Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I don't even know where to start with you partisan nuts. I've got nuts to the left of me and nuts to the right of me. All of you are hypocrites when it comes to your outrage and you all look like fcking morons trying to be critical of the other side.

---

It's not partisan to want coordinated international action to ensure the future viability of the planet. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, only one party in the United States currently even acknowledges that, Houston, we have a problem. I believe that will continue until parts of Houston are underwater year round.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia responds to its awful summer. My guess is that climate change will become a bigger political priority because people are tired of watching it happen and watching the government ignore it.

---

Here is the thing Jinx, and deep down you know it's true: you would disagree with whatever Trump did and agree with whatever a democrat did. So you will play this expletive game and so will republicans and the ones in the middle holding our hands up in despair will continue to suffer because you partisans will keep blaming the other side while nothing actually gets fixed.

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing.

---

I do not. Earth is 6 billion years old.

GrowlTowel said:

---

I do not. Earth is 6 thousand years old.

---

Fixed it 4 u.

Wallace said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I do not. Earth is 6 thousand years old.

---

Fixed it 4 u.

---

You use a strange calendar, Wallace.

Wallace said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I do not. Earth is 6 thousand years old.

---

Fixed it 4 u.

---

Recorded, maybe. Geological, not even close.

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I don't even know where to start with you partisan nuts. I've got nuts to the left of me and nuts to the right of me. All of you are hypocrites when it comes to your outrage and you all look like fcking morons trying to be critical of the other side.

---

It's not partisan to want coordinated international action to ensure the future viability of the planet. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, only one party in the United States currently even acknowledges that, Houston, we have a problem. I believe that will continue until parts of Houston are underwater year round.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia responds to its awful summer. My guess is that climate change will become a bigger political priority because people are tired of watching it happen and watching the government ignore it.

---

Here is the thing Jinx, and deep down you know it's true: you would disagree with whatever Trump did and agree with whatever a democrat did. So you will play this expletive game and so will republicans and the ones in the middle holding our hands up in despair will continue to suffer because you partisans will keep blaming the other side while nothing actually gets fixed.

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing.

---

I do not. Earth is 6 billion years old.

---

I apologize...didn't mean to speak for you. Jinx claims all Republicans deny science. I was attempting to explain that we do not. We just don't subscribe to her "sky is falling, abortion on demand, boys can be girls" type of science.

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I don't even know where to start with you partisan nuts. I've got nuts to the left of me and nuts to the right of me. All of you are hypocrites when it comes to your outrage and you all look like fcking morons trying to be critical of the other side.

---

It's not partisan to want coordinated international action to ensure the future viability of the planet. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, only one party in the United States currently even acknowledges that, Houston, we have a problem. I believe that will continue until parts of Houston are underwater year round.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia responds to its awful summer. My guess is that climate change will become a bigger political priority because people are tired of watching it happen and watching the government ignore it.

---

Here is the thing Jinx, and deep down you know it's true: you would disagree with whatever Trump did and agree with whatever a democrat did. So you will play this expletive game and so will republicans and the ones in the middle holding our hands up in despair will continue to suffer because you partisans will keep blaming the other side while nothing actually gets fixed.

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing.

---

I do not. Earth is 6 billion years old.

---

Then you should agree that climate has continuously changed over the 6 billion years.

Wallace said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I do not. Earth is 6 thousand years old.

---

Fixed it 4 u.

---

And the sun orbits the flat earth.

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I don't even know where to start with you partisan nuts. I've got nuts to the left of me and nuts to the right of me. All of you are hypocrites when it comes to your outrage and you all look like fcking morons trying to be critical of the other side.

---

It's not partisan to want coordinated international action to ensure the future viability of the planet. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, only one party in the United States currently even acknowledges that, Houston, we have a problem. I believe that will continue until parts of Houston are underwater year round.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia responds to its awful summer. My guess is that climate change will become a bigger political priority because people are tired of watching it happen and watching the government ignore it.

---

Here is the thing Jinx, and deep down you know it's true: you would disagree with whatever Trump did and agree with whatever a democrat did. So you will play this expletive game and so will republicans and the ones in the middle holding our hands up in despair will continue to suffer because you partisans will keep blaming the other side while nothing actually gets fixed.

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing. But your "sky is falling" routine is what most people do not subscribe to...including scientists.

---

Everyone but Trump and his sycophants.

---

Say what? Who is denying climate change?

You're ignored so I have no idea what you wrote.

Libs want climate change as an issue to get carbon taxes.

