I still wouldn't say it's an assured win for Trump though, the Dems can still pull some shenanigans.
LOL "shenanigans." You mean like winning the popular and electoral votes? What's clear though is that the country has become very polarized that if a Dem wins the presidency, it'll have a hard time satisfying people. If msm and social media don't have a leftist bias, Dem president would get the same treatment Trump is getting now.
Well, that's what FOX News is for. FOX News is popular because there indeed exists a bias toward the left in most mainstream news, and there is a consumer demand for counterbalance. I think the bias in the general media exists because leftist ideology just makes for better news. And by "better news" I mean it attracts more viewers and sells more commercials. It can be more sensational or plain interesting. Whereas "conservative news" tends to be dry and boring. That doesn't explain something that has always astonished me, which is how Rush Limbaugh on the radio is about to operate very successfully with about 50-70% of airtime being commercials. Regarding presidents, though, ... Our asshole is better than your assholes... |
|
|
|
I have to admit to liking the spaghetti charts (lower right). Because someone will throw that at you and say something like ... "See? See it! It's right there!!!" |
|
|
|
....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man. Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.
Naw... He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question. Or question, but within the allowed confines. |
|
|
|
Anyone can agree that environment will be more toxic due to what we have done in the past and we shall start worrying about it. The only we can do is to regulate what we are doing at home not to contribute the destruction of the environment.
To whom should Greta address these issues? If they seek China to agree with it, the countries from EU and US has to pull out the manufacturing companies that contributes the haze in Asia.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/12/16/times-commie-nag-of-the-year-can-go-pound-sand-n2558014Clearly Greta Thunberg is being exploited by her cynical puppetmasters, but equally clearly she’s a tiresome, bizarre Marxist scold whose exploitation of the hapless dummies who buy into the climate change hoax is part of what is an increasingly violent plot to undermine capitalism and freedom. Recently, the cretins at TIME, which shockingly still exists in 2019, named her “Person of the Year.” That’s appropriate, since 2019 has been a very annoying year.
In 2029, after the world hasn’t ended but her usefulness has, she’ll be a Jeopardy question and probably shacked up with an unemployed performance artist named Björn in an Oslo suburb. Fun fact: “Greta Thunberg” is Swedish for “Cindy Sheenhan.”
But today, we’re all supposed to fall over ourselves over Pippi Longnagging – at least that’s what our betters command – yet it’s unclear why. Teenagers are notoriously ignorant, and ones spewing recycled Marxism are the worst of all. But the idea is not that this tiresome truant is some visionary thinker. The idea is to leverage her youth and awkwardness to keep you from speaking the indisputable truth that she’s a weird brat who presses for an ideology that butchered 100 million people in the last century. And now, she is hinting she wants to run up that score.
Trump mocked her and a zillion pearls were clutched. How dare you…criticize the Luddite pest who presumes to tell you how to live, leveraging the full benefit of her nearly 17 years of experience to explain to you how stuff should be. How dare you!
Oh, shut-up. Pound sand, you scowling urchin.
The kid is a fanatic, and though that’s no fault of her own – she’s a victim of her pinko exploiters – she is still spewing bloodstained poison.
Bloodstained poison, really? Isn’t she just a nice Eastern Norwegian who wants a better world with love and hugging? Or is she yet another aspiring fanatic ready to kill for the kreepy kommie climate kult?
The other day, this malignant muppet “told cheering protesters … 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they fail to take urgent action on climate change.” Now, maybe her English is bad, or maybe she’s just ignorant, but then again the murder of opponents is the Marxist way. Marxist? St. Greta? Well, let’s take a look at what was carved on the tablets she recently brought down from Mount Socialism:... |
|
|
|
....
I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. ...
How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want? Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family? Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things. If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish. No, I haven't been involved in any of those things. I just thought of solutions to some problems. I know that these solutions won't work for everyone but at least it's a start. I don't see any other solutions. Do you? Sure. First you have to accurately define the domain in which a proposed "solution" applies. You forgot to do that. So please let us know if we are looking for a solution for "gun control" a long term underwater nuclear submarine, or a island with fourteen people, or perhaps a unwed mother's home. Or some other group/sub-society of your choosing. |
|
|
|
Then why do you continue to support it? We have socialist highways and millions of people have died since the highway act of 1956. Why aren't you pushing for private highways?
