Is there anything global warming can't do?

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

Is there anything global warming can't do?

Yep.  That's why it's called "climate change" now.  Until it doesn't change and then it will be "climate stasis" which requires massive transfer of wealth to make it change.  Or stay the same.  Or whatever.

If anyone can devise or imagine or suggest other possible ways an elected leader at any level could cut through the plasticized, unyielding, outright dishonest and monolithically moonbatty control of the emotion-driven liberal masses that mainstream media has established, please share.

If I may distill Jim's post a bit - here we have a wildly successful business model. Growing like a weed in spring, and we have a Plutocracy with the ability and willingness to write rules designed to extract revenue from the success of others, without contributing to the betterment of their citizens.

Google makes a better mouse-trap. In fact, google has made the best mouse-trap in all mouse-trap history, and they are rewarded for their efforts by the market. They then leverage that success to things ancillary to trapping mice, and make more modest but significant success at that as well.

The hierarchy in place where google is being successful wants a taste(in fact, a damn big bite). They write laws which will slap down success, and force those who make the best mouse-trap give money to the lesser mouse-trap makers. It is Socialism writ large. Punish the successful, and award the lesser for simply being able to build a mouse-trap without losing a finger or two.

You guys are always saying the"rich" don't pay their fair share. Just wondering if you've seen the talking points that have a hard number as to what is "fair."

Who are "you guys"?  You appear to assume that I'm one of those far left progressive kooks.  My opinions are certainly further left than yours, but that leaves a lot of space.

Sure, seen the "fair share" talking points.  That's as vague as "living wage" or "market based solutions".  Sounds good, appeals to the base but impossible to quantify.

Bit confused here.  Is the angst the fact that a private company is taking a position on a social issue -or- is it that they are taking an position you disagree with?

Here, I don't even know what their position is.  What I am upset about is that they are encouraging disrespect for the office of the President because they childishly cannot stand who is in it.  Now I might have missed it, but I don't recall the right calling for Obama's assassination 8 years ago, nor plays which used an Obama look alike was used as Caesar, to be stabbed daily.  Nor any right leaning actor asking if it wasn't time that an actor shot the president again.  I don't remember any music artists saying that they thought a lot about blowing up the White House.  Now if I missed that, someone please point it out and I will condemn it. 

Private company, they can do what they want.  Obviously in this day, they will suffer some fallout for it, but it's their choice.  I really don't care whether that's left or right as I'm in the middle and think both sides are pretty moronic at times.  On the other hand, I wasn't really upset with Hobby Lobby.  I can't think of a private liberal company that said something I disagree with, maybe because I rarely see the right get riled up about things.  Anyone have an example other than the current one?

Public company, they should not be engaging in politics because the CEO does not own the company.  When the CEO opens their mouth about polarized topics the company loses customers and shareholders lose money.  It's estimated that Target's CEO cost shareholders between 6 and 8 billion in lost market cap because of his public statements regarding transgender bathrooms.  In the last two years Starbuck's stock has been largely flat and that is at least partially attributed to the former CEO's loud mouth in saying things like "if you don't agree with us about * (race, homosexuality, etc), don't buy our coffee".  A lot of people said "yeah, ok, we won't".  It is borderline criminal for a public CEO to put their personal desires ahead of shareholder values.  It isn't their money to play with.

Or, this was never any kind of news at all. Russians attempting to influence American political machinations. Come on! Does anyone imagine this hasn't always been going on? That it's not daily business as usual at least since the end of WWII? Obama didn't do anything because it was nothing new. Yawn. Only when Trump won and the MSM and the left needed to make shit up (because there is no real shit there at all) did they take this old news and pretend it's new and try to weave it into a weapon to destroy Trump.