering your unborn. The fake enactments in public we’ve seen, the T-shirts on heavily pregnant women saying “Not a human”, the bragging with glee about how many abortions the bitch had, are the most sickening things I’ve ever seen.
-
Y'all heard about the mass shooting in Orlando on Halloween night, right?
-
You are correct about the math re: the impact of one lost person today means thousands of future descendants lost. However, it’s a fallacy that the abortion count is the same number of lives saved. You have to account for the impact of women using birth control and never getting pregnant in the first place.
In any case, either way, birth rates are way down. If abortion were totally banned you would have more births, but unless you also totally ban birth control, it would be fewer than the alleged numbers of babies saved from abortion.
You are spot on about the culture of death of the left. This is no longer simply “I have a right to control my body”, it is now joyful glee about murdering your unborn. The fake enactments in public we’ve seen, the T-shirts on heavily pregnant women saying “Not a human”, the bragging with glee about how many abortions the bitch had, are the most sickening things I’ve ever seen.
Every abortion is the murder of a child of a woman successfully pregnant. The mortality rate of those pregnancies is far lower than in years past.
The sheer selfishness and ghoulishness of those who worship at the altar of abortion is just another sick facet of liberalism, along with assisted suicide (murder), and the leftist adoration of war and death.
-
Our post lengths are getting unmanageable due to quoted material, so I'll try to just reply to Rush's points without context - hopefully I won't be accused of twisting her words.
The stats do show an incremental decline in global birth rates over the past decade or so - we can argue all day about the causes, but the main reason I don't see a massive population decline - at least not yet - is that global population is still increasing, albeit somewhat more slowly than before. I agree with everything you say - I just don't see it adding up to a looming catastrophe. I'll admit we may simply be the frog being slowly boiled alive, but it will take an increase in the death rate to reduce global population unless the birth rate decline accelerates - the current trend persisted even through the COVID pandemic - and I don't see that happening (yet?).
Easy availability of abortion and laziness about birth control may be linked to some degree - that's hard to quantify as well - but again, there seems to be a zero sum hidden in there. If abortion were completely illegal, and if people were more conscientious about birth control, as a result, then perhaps population size trends would be unchanged? I just don't see population dynamics as a good argument against abortion - to me the easy availability and current framing of the issue on the left as one of bodily autonomy is primarily a moral failure, and we will not see abortion on demand become a thing of the past until cultural attitudes change. Whether at the state or national level, total bans will only result in health care failures, with women with legitimate, medical needs for abortion denied because doctors are afraid of prosecution.
The CO2 studies I referred to were nearly a decade ago - I doubt I could find them now and my memory is fuzzy on the subject. But I do recall distinctly that they pushed back strongly against the lukewarmist argument that more CO2 = more plant growth = increased agricultural yield.
Of course Trump is in favor of a strong US military, no argument there. It is his commitment to our alliances that I question. Maybe it's anti-MAGA propaganda, but there were reports, claimed to be from former insiders within his administration, that he really did (does?) intend to withdraw from NATO, that it wasn't a bluff. I tend to believe that because it agrees with the way I read Trump, as a canny survivor who would never bluff if being called on it would be disastrous. It's tempting to frame it that way because the "bluff" appears to have worked, but I believe that his threat to withdraw from NATO was real - that he made it because he considers US membership in NATO to be of no real value, even an undue burden.
-
Y'all heard about the mass shooting in Orlando on Halloween night, right?
Only because I saw it on X.
-
You are spot on about the culture of death of the left. This is no longer simply “I have a right to control my body”, it is now joyful glee about murdering your unborn. The fake enactments in public we’ve seen, the T-shirts on heavily pregnant women saying “Not a human”, the bragging with glee about how many abortions the bitch had, are the most sickening things I’ve ever seen.
Links to these enactments? "Joyful glee about murdering your unborn" is something I haven't seen except maybe on the extreme fringes. The mainstream framing is the bodily autonomy angle. I think this is the real problem - an intentionally disingenuous deflection from the reality that abortion is the taking of a human life.
-
Every abortion is the murder of a child of a woman successfully pregnant. The mortality rate of those pregnancies is far lower than in years past.
Yes, the argument that carrying a pregnancy to term is unsafe is total horseshit. There are risks involved in every pregnancy whether it’s terminated early or carried to term. The relative risk of carrying a pregnancy to term may be higher, but is so minuscule as to be insignificant. That’s like saying, “A 50% increase in risk is significant!” when you are going from a 1.0% risk to 1.5%. It’s a misrepresentation and commonly used to manipulate the public using fear in all sorts of scenarios, used by corporations, government, and media alike. They’ll tell you the relative risk while omitting the absolute risk, which is much more meaningful.
Even if the absolute risk is much higher, the discussion totally ignores the benefits of having children. In assessing risk it’s always a risk/benefit analysis. Suppose for example having children to care for you in old age is beneficial to your health and longevity. That future benefit must be weighed against the risk of giving birth when younger.
One must also consider the impact of abortion on future fertility. The worst argument for having an abortion is: I’m not ready now to have a child, I want to wait until I’m in a better financial position, more emotionally mature, in a committed relationship, etc. To me, that’s simply insane. To kill your own child because now is not a convenient time, but you want one in the future. I’ve got news for you: That baby you killed is unique. A unique person who will never again be, and you’ve killed the sibling of your future child. Inexcusable. If I found out my mother aborted my older brother or sister, I’d be enraged.
The sheer selfishness and ghoulishness of those who worship at the altar of abortion is just another sick facet of liberalism, along with assisted suicide (murder), and the leftist adoration of war and death.