Everytime public highways have been tried, its led to a lot of deaths but commies like you never get it. If you were at all genuine, you'd boycott all socialism by staying off of all public roads.
Ayn Rand defined highways and similar infrastructure as a legitimate part of government services in a limited capitalist society. Realistically, though, today we do not need roads owned by governments, because micropayments can easily be handled by scanners and RFID technology, also cryptocurrency. That's true for many other projects, but there would likely remain some that would have to be done by governments for the common good. However, who would decide which those were? If it was persons pursuing an outmoded, 19th century set of concepts such as yourself, the results would always be a total disaster. |
|
|
|
A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? She filed with the FEC? Well that does solve the riddle. Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying? I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one. Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination. Hillary has long been known to have such interests and it did seem to be an issue in her presidency attempt. Maybe it's one of those things that will only be an issue if it's a Repub candidate. Or if it's the "wrong" Demo candidate, and of course Buttigieg is the "wrong candidate." |
|
|
|
A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? She filed with the FEC? Well that does solve the riddle. |
|
|
|
The problem with strategy is, China might collapse far quicker than the "other side".
Did you know there were police officers in airports in China who were questioning the outgoing Chinese citizens, stupid shits like "Why are you leaving China?" (like why would anyone leave our beautiful country wtf is wrong with you?)
Would the authority which doesn't want you to leave the country let you move your wealth out of the country freely? Even though this was just an act?
A big NO. The moment they make this possible, every Chinese with a little bit of life savings would want to leave that hell hole. It will just backfire. Don't get me wrong, China deserves plenty of criticism, and I am not a fan of the CCP, but your all or nothing approach to this situation leaves a lot of room for a lot of what I am describing in between. They don't have to be 100% trustworthy or 100% open for this strategy to work. One thing they are already using is having a domestically used Yuan that is heavily restricted and an international Yuan which is dedicated toward international use. They could easily adapt that strategy to these scenarios. I think overconfidence in their impending failure is a mistake. They only need to last long enough to pull this off, then their plan would run under its own momentum. In the general sense, this is an effort to understand and forecast the abusive use of crypto currencies by governments. It's definitely something that will happen repeatedly. This particular scheme allegedly by China isn't a game changer. |
|
|
|
....
I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. ...
How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want? Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family? Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things. If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish. |
|
|
|
...
Greta Thunberg apologized Saturday after saying that politicians should be put “against the wall” after some critics alleged that the teen climate activist was advocating for violence against officials.....
Wait, so there's something wrong with putting politicians up against the wall??? What are we going to do? Leave them in their downtown and DC offices? |
|
|
|
i think no humans landed on moon , ok lets see this way if any of them landed on moon why not do it again if its done in past they would be technology and all ,
You mean, there would be a big fucking rocket? |
|
|
|
Part two of impossible: Let's say this gun plan had a snow balls chance. How do you implement it? How do you get the 393 million current guns out of the public's hands? Many of these current guns are not on any 'registry' or ownership list. Some states do not require any FFL involvement in transferring of long guns. Some guns have been passed down from family, which also requires no FFL. Some guns have been possessed since prior to any transfer laws. Some guns are manufactured without a serial number (still perfectly legal today), or have been in existence since prior to serial number requirements.
