Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

Don't you want Trump voters to change and vote for the Democrat?  I would think you would be interested

I would think a Trump "voter" who can admit no fault in the way he has run the country while being unable to contradict the mountain of evidence that points to those faults is not a "voter" that is worth engaging on the topic of the Democratic Primary.

This is not to say that a different voter more persuadable by evidence does not exist.  Its unfortunate that one does not post on this forum.

[kiidcarter8]

unable to contradict?

that's really not my job.

And I think you have underestimated the level of my open-mindedness.

I have been anti-Clinton since 2007.  That's documented here.  And voting for Trump in 2016 is consistent with this.

[NeedsAdjustments]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/trump-china-tariffs.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Some excellent points from Paul Krugman re: the trade war.

The adverse effect that comes from China's retaliatory tariffs are one thing.  Entirely another is Trump's erratic unpredictable execution of those tariffs that is injecting more uncertainty than necessary thus amplifying those adverse effects.

[NeedsAdjustments]

unable to contradict?

that's really not my job.

You have demonstrated here daily a desire to take on the job of defending Donald Trump.  My point addresses the manner by which you have done that.  Fact-free with mind closed to evidence that doesn't align with your unyielding support.

And I think you have underestimated the level of my open-mindedness.

My estimate of your open-mindedness is fully in line with what I have seen of your posts here.  You periodically drop obviously insincere statements to pretend that your POV is independent ("Andrew Gillum has some good ideas for Florida") but your posts stand on their own.  I don't need to waste any more time presenting you with an analysis of them.

[oilcan]

American farmers have become collateral damage in a trade war that Mr. Trump began to help manufacturers and other companies that he believes have been hurt by China’s “unfair” trade practices.

More than a year into the trade dispute, sales of American soybeans, pork, wheat and other agricultural products to China have dried up as Beijing retaliates against Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports. Lucrative contracts that farmers long relied on for a significant source of income have evaporated, with Chinese buyers looking to other nations like Brazil and Canada to get the commodities they need. Farm bankruptcy filings in the year through June were up 13 percent from 2018 and loan delinquency rates are on the rise, according to the American Farm Bureau.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/politics/trump-farmers-china-trade.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

kiidcarter8: "$5 more for sneakers, LOL!"

The Times is trying their best to get a Democrat elected.  I get it.

Reminds me of Air America and Al Gore.  What a teary mess that all was.

The lowest partisan trick of all:  instead of responding to the facts in the article (or showing they are not factual, if that's the case), simply accuse them of partisanship and thereby imply that it's not necessary for you to answer the facts presented, e.g. that Trump's policies are doing great harm to American farmers and ranchers.  What a dishonest tool you are.


EDIT:  I see Whiskey Lime and Needs already responded, and covered these points. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

American farmers have become collateral damage in a trade war that Mr. Trump began to help manufacturers and other companies that he believes have been hurt by China’s “unfair” trade practices.

More than a year into the trade dispute, sales of American soybeans, pork, wheat and other agricultural products to China have dried up as Beijing retaliates against Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports. Lucrative contracts that farmers long relied on for a significant source of income have evaporated, with Chinese buyers looking to other nations like Brazil and Canada to get the commodities they need. Farm bankruptcy filings in the year through June were up 13 percent from 2018 and loan delinquency rates are on the rise, according to the American Farm Bureau.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/politics/trump-farmers-china-trade.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

kiidcarter8: "$5 more for sneakers, LOL!"

The Times is trying their best to get a Democrat elected.  I get it.

Reminds me of Air America and Al Gore.  What a teary mess that all was.

The lowest partisan trick of all:  instead of responding to the facts in the article (or showing they are not factual, if that's the case), simply accuse them of partisanship and thereby imply that it's not necessary for you to answer the facts presented, e.g. that Trump's policies are doing great harm to American farmers and ranchers.  What a dishonest tool you are.


EDIT:  I see Whiskey Lime and Needs already responded, and covered these points.

I think there are instances where pointing to the source is enough to discredit it.  For example, when someone uses a forum post from a contributor to VDARE.com as the source for their facts, I don't think a point-by-point rebuttal is necessary.

The New York Times is not VDARE.com.  Or Air America, for that matter.

[oilcan]

I liked this comment today in the NYT comments section, on the nuts in Brazil:

The amount that should be offered to Brazil should be billions not millions. It must be made economically to Brazils benefit to maintain the Amazon as it is, rather than develop it. The industrialized nations have developed and decimated their forests and reaped the economic benefits. And now they want to tell Brazil not to do the same, and here's 22 million, and you figure it out from there. There should be a world fund set up to pay Brazil to conserve the Amazon. And based on the importance that rainforest is to the rest of the world, billions is not too big a price to pay.