OK, I did find some people who don't believe in science change...

https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming

https://thefreedomarticles.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5e39c3673f9f

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing.

---

I do not. Earth is 6 billion years old.

---

I apologize...didn't mean to speak for you. Jinx claims all Republicans deny science. I was attempting to explain that we do not. We just don't subscribe to her "sky is falling, abortion on demand, boys can be girls" type of science.

---

Neither abortion on demand nor transgenderism are scientific issues; they both address individuals' rights to self-determination.

We clearly don't know what causes transgenderism, nor, IMO, how best to address it. I've expressed my discomfort with surgeries. Many conservatives promote false science relating to abortion (physical and psychological impacts) and how some methods of contraception work. If you have religious objections to abortion, certain methods of contraception, don't have one / use that method. If you have religious objections to transgenderism, don't admit openly transgender people to your church. But don't seek to enforce your views on everyone in our society with the force of law. Mandating unnecessary and intrusive diagnostic procedures is particularly pernicious.

Republicans ARE denying climate science, and they have opted the U.S. as a nation out of the global conversation on how nations will have to work together to address it. That's a serious issue that I hope more voters will consider.

ScottS said:

---

Libs want climate change as an issue to get carbon taxes.

---

A carbon tax is one solution, and an incomplete one designed to provide an incentive to reduce emissions. There are lots of other actions we can and should take. But, thanks to Republicans, we can't even have a conversation about it. Especially with people who consider anyone concerned about climate change as a "lib."

Jinx, you are misreading. The lib is wanting the tax in place. They are not really concermed about climage change. Look at them in their lier jets claiming to worry about clinate change. Its a ploy to grow government.

Jinx: " we can't even have a conversation about it."

We're having one right now, just like millions of other people. The question is where the conversation goes. Throwing tantrums and insults - on any side - does nothing to reach agreement or even promote further discourse.

Hint - conversations have two sides. When one side lectures the other or demands they admit some kind of guilt for an honest opinion, that is toxic to real discussion.

ScottS said:

---

Libs want climate change as an issue to get carbon taxes.

---

^^^ Yep just another scam allowing politicians to get rich with our money

Friggin thieves

fadskier said:

---

OK, I did find some people who don't believe in science change...

https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming

https://thefreedomarticles.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5e39c3673f9f

---

Climate change and man made global warming are not one and the same.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/29/what-would-it-take-republicans-deal-with-climate-change/

Climate change is here. Short of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate, it will take both parties to agree to start legislating seriously on climate change, and so far that hasn't happened. So will there ever be a tipping point when Republicans will get on board?

There are early signs that, yes, there will be. But maybe not in the near future.

Politico recently reported that a number of GOP lawmakers want to do something about it after years of letting Democrats dominate the issues and conversation, while the New York Times reported Republican strategists are worried the party could lose voters if it doesn't turn around on this issue quickly.

But it seems that is still a long way off, too far off for science, which has found that major areas in the country are nearing the critical threshold of warming by 2 degrees Celsius.

It will certainly never happen in a Trump administration, say some conservative climate activists. President Trump didn't start the climate change denial movement, but he is its most prominent proponent. His stance that climate change is a "hoax" is in line with his base but incongruent with nearly half of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, who think dealing with it should be a top priority for the president.

"It's not an issue Trump seems to have much interest in or sees political advantages in approaching," said Joseph Majkut, the director of climate policy for the right-leaning Niskanen Center think tank.

Republican lawmakers in this political moment are carefully contemplating whether and how to address climate change in a way that doesn't "overwhelmingly disturb their political coalitions," Majkut said. "That's complex stuff to figure out," he said. And Trump's not providing them any leadership on how to navigate it.
...
An April Pew survey found a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say protecting the environment should be the top priority of Congress and the White House and that Republican millennial voters are twice as likely to say humans are causing the Earth's accelerated warming as their older party members. (Though that high is just 36 percent.)

"Not enough conservative constituents are reaching out," Backer said, "and not enough lawmakers are willing to extend their hand and say: 'This is an issue I'm going to prioritize.' "

Remember what I said about lecturing the other people?

You don't own the topic Jinx, and you are ignoring valid responses from other people.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

You're a bunch of dopes and babies': Inside Trump's stunning tirade against generals
The new book "A Very Stable Genius" documents how Trump lashed out at attempts by military leaders and diplomats to teach him about U.S. alliances and obligations around the globe.

Read in The Washington Post: https://apple.news/AgjLcLQRWT3SuR4lC1YWTig

---

I'm sure Trump could use some education on military matters and many other things, but in this case it looks like the generals' presentation was more about advocating policy.