And my theory is that all of that is coming from a drive to self-extinction as a species. Where else would it lead? Although the proponents of these policies are not consciously aware of this; in their minds, it’s the unwashed masses who they want to kill off, leaving the elite all the spoils. This of course is ludicrous as it’s the “unwashed masses” that produce everything for human survival.
-
One must also consider the impact of abortion on future fertility. The worst argument for having an abortion is: I’m not ready now to have a child, I want to wait until I’m in a better financial position, more emotionally mature, in a committed relationship, etc. To me, that’s simply insane. To kill your own child because now is not a convenient time, but you want one in the future. I’ve got news for you: That baby you killed is unique. A unique person who will never again be, and you’ve killed the sibling of your future child. Inexcusable. If I found out my mother aborted my older brother or sister, I’d be enraged.
Hear, hear!
-
Of course Trump is in favor of a strong US military, no argument there. It is his commitment to our alliances that I question. Maybe it's anti-MAGA propaganda, but there were reports, claimed to be from former insiders within his administration, that he really did (does?) intend to withdraw from NATO, that it wasn't a bluff. I tend to believe that because it agrees with the way I read Trump, as a canny survivor who would never bluff if being called on it would be disastrous. It's tempting to frame it that way because the "bluff" appears to have worked, but I believe that his threat to withdraw from NATO was real - that he made it because he considers US membership in NATO to be of no real value, even an undue burden.
While Trump was president he did get NATO allies to start paying what they owed. This inflamed the left.
The so called threats to leave NATO are, as usual, taken out of context and used for propaganda and fear mongering. Trump has and still pushes for military superiority. Where the leftist and UniParty disagree with Trump is they want the US to participate in every war and conflict around the globe, while Trump takes the Teddy Roosevelt approach.
The last four years clearly show the difference.
-
Links to these enactments? "Joyful glee about murdering your unborn" is something I haven't seen except maybe on the extreme fringes. The mainstream framing is the bodily autonomy angle. I think this is the real problem - an intentionally disingenuous deflection from the reality that abortion is the taking of a human life.
But that’s the point. The “extreme fringes” are openly being publicized, doing these things in daylight on the streets, uploading tik tok videos, etc. I’ve seen a lot of them on X but I am not surprised mainstream media doesn’t cover them. Everyone knows it’s abhorrent. This is the first time in all these decades of debating abortion this has been a thing at all. Til now there was at least some regret at the “necessity” of doing it. Bill Clinton said abortion should be “Safe, legal and rare.” This was much more the sentiment than now where women openly celebrate how many of their own children they’ve terminated.
The bodily autonomy angle is a legitimate one in some circumstances but it’s been carried too far. You can make the argument that an early pregnancy isn’t viable, therefore the embryo has no “right to life”. In traditional legal systems quickening was the dividing line. They thought the soul entered the fetus when the mother could feel it move. Now of course we have the technology to see that it moves much sooner, almost from the very beginning, as soon as cells differentiate into nerve and muscle tissue. And the heart begins to beat much earlier than they could detect using only the human ear. So we are forced to revise the date at which it can be considered human although still not viable outside the womb until much later.
Then of course since the discovery of DNA and the theory that “human” is defined as anything with a full set of human chromosomes brings it all the way back to the moment of fertilization even before the thing divides from one to two cells, although nobody sane would argue that it has any self awareness at that point. Whether or not it has a “soul” is an unprovable matter of religious faith.
What is not disputable is that it at least contains the full potential of a human life with all its future good and bad deeds, plus all its descendants and their deeds. Aborting it wipes all that out.
-
Only because I saw it on X.
Exactly. X is rapidly becoming the go-to source for un-suppressed news. Yes, there's a lot of dis- and mis-information there. But it also seems that it gets sorted out fairly quickly.
The mass shooting in Orlando didn't fit the preferred narrative and so was ignored. Just like mass shootings every weekend in Chicago. Almost 500 murders so far this year. Some 16,000 shooting victims from 2016 through 2020. But white males are the problem.
-
But that’s the point. The “extreme fringes” are openly being publicized, doing these things in daylight on the streets, uploading tik tok videos, etc. I’ve seen a lot of them on X but I am not surprised mainstream media doesn’t cover them. Everyone knows it’s abhorrent. This is the first time in all these decades of debating abortion this has been a thing at all. Til now there was at least some regret at the “necessity” of doing it. Bill Clinton said abortion should be “Safe, legal and rare.” This was much more the sentiment than now where women openly celebrate how many of their own children they’ve terminated.
OK - that's why I asked for links. I'll believe it when I see it - and so far, I haven't.
The bodily autonomy angle is a legitimate one in some circumstances but it’s been carried too far. You can make the argument that an early pregnancy isn’t viable, therefore the embryo has no “right to life”. In traditional legal systems quickening was the dividing line. They thought the soul entered the fetus when the mother could feel it move. Now of course we have the technology to see that it moves much sooner, almost from the very beginning, as soon as cells differentiate into nerve and muscle tissue. And the heart begins to beat much earlier than they could detect using only the human ear. So we are forced to revise the date at which it can be considered human although still not viable outside the womb until much later.
My viewpoint is more "modern", for lack of a better word - I'm a manifestation of a CNS, a neural network, an emergent property of hundreds of billions of interconnected neurons communicating via electrochemical signals. The CNS begins to form VERY early in pregnancy, and once it's active, around week 6, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion unless medically necessary to protect the mother's life or health. So my own standards would be very conservative - but I'm acutely aware of how controversial the question is of when a fetus becomes a human being.
I would be comfortable with the Roe trimester-based scheme if our culture respected life enough that medical boards routinely rejected abortion, pretty much at any time, unless medically necessary. Abortion bans with criminal penalties, especially blanket bans, have unintended consequences that our society will never accept - including myself. So I'm not really sure what the solution is, or if there is one at this point in our cultural evolution.