The only point I would add is that temperate forests are relatively easy to regrow.  Forests that were cut down in New England and elsewhere in the Eastern U.S. grew back when the grain belt shifted west to the prairies with their better soils.
This won't happen so easily, if ever, in the Amazon.  Many anthropologists (I follow that field) think it probable that humans with herds of goats led to the Sahara being its present size.  There is lots of evidence that the Sahara region was lush, grasslands and forests, about eleven thousand years ago.  When you artificially and rapidly decrease vegetation, though overgrazing and fires, you can turn verdant land into desert.  For a very long time.  We really need to consider a world fund to subsidize Brazilians leaving their rainforest alone.  If they can profit from being world-lungs, they benefit along with the rest of us.  First step:  get rid of that ignorant demagogue who, like Trump, doesn't care if he ruins his beautiful country, so long as he and his cronies can take a quick profit.

[oilcan]

I think there are instances where pointing to the source is enough to discredit it.  For example, when someone uses a forum post from a contributor to VDARE.com as the source for their facts, I don't think a point-by-point rebuttal is necessary.

The New York Times is not VDARE.com.  Or Air America, for that matter.

Point taken.  And if someone is posting from some place like Vdare or ZeroHedge or the Examiner, it's usually pointless to bother rebutting anyway.  These publications appeal to True Believers, those march in lockstep and do not allow their purity to be defiled by degenerate askers of questions and appealers to facts. 

[Yankguy1]

I wish somebody told me that before I took Bambu's links to the Daily Stormer seriously.

[barton]

Heh! (sounds like he gets most of his number two from the number one RH)


https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-25/amazon-rainforest-fires-climate

As cloud formation decreases, as rainforest gives way to dry grassland or scrub desert, a rapid acceleration of global warming can take place.  Clouds are one of the buffers on CO2 induced global warming.  When clouds can't form over parched land, the heating really takes off. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613016/the-loss-of-clouds-could-add-another-8-c-to-global-warming/

[josh]

An example of the folks that Kid's "compassion" doesn't include:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-administration-detention-indefinite-children-cages-flu-vaccine-custody-deaths-a9075181.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR2iga1zoHViweLJb4vtSVE638I9lDPBwM80mJWB6n8GT_rrS4yne21uMFY#Echobox=1566507389

Stop...

C'mon man - grow up

For which aspect of what I wrote should I grow up, in your oh so humble and mature opinion, Kid?

Do you object to Trump's refusing the flu vaccine to these children?

Do you object to children having their imprisonment extendedd to be indefinite?

Are you okay with either of those, but opposed to the combination?

Or are you merely objecting to my pointing out your faux-compassion about the brutal killing of the CT family in 2007?

We sure can't tell from your response to me! All you do is tell me to stop and to grow up. Even there you could not find a thing to tell me actually bothered you.

Which is it, Kid? Which of the above parts of my post do you feel misrepresents your attitude? You haven't objected to any of them before, after all! Has one of them finally pricked your concience or awakened your consciousness?

See me not holding my breath waiting for the explanation.

[josh]

This is funny.  But degrading an entire Cabinet is another example of your immaturity.  Try not making it, "you suck because you are on the other side".  That would be a good starting point for you .

Yeah, you would never do such a thing yourself!

As it happen, it was posted for humor. I can name bunches of people who Trump hired who could do their jobs at least as well as Stormy Daniels. Trump stiffed most of them, Kid.

He belittled others far more than I did and canned them for disagreeing with him. Then he belittled them some more.

But how many corrupt officials has he hired?

How many men as he appointed or nominated who have either domestic abuse or sexual misconduct of one sort or another?

How many simply have not understood their jobs well enough to do them?

No, I don't expect honest answers to these questions, either, Kid, but you talk about "growing up."

Isn't it time for you to put away your kneejerk denial of what is going on with this person who occupies the position of president?

[REDSTATEWARD]

I liked this comment today in the NYT comments section, on the nuts in Brazil:

The amount that should be offered to Brazil should be billions not millions. It must be made economically to Brazils benefit to maintain the Amazon as it is, rather than develop it. The industrialized nations have developed and decimated their forests and reaped the economic benefits. And now they want to tell Brazil not to do the same, and here's 22 million, and you figure it out from there. There should be a world fund set up to pay Brazil to conserve the Amazon. And based on the importance that rainforest is to the rest of the world, billions is not too big a price to pay.

It's ludicrous to expect any country to send any amount of money to Brazil to pay for the Amazon Rain Forest.
Brazilians already have the means to do so themselves. Of the 23 million people living in the Amazonia, 45% are below the poverty line and kept there by ridiculos government regulations.  They are making their substandard living harvesting nuts when they could be mining some of the largest gold and diamond reserves in the world.  But Brazil bans mining on indigenous lands so tribal leaders look the other way when criminals run about 3000 ILLEGAL mining operations.

Same for logging. Another result of idiotic regulations in place of sustainable management that removes and replaces trees.

As long as the people remain poor they aren't going to care much about the rain forests.

Asking the rest of the world to transfer a portion of its wealth to poor Brazilians is not the way to lift them out of poverty.

[facilitatorn]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d649783e4b008b1fd1fcf09

A lot of the forest clearing is to plant soy for the Chinese market.

Kid and Red, burning away our lungs with their votes.

[facilitatorn]

You can really feel the change in the modern republican party in how they have updated their mascot from the elephant to the bedbug.