I would write this story from the opposite point of view. I think it's the generals who don't understand why we have civilian control of the military. If Trump is questioning the post-war international order, it's because he was elected to do so.

---

More telling is Trump's unstable personality, and his inability to listen to anyone other than his own in the moment whims. That's why he has no consistent view, vision, or even understanding of foreign policy, much less world history, and historical contexts. ("Kurds didn't help at Normandy")

---

This is what one gets with a non-career politican. I happen to find it refreshing.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I don't even know where to start with you partisan nuts. I've got nuts to the left of me and nuts to the right of me. All of you are hypocrites when it comes to your outrage and you all look like fcking morons trying to be critical of the other side.

---

It's not partisan to want coordinated international action to ensure the future viability of the planet. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, only one party in the United States currently even acknowledges that, Houston, we have a problem. I believe that will continue until parts of Houston are underwater year round.

It'll be interesting to see how Australia responds to its awful summer. My guess is that climate change will become a bigger political priority because people are tired of watching it happen and watching the government ignore it.

---

Here is the thing Jinx, and deep down you know it's true: you would disagree with whatever Trump did and agree with whatever a democrat did. So you will play this expletive game and so will republicans and the ones in the middle holding our hands up in despair will continue to suffer because you partisans will keep blaming the other side while nothing actually gets fixed.

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

Yes, I am in the middle. I try to understand the argument from both sides. I may disagree with you, but I at least try to understand where you are coming from. You do not try to understand those that oppose you and you just demonize and criticize those that oppose you. Much like Florida Mike and a few on the right do as well.

I'm not going to go policy by policy where I stand, but there are a lot of issues I lean one way and a lot of issues I lean the other way. But most of all, even when I disagree with someone, I truly do understand (or at least try to) why they think the way they do.

You don't. You just can't understand why someone would have an opinion that's different than yours. And what's most surprising is you are a one policy person. So as long as someone agrees with you on that one policy, you are good. But the sad thing is you are too close-minded to even try to see the other side. That's why I feel bad for people like you and Florida Mike, and terrified at the same time because your votes count the same as mine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

Trump's monkeys, Trump's circus.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

Trump's monkeys, Trump's circus.

---

Stay classy, Nancy.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

Trump's monkeys, Trump's circus.

---

What is that?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

Trump's monkeys, Trump's circus.

---

What is that?

---

When you pay to keep somebody quiet there's no good outcome.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Policy outcomes > political party > personal morality

The above is true because policy outcomes are all that matter. Are Americans more free or less free? Are American borders more secure or less secure. If Ron Jeremy would lower taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, reduce regulation, veto new laws, uphold the constitution and secure the borders, I'd be happy to vote for him. He could engage in orgies in the Lincoln bedroom and if we were freer because he advanced good policies, I would not care.

We don't vote for preachers. We don't vote for saints. We vote for politicians.

---

Then why did Repubs impeach Bill Clinton?

---

From your precious CNN "President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for something much more personal and salacious: he had an affair in the Oval Office and then lied about it to cover it up."

---

Trump paid off his paramours; Michael Cohen is now doing time for his role in that.

Trump withheld foreign aide to force a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. While his sons, Dumb and Dumber, and daughter have done worse than Hunter Biden and Republicans haven't uttered a peep.

Then Trump and Senate republicans obstructed justice by failing to comply with legitimate subpeonas. No matter how often Fox News tells you this isn't a legitmate investigation, it is. If either Bill or Hillary Clinton had pulled the stunts Trump pulled, you'd have had both of them up in stocks on the White House lawn and allowed voters to pelt them with rotten vegetables.

There's no way you can claim Clinton did anything worse than what Trump has done both during his campaign and while in office. But, of course, you do. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe what's happening is in any way legit. They just want to keep control by any means possible. Which now means cover-ups, obstruction, obfuscation and trying to reduce the number of voters they think might not vote for them.

---

It's not clear that the Cohen payoffs were illegal; I don't believe so. In any case, nothing that any of the Trumps have been accused of comes close to Clinton's campaign finance violations and obstruction. There are legitimate reasons to resist subpoenas. Congress could test Trump's reasons in court, but they backed down. Wonder why?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/28/trumps-fantasy-claim-that-michael-cohens-hush-money-payments-were-no-crime/

The Pinocchio Test

Cohen says he committed a crime, prosecutors say he committed a crime, a judge found that he committed a crime, and usually those are all the ingredients you need for a crime.