Then of course since the discovery of DNA and the theory that “human” is defined as anything with a full set of human chromosomes brings it all the way back to the moment of fertilization even before the thing divides from one to two cells, although nobody sane would argue that it has any self awareness at that point. Whether or not it has a “soul” is an unprovable matter of religious faith.
What is not disputable is that it at least contains the full potential of a human life with all its future good and bad deeds, plus all its descendants and their deeds. Aborting it wipes all that out.
Agreed.
-
OK - that's why I asked for links. I'll believe it when I see it - and so far, I haven't.
Next time it shows up in my X feed I’ll try to remember to link it. For now, take my word, or not.
My viewpoint is more "modern", for lack of a better word - I'm a manifestation of a CNS, a neural network, an emergent property of hundreds of billions of interconnected neurons communicating via electrochemical signals. The CNS begins to form VERY early in pregnancy, and once it's active, around week 6, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion unless medically necessary to protect the mother's life or health. So my own standards would be very conservative - but I'm acutely aware of how controversial the question is of when a fetus becomes a human being.
I would be comfortable with the Roe trimester-based scheme if our culture respected life enough that medical boards routinely rejected abortion, pretty much at any time, unless medically necessary. Abortion bans with criminal penalties, especially blanket bans, have unintended consequences that our society will never accept - including myself. So I'm not really sure what the solution is, or if there is one at this point in our cultural evolution.
I agree with all of that. From a practical standpoint a total ban will never go over in this country, not without conservative authoritarianism at the federal level and there is no chance of that any time soon. Instead we are at huge risk of permanent leftist authoritarianism which is far worse. Neither are good but the left variety tends to lead to mass starvation. And the current Uniparty is very near involving us in multiple wars, potentially leading to a head to head with a nuclear power. It MUST be defeated this Tuesday.
The growing MAGA movement is the only hope we have right now, but the abortion issue is second only to intractable TDS as the motivation for a Harris vote. It’s not Harris herself, everybody hates her. Abortion might be what loses the election because we can’t just win, we must win with enough votes to overcome the cheating. And if you believe the polls, there are enough women who care about that as the number one issue that it might lose us the election. Those on the right with a hard line on abortion have given the Dems ammunition to lie about Trump’s plans if elected and the media is complicit in covering up the truth.
SCOTUS was technically correct in revoking RvW but the timing sucked! That alone might lose us this election. They did that but they couldn’t be bothered to even look at Texas et al, which they had every legal and moral mandate to consider. I’m bitterly disappointed in this SC.
-
Yes, abortion could lose the election for Trump. Harris / Walz have made it a central issue - a good strategy for them.
I'm not worried that we are headed for a leftist authoritarian regime - I don't see any sign of that. I'm more concerned that regardless of who wins, the US is headed for eventual default on the national debt, and the dollar will ultimately be supplanted by the yen as the world's dominant reserve currency. I'm worried that Trump will do nothing to stem this trend because to do so would cause pain and he is - as you rightly said elsewhere - a populist, not a conservative. I have no hope that Harris would do anything to solve the problem as she is either a progressive or a simple populist - progressives believe in MMT or promote economic policies that only make sense if you do, and as I said, populism is not the answer. Geopolitically, I'm worried that Putin will annex Ukraine with the aid of Iran and the DPRK and train his sights on Moldova, the Baltics, and Poland next. The situation in the Middle East may yet erupt into WW3.
We need leaders of Reagan's stature and we don't have them, not even waiting in the wings. I thought Nikki Haley was the most qualified candidate, but she had no chance against Trump, and she's no Reagan.
I can't vote for either major party candidate. Full disclosure: if I lived in a state where my vote could make a difference I would probably hold my nose tightly and vote for Harris. Trump is disqualified in my mind because of the way he reacted to his 2020 loss. If he had limited his actions to legal challenges I'd have no problem, but he went way beyond that and was practically AWOL for 2 whole months. Then came his inability to deal promptly and firmly with the Jan. 6 rioters. That's a character flaw - psychologists call it "hubristic pride", I think. He cares more about what others think of him than about what he has actually accomplished. I don't think that's TDS, I think it's an objective assessment of the man's character.
Trump's greatest foreign policy achievement was the Abraham accords, and now they're pretty much moot. I have no confidence in his ability to handle the current geopolitical situation (and I believe that his boast that he would solve the Ukraine situation before Inauguration Day is further evidence of hubristic pride).
I'm trying to decide between three options on the presidential ballot: leave it blank, write in (fiscally conservative VT governor) Phil Scott, or write in Nikki Haley.
-
I'm not worried that we are headed for a leftist authoritarian regime - I don't see any sign of that.
wow
-
Links to these enactments? "Joyful glee about murdering your unborn" is something I haven't seen except maybe on the extreme fringes. The mainstream framing is the bodily autonomy angle. I think this is the real problem - an intentionally disingenuous deflection from the reality that abortion is the taking of a human life.
Pure bullshit.
-
Yes, abortion could lose the election for Trump. Harris / Walz have made it a central issue - a good strategy for them.
I'm not worried that we are headed for a leftist authoritarian regime - I don't see any sign of that. I'm more concerned that regardless of who wins, the US is headed for eventual default on the national debt, and the dollar will ultimately be supplanted by the yen as the world's dominant reserve currency. I'm worried that Trump will do nothing to stem this trend because to do so would cause pain and he is - as you rightly said elsewhere - a populist, not a conservative. I have no hope that Harris would do anything to solve the problem as she is either a progressive or a simple populist - progressives believe in MMT or promote economic policies that only make sense if you do, and as I said, populism is not the answer. Geopolitically, I'm worried that Putin will annex Ukraine with the aid of Iran and the DPRK and train his sights on Moldova, the Baltics, and Poland next. The situation in the Middle East may yet erupt into WW3.