The law could require the gun manufacturers to make replicas of all their models with the Smart Gun Technology. And owners of the guns could simply exchange their guns at no cost. The manufacturers already made their profit when they sold the original. A ll guns without the Smart Gun Technology, could be made illegal.Since criminals follow the law and don't do things that are illegal, that sounds great! Wait... |
|
|
|
... Its much difficult to bring life on Mars than Sahara so Mush need to prove his vision by giving a trial on Sahara first.  Tell you what. If he or some group did that, I think they'd be believed about the Mars vision and taken very seriously. |
|
|
|
that link was examples of saying countries are experiencing 8 months of winter or other counties of many forest fires but the whole "need to do something" is empty without a list of "somethings" that will be effective when a cold country is complaining that there is too much snow that its killing raindeers makes them reluctant to want temperatures to go colder. when theres countries with flooding they are reluctant to want more water vapour. then the countries with forest fires they want temperatures to be more colder and wetter to stop forests drying out and becoming brittle enough to spark alight easy. so the generalised "global warming" should not be that everyne do soemthing but country X do xx to cope with excess snow but country Y do yy to cope with excess rain but country Z do zz to cope with excess heat and not everyone just do C especially if C is not the solve all solution. and especially when countries dont know what their xx yy zz solutions can be. things really need to be pointed out and not just time wasting that A=C because -C is not the end solution Right 100%. Meanwhile what are we going to do about this coming Little Ice Age? Set off some nukes in Antarctica? On the contrary. Although a few hundred million or billion people would die if another Little Ice Age happened, the Warmer Alarmists should be happy. CO2 will be condensing right out of the air in Antarctica. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/ |
|
|
|
that link was examples of saying countries are experiencing 8 months of winter or other counties of many forest fires but the whole "need to do something" is empty without a list of "somethings" that will be effective when a cold country is complaining that there is too much snow that its killing raindeers makes them reluctant to want temperatures to go colder. when theres countries with flooding they are reluctant to want more water vapour. then the countries with forest fires they want temperatures to be more colder and wetter to stop forests drying out and becoming brittle enough to spark alight easy. so the generalised "global warming" should not be that everyne do soemthing but country X do xx to cope with excess snow but country Y do yy to cope with excess rain but country Z do zz to cope with excess heat and not everyone just do C especially if C is not the solve all solution. and especially when countries dont know what their xx yy zz solutions can be. things really need to be pointed out and not just time wasting that A=C because -C is not the end solution Right 100%. Meanwhile what are we going to do about this coming Little Ice Age? |
|
|
|
My thoughts on the young lass. Go protest where it's needed. China. India. Not here. Go away kid.
Don't forget Saudi. Big fossil fuel baddies... |
|
|
|
The fact that a clueless child manipulated for dark political agendas can now be elected "person of the year" is proof enough that mainstream media has even gone lower than rock bottom to the macabre underground realms of black propaganda  , and intelligent people should be extremely discerning and critical about where they get their information & education these days... If someone really believes that Greta did everything her own without any external "help", tell him/her to send his/her own child to the next UN meeting. Then they will find out the fuckery they have been cheering for. Of course TIME's would choose this little bastard as their "person of the year" cover. I can't think anyone more puppet-like this year since Hillary is history... What it was really 100% about was an orchestrated attempt to change the outcome of ... https://news.yahoo.com/un-climate-talks-unraveling-face-failure-110423955.htmlAnd it failed. |
|
|
|
Excellent point. The rate of lower stratosphere energy radiation outbound is the key variable in whether a planet heats up or cools down and how fast or slow. People by and large are clueless about this and typical "Climate propagandists" do not teach this. If you study it you reach (at least I reach) a very firm conclusion that there is no climate crisis. You can't destroy or create energy, you can only change its form. This means there is no such thing as renewable energy. If we use solar energy to create electricity, and then transform that into heat, then we are depriving something else of the solar energy.. If we release latent energy in coal or oil, then we are adding to the usable energy resources in the world, but not depriving other parts of the eco-system of the solar power. We need solar power to rehydrate the earth, and to create more carbon based vegetation.
I'll leave you to decide which is the better option.
This is essentially saying, that the weeds that might have grown where a solar panel shields the dirt is a loss, and asking whether there is a net gain with the panel... I don't want to make it look like I'm caught up in the craze myself. There are aspects of climate change activism that I personally despise and believe that are very misled. For example I hate that people are calling for a ban on single use plastics, which would effectively make all grocery products more expensive. And I dislike how 'green' parties occupy seats in the EU parliament, overshadowing more important issues with their single cause parties. ....
I'm really curious as where the sentiment for denying climate change with such passion stems from. ....
You post a number of bad policies that are currently in effect, and suggest that people debate/criticize them, but do not seem to recognize that the current policies being advocated are just as stupid and should be criticized. The people advocating bad ideas yesterday are the same ones promoting bad ideas today. The only difference is now someone that criticizes them is stereotyped a "climate denier." |
|
|
|
^^^ How else would you render the lunar surface? Without a computer you'd have to use 1960's movie special effects. NASA destroyed that technology and they claim it would be a painful process to build it back again.
Yeah, rendering a 3d animation of the lunar surface would really be hard. It couldn't possibly have been done in 1969-1972. they would have had to actually go to the moon to take pics of guys walking around the moon. For that they'd just need the orbital mechanics equations, and a sextant to use to sight stars. And a big fucking rocket. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