We need leaders of Reagan's stature and we don't have them, not even waiting in the wings. I thought Nikki Haley was the most qualified candidate, but she had no chance against Trump, and she's no Reagan.
I can't vote for either major party candidate. Full disclosure: if I lived in a state where my vote could make a difference I would probably hold my nose tightly and vote for Harris. Trump is disqualified in my mind because of the way he reacted to his 2020 loss. If he had limited his actions to legal challenges I'd have no problem, but he went way beyond that and was practically AWOL for 2 whole months. Then came his inability to deal promptly and firmly with the Jan. 6 rioters. That's a character flaw - psychologists call it "hubristic pride", I think. He cares more about what others think of him than about what he has actually accomplished. I don't think that's TDS, I think it's an objective assessment of the man's character.
Trump's greatest foreign policy achievement was the Abraham accords, and now they're pretty much moot. I have no confidence in his ability to handle the current geopolitical situation (and I believe that his boast that he would solve the Ukraine situation before Inauguration Day is further evidence of hubristic pride).
I'm trying to decide between three options on the presidential ballot: leave it blank, write in (fiscally conservative VT governor) Phil Scott, or write in Nikki Haley.
Oh my God, you’re Bill Maher. Reasonable in almost every way but have TDS simply because you can’t get past his reaction to “losing” in 2020. What was he supposed to do? Not try to question the outright blatant and obvious cheating? The Biden win was a statistical impossibility. There was evidence out the wazoo but it was suppressed or ignored and then the government embarked on a legal persecution campaign against all the lawyers attempting to bring the cheating to light. Suddenly to question election security was redefined as “insurrection” when it’s been standard Dem behavior for several election cycles if the Republican won.
It was plainly obvious the Dems used Covid to change election law in several states and use universal mail in ballots that could be carefully and precisely manipulated to gain the exact numbers needed to push Biden over - ONLY in key districts in key swing states. If you think that was all coincidental I have a bridge to sell you. Trump was right to push for investigation of fraud.
Having said that, he did talk about it too much. I’m glad he dropped it for this campaign and instead they are doing what they should quietly: they have an army of lawyers watching the current election and filing lawsuits at any sign of shenanigans. It should help but I am not at all complacent about the Dems being even more sneaky in other ways this time.
I have no idea what you mean about him not dealing with the J6 rioters. He posted a video begging them all to go home peacefully and it was taken down by Twitter, which at the time was directly under the control of the corrupt FBI. He was then banned from Twitter altogether. He requested the National Guard be mustered and was denied by Nancy Pelosi; we have her on video admitting this.
I agree with you about the U.S. heading for bankruptcy and I don’t think either Trump or Harris can stop it. But Trump will slow it down. Trump’s problem in his first term was Covid, that triggered the ensuing inflation but Biden’s policies made it much worse. It’s true populism isn’t fiscal conservatism and it’s true Trump is a populist. But Trump has one virtue that is very conservative: He believes in cutting regulations and he walked the walk about it in his first term. He also gave us a tax cut, and opened up oil, contributing to low gas prices and a glut in the market, which is better than a shortage by far.
He had China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Israel all completely under control in his first term. They have all popped off the minute he left office, if not literally like Russia and Gaza-triggered Israel, then with threats: China doing Navy exercises and talking smack about invading Taiwan and little rocket man starting up his missile testing again, and Iran funding various Islamoterrorists around the Mideast with U.S. taxpayer dollars Biden gave them.
All of that was dormant under Trump. You think it’s a coincidence? Not at all. Trump was like the big scary bully on the block, keeping all the lesser bullies in line. Biden is barely even a presence on the world stage, as if mommy and daddy are away and there’s no more big bully in the neighborhood so all the petty little shits start bickering and punching each other with no authority around to stop them.
Trump was great at stopping them before they did anything at all. “I will bomb Moscow if you invade Ukraine,” he said to Putin, “I have a red button too and mine is bigger and it works,” he said to Kim whatshisface. With the Taliban all he had to do was pull out a satellite photo of the leaders’ home and intone, “If one hair on an American’s head is hurt…”
Do you think Kammie will have ANY kind of international authority like that? They’ll respect her less than they do Biden, which means it will go into negative numbers.
Well, at least you aren’t going to vote for her pathetic ass. If you can’t bring yourself to go for Trump, any of your three options are okay with with me. (Not that my opinion matters :D)
-
I'm not worried that we are headed for a leftist authoritarian regime - I don't see any sign of that.
The full text of the quoted portion of this post is so full of shit it must have been written in a septic tank.
As for the quoted text, there is nothing dumber than this idiotic lie, she posted.
-
Oh my God, you’re Bill Maher. Reasonable in almost every way but have TDS simply because you can’t get past his reaction to “losing” in 2020. What was he supposed to do?
I was thinking the same thing. Almost all of her posts are well thought out and reasonable, and I have given her several likes for that.
But for some reason, regardless of reality, she sees only the worst in Trump. I "speculate" that that is because she consumes too much NPR.
She even defends Trump when he is unfairly vilified in the press, but she just hates him so much she cannot overcome that. I also speculate , WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that this is because she doesn't actually watch much of Trump's speeches and relies on the spin of the MSM.
But that aside, I do think that most of her positions are well thought out and reasonable. I am glad she is back here posting again.
-
I was thinking the same thing. Almost all of her posts are well thought out and reasonable, and I have given her several likes for that.
But for some reason, regardless of reality, she sees only the worst in Trump. I "speculate" that that is because she consumes too much NPR.
She even defends Trump when he is unfairly vilified in the press, but she just hates him so much she cannot overcome that. I also speculate , WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that this is because she doesn't actually watch much of Trump's speeches and relies on the spin of the MSM.
But that aside, I do think that most of her positions are well thought out and reasonable. I am glad she is back here posting again.
I agree also without evidence but I am sure it’s true about Maher, he consumes too much MSM. You get an extremely distorted view of Trump unless you actively seek out non-mainstream sources. The propaganda about his disputing the election was totally biased. It just seems odd to focus on that alone as THE reason not to vote for him. Doesn’t the economy matter? Lower taxes, more jobs, a secure border, no new wars? You dismiss all of that and reject him because he got butthurt about election fraud? It makes no sense.
-
I agree also without evidence but I am sure it’s true about Maher, he consumes too much MSM. You get an extremely distorted view of Trump unless you actively seek out non-mainstream sources. The propaganda about his disputing the election was totally biased. It just seems odd to focus on that alone as THE reason not to vote for him. Doesn’t the economy matter? Lower taxes, more jobs, a secure border, no new wars? You dismiss all of that and reject him because he got butthurt about election fraud? It makes no sense.
As for election fraud, even I am not convinced there was enough fraud to sway the election.
But I do know that there was enough circumstantial evidence to demand a thorough investigation. Instead we got stone-walling and rejection by judges based on standing. I keep asking my liberal friends what SHOULD happen if you suspect fraud and nobody of importance listens. I get no answer.
-
Oh my God, you’re Bill Maher. Reasonable in almost every way but have TDS simply because you can’t get past his reaction to “losing” in 2020. What was he supposed to do? Not try to question the outright blatant and obvious cheating? The Biden win was a statistical impossibility. There was evidence out the wazoo but it was suppressed or ignored and then the government embarked on a legal persecution campaign against all the lawyers attempting to bring the cheating to light. Suddenly to question election security was redefined as “insurrection” when it’s been standard Dem behavior for several election cycles if the Republican won.
It was plainly obvious the Dems used Covid to change election law in several states and use universal mail in ballots that could be carefully and precisely manipulated to gain the exact numbers needed to push Biden over - ONLY in key districts in key swing states. If you think that was all coincidental I have a bridge to sell you. Trump was right to push for investigation of fraud.
Having said that, he did talk about it too much. I’m glad he dropped it for this campaign and instead they are doing what they should quietly: they have an army of lawyers watching the current election and filing lawsuits at any sign of shenanigans. It should help but I am not at all complacent about the Dems being even more sneaky in other ways this time.
I have no idea what you mean about him not dealing with the J6 rioters. He posted a video begging them all to go home peacefully and it was taken down by Twitter, which at the time was directly under the control of the corrupt FBI. He was then banned from Twitter altogether. He requested the National Guard be mustered and was denied by Nancy Pelosi; we have her on video admitting this.
I agree with you about the U.S. heading for bankruptcy and I don’t think either Trump or Harris can stop it. But Trump will slow it down. Trump’s problem in his first term was Covid, that triggered the ensuing inflation but Biden’s policies made it much worse. It’s true populism isn’t fiscal conservatism and it’s true Trump is a populist. But Trump has one virtue that is very conservative: He believes in cutting regulations and he walked the walk about it in his first term. He also gave us a tax cut, and opened up oil, contributing to low gas prices and a glut in the market, which is better than a shortage by far.
He had China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Israel all completely under control in his first term. They have all popped off the minute he left office, if not literally like Russia and Gaza-triggered Israel, then with threats: China doing Navy exercises and talking smack about invading Taiwan and little rocket man starting up his missile testing again, and Iran funding various Islamoterrorists around the Mideast with U.S. taxpayer dollars Biden gave them.
All of that was dormant under Trump. You think it’s a coincidence? Not at all. Trump was like the big scary bully on the block, keeping all the lesser bullies in line. Biden is barely even a presence on the world stage, as if mommy and daddy are away and there’s no more big bully in the neighborhood so all the petty little shits start bickering and punching each other with no authority around to stop them.
Trump was great at stopping them before they did anything at all. “I will bomb Moscow if you invade Ukraine,” he said to Putin, “I have a red button too and mine is bigger and it works,” he said to Kim whatshisface. With the Taliban all he had to do was pull out a satellite photo of the leaders’ home and intone, “If one hair on an American’s head is hurt…”
Do you think Kammie will have ANY kind of international authority like that? They’ll respect her less than they do Biden, which means it will go into negative numbers.
Well, at least you aren’t going to vote for her pathetic ass. If you can’t bring yourself to go for Trump, any of your three options are okay with with me. (Not that my opinion matters :D)
We're going to have to agree to disagree about Trump. It's all moot now, as Trump has won and we are about to see what happens.
As for the J6 rioters, it's quite clear that he only posted that video after watching the riot unfold on TV for at least a couple of hours. He should have tried to nip the whole thing in the bud as soon as it got out of hand. Dereliction of duty at the very least. A sign of poor character.
I agree that Trump's unpredictability and disruptive nature probably did help to keep NK, China, and Russia in check at the time. His threats to withdraw from NATO likely had the opposite effect, to embolden Putin to start drawing up plans to annex Ukraine. Friction among the NATO allies is to Putin's advantage.
I don't have anything more to say about this now. I'm not happy that Trump won, but I would have been almost as unhappy with a Harris win. As far as I'm concerned, we were fucked regardless of which candidate won. We would have been fucked even in the unlikely event that my candidate won - the L party is too isolationist IMO.
-
I agree also without evidence but I am sure it’s true about Maher, he consumes too much MSM. You get an extremely distorted view of Trump unless you actively seek out non-mainstream sources. The propaganda about his disputing the election was totally biased. It just seems odd to focus on that alone as THE reason not to vote for him. Doesn’t the economy matter? Lower taxes, more jobs, a secure border, no new wars? You dismiss all of that and reject him because he got butthurt about election fraud? It makes no sense.
Rush, my complaint against Trump is pretty much the same as H R McMaster's: the man has a serious character flaw, he craves approval from everyone around him... including some he should not, like foreign adversaries. It led him to stew about the 2020 election to the exclusion of his duties and to commit some acts that were probably illegal (e.g. the call to Raffensperger), and to sit back and watch the J6 riots instead of taking aggressive action to stop the mob before they got out of hand.
It's all moot now: Trump will be our next President. Just means a different set of challenges than if Harris had won.
-
As for election fraud, even I am not convinced there was enough fraud to sway the election.
But I do know that there was enough circumstantial evidence to demand a thorough investigation. Instead we got stone-walling and rejection by judges based on standing. I keep asking my liberal friends what SHOULD happen if you suspect fraud and nobody of importance listens. I get no answer.
I agree, an investigation would have helped to clear the air and probably should have been done early. But lack of standing IS a legitimate counter to such a call, that's part of how the law works in this country. I tend to say the fault lies with the lawyers who brought the litigation - incompetence. In the end there were many audits, and no widespread irregularities were found.
The Dems will likely do the same thing, challenge this outcome in court, as is their right. And I'm confident that nothing large enough to affect the outcome will be found. The only scenario where cheating could affect the outcome is if the margin in a critical swing state was on the order of a few hundred. Trump has won enough swing states with margins at least in the 10s of thousands, last I checked.
The election is over, let's move on.
-
When the courts declared lack of standing in the beginning it was because (they said) that there hadn’t been an injury to the American voter - yet.
After the same lying assholes declared that it was too late to file because they should have done so before then.
Typical leftist bullshit, lies and crimes.
John fucking roberts was the worst coward in history demanding the Supreme Court simply refuse to hear the cases. It was just as dishonest as his asinine obamacare decision. Pure liberal bullshit on wry with a side of manure.
-
I agree, an investigation would have helped to clear the air and probably should have been done early. But lack of standing IS a legitimate counter to such a call, that's part of how the law works in this country. I tend to say the fault lies with the lawyers who brought the litigation - incompetence. In the end there were many audits, and no widespread irregularities were found.
The Dems will likely do the same thing, challenge this outcome in court, as is their right. And I'm confident that nothing large enough to affect the outcome will be found. The only scenario where cheating could affect the outcome is if the margin in a critical swing state was on the order of a few hundred. Trump has won enough swing states with margins at least in the 10s of thousands, last I checked.
The election is over, let's move on.
The difference is they won't be charged with racketeering crimes and convicted in kangaroo courts by biased White House controlled prosecutors. Or maybe they will if Trump takes revenge in kind.
-
We're going to have to agree to disagree about Trump. It's all moot now, as Trump has won and we are about to see what happens.
As for the J6 rioters, it's quite clear that he only posted that video after watching the riot unfold on TV for at least a couple of hours. He should have tried to nip the whole thing in the bud as soon as it got out of hand. Dereliction of duty at the very least. A sign of poor character.
I agree that Trump's unpredictability and disruptive nature probably did help to keep NK, China, and Russia in check at the time. His threats to withdraw from NATO likely had the opposite effect, to embolden Putin to start drawing up plans to annex Ukraine. Friction among the NATO allies is to Putin's advantage.
I don't have anything more to say about this now. I'm not happy that Trump won, but I would have been almost as unhappy with a Harris win. As far as I'm concerned, we were fucked regardless of which candidate won. We would have been fucked even in the unlikely event that my candidate won - the L party is too isolationist IMO.
How will you feel if we get back to say, 2019? No wars, low inflation, low gas prices, low unemployment, illegal crossings way down, strong portfolio performance and wages catch up with food prices again. If we get back to 2019 how will we be fucked?
-
How will you feel if we get back to say, 2019? No wars, low inflation, low gas prices, low unemployment, illegal crossings way down, strong portfolio performance and wages catch up with food prices again. If we get back to 2019 how will we be fucked?
Because her communist god won’t be in charge anymore.
Obama won’t be getting his fourth term.
-
How will you feel if we get back to say, 2019? No wars, low inflation, low gas prices, low unemployment, illegal crossings way down, strong portfolio performance and wages catch up with food prices again. If we get back to 2019 how will we be fucked?
2019 is in the rear-view mirror. I don't believe we're going back there any time soon.
-
I was thinking the same thing. Almost all of her posts are well thought out and reasonable, and I have given her several likes for that.
But for some reason, regardless of reality, she sees only the worst in Trump. I "speculate" that that is because she consumes too much NPR.
She even defends Trump when he is unfairly vilified in the press, but she just hates him so much she cannot overcome that. I also speculate , WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that this is because she doesn't actually watch much of Trump's speeches and relies on the spin of the MSM.
But that aside, I do think that most of her positions are well thought out and reasonable. I am glad she is back here posting again.
Just to clarify: I don't *hate* Trump, I just think his character flaws make him a dangerous choice to put back in office.
In addition, all the tax cuts he has promised are not going to help tame the deficit. The national debt grew by nearly twice as much under Trump as compared with Biden (going by the net 10-year debt approved, according to crfb.org). That's a catastrophe in the making, and neither party is doing a damn thing to stop it.
So I wish Trump the best of luck as President, but given his past record, I have little faith that he will do much if anything to prevent or even forestall default. I hope I'm wrong.
-
Rush, my complaint against Trump is pretty much the same as H R McMaster's: the man has a serious character flaw, he craves approval from everyone around him...
Grandiosity and an inflated ego. These are features of narcissism, and narcissistic features are prominant in anyone who seeks the highest office in the world, more so than the rest of us and we all have some features of narcissism. But that is not to say all of us have Narcissistic Personality Disorder or are evil. Narcissists want to build a legacy for themselves. Disordered narcissists do that at the expense of others, without empathy, and often are also outright sadistic. But you can build yourself a legacy by doing something helpful for others, in Trump's case, he wants to elevate America, make our economy strong again, make our lives better again, negotiate peace in the world, and so on. He makes my life better, and I'm willing to give him praise and attention for it. Win-win. Where's the problem?
including some he should not, like foreign adversaries.
No, he should seek their approval, and respect and friendship, while asserting his alpha male dominance to keep their behavior in line. That's exactly what he did in his first term and he was very good at it. Make adversaries our friends; that's much better for the whole world than either being hostile toward them or being weak.
It led him to stew about the 2020 election to the exclusion of his duties and to commit some acts that were probably illegal (e.g. the call to Raffensperger), and to sit back and watch the J6 riots instead of taking aggressive action to stop the mob before they got out of hand.
He did nothing illegal and had every right to raise hell about the blatant fraud that occurred. In my opinion he did stew a bit too long about it in speeches, could have toned that down a bit, but everything he was doing to fight it legally was perfectly appropriate. The J6 thing was far more an FBI covert incitation than Trump's fault.
It's all moot now: Trump will be our next President. Just means a different set of challenges than if Harris had won.
The challenge of low gas prices, inflation backing off, my IRA growing again and my 18 year old nephew not being sent off to war. Oh no! How will I cope?
-
Just to clarify: I don't *hate* Trump, I just think his character flaws make him a dangerous choice to put back in office.
In addition, all the tax cuts he has promised are not going to help tame the deficit. The national debt grew by nearly twice as much under Trump as compared with Biden (going by the net 10-year debt approved, according to crfb.org). That's a catastrophe in the making, and neither party is doing a damn thing to stop it.
So I wish Trump the best of luck as President, but given his past record, I have little faith that he will do much if anything to prevent or even forestall default. I hope I'm wrong.
Do you not believe that Elon might be able to cut Government by $2T a year?
-
You might want to watch the latest Firing Line. Margaret Hoover had McMaster on - clearly not a TDS sufferer, he was sympathetic to a lot of what Trump was trying to do in his first term. He is devastatingly critical of the ease with which people around Trump manipulated him and caused him to step on his own feet from time to time. In McMaster's opinion, it greatly lessened his effectiveness as President. And he believes that foreign leaders and adversaries did the same thing - something that reminds me very much of his behavior in Helsinki after meeting with Putin, and his "bromance" with Kim Jong Un.
I respectfully disagree that he should try to make friends with foreign adversaries. He should treat them as the adversaries they are - in some cases, enemies even. Yes, he should maintain communication with them, treat them respectfully but make American interests clear. And he should never, ever forget that they will do everything they can to take advantage of any weakness they sense. Don't you think guys like Putin and Kim can see Trump's need for approval? His narcissism is common knowledge from the get-go, especially now that he's a known quantity.
Sure, pretty much all national-stage politicians have that character trait to some degree. Some have it to a greater degree than others, and at the level McMaster describes, I think could make him a security risk. I've heard too many reports from insiders who worked with Trump, and the fact that he craved approval constantly was a common theme. That's the main reason why I'm so leery of having him back in the White House.
-
In four years President Donald Trump accomplished far more to reform government as usual than the last ten presidents combined, but any Marxist would pretend that his accomplishments were tiny, while the entire scum bag left and much of the right worked to defeat him, were marginal at best.
What academic trip and puerile bullshit, azure.
-
Exactly. X is rapidly becoming the go-to source for un-suppressed news. Yes, there's a lot of dis- and mis-information there. But it also seems that it gets sorted out fairly quickly.
The mass shooting in Orlando didn't fit the preferred narrative and so was ignored. Just like mass shootings every weekend in Chicago. Almost 500 murders so far this year. Some 16,000 shooting victims from 2016 through 2020. But white males are the problem.
That's why people with half a brain ignore 95% of the media. It's propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation.
Don't get me started about their lies concerning the AR-15.
-
You might want to watch the latest Firing Line. Margaret Hoover had McMaster on - clearly not a TDS sufferer, he was sympathetic to a lot of what Trump was trying to do in his first term. He is devastatingly critical of the ease with which people around Trump manipulated him and caused him to step on his own feet from time to time. In McMaster's opinion, it greatly lessened his effectiveness as President. And he believes that foreign leaders and adversaries did the same thing - something that reminds me very much of his behavior in Helsinki after meeting with Putin, and his "bromance" with Kim Jong Un.
I respectfully disagree that he should try to make friends with foreign adversaries. He should treat them as the adversaries they are - in some cases, enemies even. Yes, he should maintain communication with them, treat them respectfully but make American interests clear. And he should never, ever forget that they will do everything they can to take advantage of any weakness they sense. Don't you think guys like Putin and Kim can see Trump's need for approval? His narcissism is common knowledge from the get-go, especially now that he's a known quantity.
Sure, pretty much all national-stage politicians have that character trait to some degree. Some have it to a greater degree than others, and at the level McMaster describes, I think could make him a security risk. I've heard too many reports from insiders who worked with Trump, and the fact that he craved approval constantly was a common theme. That's the main reason why I'm so leery of having him back in the White House.
It’s like we’re talking about two different people. I’ve no idea what you mean, he was very effective in foreign matters. Check this out; you want to bet we get the 4 Americans back before he is inaugurated?
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1854251469287076141
I haven’t watched Firing Line since the William F. Buckley days. I didn’t know it was still around. I might check it out. I have no idea who McMasters is but it sounds like he’s got some kind of ax to grind with Trump.
-
In four years President Donald Trump accomplished far reform than the last ten presidents combined, but any Marist would pretend that his accomplishments while the entire scum bag left and much of the right worked to defeat him, were marginal at best.
What academic trip and puerile bullshit, azure.
If that's your opinion of what McMaster has to say, you're the one who is being "puerile". Get your head out of the sand. The man worked every day with Trump, he was National Security Adviser. He was not - in fact, he had no use for - the "adults in the room" who thought they were saving Trump from himself. The word of a sympathetic insider carries a lot of weight with me, especially when it echoes what other insiders have reported.
I can easily count on one hand Trump's foreign policy successes. The Abraham Accords. USMCA. There's probably one other I'm forgetting. But there were also the embarrassments and the disruptions. Helsinki and then Kim Jong Un. Threatening the NATO allies. McMaster says burden sharing is important and Trump had every right to pressure them and I agree. The way he did it went way overboard and sent shock waves through the alliance.
If you don't see that as harmful, I don't think we have anything to discuss.
-
It’s like we’re talking about two different people. I’ve no idea what you mean, he was very effective in foreign matters. Check this out; you want to bet we get the 4 Americans back before he is inaugurated?
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1854251469287076141
I hope so, but given Bibi's response to Trump's victory, whether Trump really deserves any credit will depend on how it's done. I'll believe it when I see it.
I haven’t watched Firing Line since the William F. Buckley days. I didn’t know it was still around. I might check it out. I have no idea who McMasters is but it sounds like he’s got some kind of ax to grind with Trump.
GEN H. R. McMaster. One time national security adviser under Trump.
-
I hope so, but given Bibi's response to Trump's victory, whether Trump really deserves any credit will depend on how it's done. I'll believe it when I see it.
GEN H. R. McMaster. One time national security adviser under Trump.
Thanks. I looked him up and found this article which does a good job of summarizing their, what shall I call it? Tension? McMaster was trying to carry on the status quo and Trump was “breaking all the toys”.
For example: Why do we uphold NATO when NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union which no longer exists? What’s with the U.S. funding the whole thing? Trump was an outsider bringing a fresh perspective to an ossified system built on outdated premises. Sounds like McMaster - and a lot of other people - had a real problem with that.
Instead of deeply questioning whether U.S. foreign policy on the whole, since the Cold War, is appropriate, the set of shady folks actually running things behind the scenes took exception to a president - someone who comes and goes every few years - suggesting maybe it’s time to change.
I’m reminded of another president who tried to negotiate a treaty with Russia and was mysteriously dissuaded by someone (or multiple someones) unknown. “You’re not really in charge you know; we are. How dare you rock the boat.” And they use the “threat to national security” scare tactic on him, which worked up til Trump.
Anyway maybe if I read his whole book I’d see it differently. But I can’t help but feel this is a bit of backstabbing by someone a bit bitter at not being able to manipulate Trump, rather than it being Trump who manipulates. Or at least it’s pot kettle. And I question why he’s putting all this out there publicly when he knew Trump could possibly have a second term. Even if he believes all these criticisms of Trump, it’s not good for the country to undermine him by saying so openly.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/26/nx-s1-5042515/mcmaster-trump-at-war-with-ourselves-memoir
-
If that's your opinion of what McMaster has to say, you're the one who is being "puerile". Get your head out of the sand. The man worked every day with Trump, he was National Security Adviser. He was not - in fact, he had no use for - the "adults in the room" who thought they were saving Trump from himself. The word of a sympathetic insider carries a lot of weight with me, especially when it echoes what other insiders have reported.
I can easily count on one hand Trump's foreign policy successes. The Abraham Accords. USMCA. There's probably one other I'm forgetting. But there were also the embarrassments and the disruptions. Helsinki and then Kim Jong Un. Threatening the NATO allies. McMaster says burden sharing is important and Trump had every right to pressure them and I agree. The way he did it went way overboard and sent shock waves through the alliance.
If you don't see that as harmful, I don't think we have anything to discuss.
You TDS makes your opinions truly suspect. It is illuminating how easily your posts drift into partisan opinion territory that just happened to shadow leftist talking points.
McMaster was just more Miley light. The swamp is loyal to the swamp, and people like you are useful to them, until you’re not. When one compares the utter failures of the clinton, bush, obama, biden, years, then compares the work that President Trump managed to accomplish with the entire swamp working against him, the results were nothing short of amazing, but a swamp loving, academic, progressive would hate anything resembling a government working for the people, instead of the communist agenda you embrace and call progressive.
-
I can easily count on one hand Trump's foreign policy successes.
This is an example of where you completely lose me. You say this as a criticism, but to be able to count foreign policy successes on a whole hand is a massive accomplishment. If he had only accomplished a single one, the Abraham accords, he would have been a historically successful president in the area of foreign policy.
It’s like we’re looking at the same blue sky and you’re telling me it’s red.
-
... The word of a sympathetic insider carries a lot of weight with me, especially when it echoes what other insiders have reported.
i can't help but think you really meant "especially when it agrees with what I think"
-
As for the women, they are putting career first, delaying any thought of marriage, then baby hunger kicks in during the 30s as they see their window of opportunity closing, but still remain picky about their choice of men, then finding there is a shortage of males who want to marry older, “independent minded” (translate: kinda bitchy) career women.
These are descriptions of proximal causes, but what are the underlying dynamics leading to them?
I attribute a large portion of this change to TV and movie portrayals of family life. In the 50's and 60's you had Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best. Men were the leaders of the household, and the wives were strong women who supported their men. A unified front.
Starting in the 70's, men were increasingly portrayed as buffoons. Only the mothers had the right answers, the fathers were to be laughed at. We now have several generations of women who believe they're to be the strong leader of the family, and the husband is to be an inconsequential amusement. The disconnect comes as these Hollywood farces don't come close to representing real families and real life.