Trump says he never ordered Cohen to break the law and silence Daniels and McDougal. But when he says such payoffs are not criminal to begin with, his defense goes off the rails. Trump is presenting a legal theory as fact to minimize his fixer's crimes. It's a bizarre claim to make with Cohen heading to prison, and it merits Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

---

The author is wrong on some very basic points. Agreement by a defendant, prosecutor, and judge does not constitute all the "ingredients" of a crime. Trump's statement that Cohen didn't commit a crime is a conclusion about a disputed legal issue, which by definition is a statement of opinion. Trump isn't presenting anything "as fact" any more than you are when you express an opinion.

Here's a fact: there are legitimately different opinions as to whether this kind of conduct violates campaign finance law. The author should know this since he quotes some of them in his article. The courts have not clearly answered the question.

Fact-checkers are supposed to know the difference between fact and opinion. Too often they don't. These Pinocchio tests have to be read as critically as anything else.

---

I'm with Sam. I think it is a clear violation of campaign finance laws but there is a valid argument that it was not. I just don't buy it. At all.

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

Trump's monkeys, Trump's circus.

---

What is that?

---

When you pay to keep somebody quiet there's no good outcome.

---

So you might buy it a little bit, depending on the circumstances.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So the question is, whose money should he have used?

---

Depends on where you fall in the argument. I say he should have used campaign funds to pursue a campaign advantage.

---

And then obviously Jinx, or someone, would accuse him of illegally taking campaign funds for private use. And you wouldn't buy that at all?

---

You give me way too much power. Way to minimize the really serious charges against Trump made by Congress, not by me. I just read about them, like everyone else.

Many men and women whose dedicated public service is much longer and whose credibility is much greater than Trump's told Congress what Trump and his operatives did.

Gordon Sondland, Trump's own appointee, told House members what Trump did.

The House impeached Trump based on credible evidence that he withheld military aid to an ally AND obstructed justice.

Republicans obviously find these allegations credible, too, because they're done everything possible to prevent the release of papers showing what Trump and his operatives did and keeping public officials like John Bolton from testifying.

Their mad scramble to keep a lid on Trump's perfidy would embarrass anyone with open eyes, ears and a conscience. House Republicans, and most Senate Republicans, don't fit that description in the day and time. What a shame.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You aren't in the middle. Saying you are doesn't make it so. Where do you have any substantive policy disagreements with Republicans? Here's a litmus test. You don't "believe in" climate change = you are a Republican in this political environment.

Please don't speak for me.

I've stated, clearly and numerous times, that my major policy issue is climate change. That threat is so grave that it overshadows every other political issue out there. As long as Republicans across the board continue to deny science and, thus, opt the United States out of any meaningful conversations on policy with other nations (since this is a global issue), I will support Democrats.

If and when any Republican steps forward to acknowledge what's happening and that we need to be part of a global effort to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, I'll be all ears. But I'm not optimistic, and that certainly won't happen under Trump's leadership.

What baffles me is that climate change is a HUGE economic threat. If Republicans are (supposedly / ballooning deficit) the party of fiscal responsibility and private corporations are now assessing the impact of climate change on their business models, how is it fiscally responsible to ignore an issue that threatens to wreak economic havoc worldwide?

There are obvious disagreements among Democrats on various issues = why we have umpteen candidates, ranging from moderates like Biden and Buttigieg to those whose policies are more liberal (Sanders and Warren). I took a Washington Post quiz and it turns out the candidate who fits my policy positions best is...Michael Bloomberg.

---

NO ONE IS DENYING SCIENCE!!! Everyone agrees that the climate is changing.

---

I do not. Earth is 6 billion years old.

---

I apologize...didn't mean to speak for you. Jinx claims all Republicans deny science. I was attempting to explain that we do not. We just don't subscribe to her "sky is falling, abortion on demand, boys can be girls" type of science.

---

Neither abortion on demand nor transgenderism are scientific issues; they both address individuals' rights to self-determination.

We clearly don't know what causes transgenderism, nor, IMO, how best to address it. I've expressed my discomfort with surgeries. Many conservatives promote false science relating to abortion (physical and psychological impacts) and how some methods of contraception work. If you have religious objections to abortion, certain methods of contraception, don't have one / use that method. If you have religious objections to transgenderism, don't admit openly transgender people to your church. But don't seek to enforce your views on everyone in our society with the force of law. Mandating unnecessary and intrusive diagnostic procedures is particularly pernicious.

Republicans ARE denying climate science, and they have opted the U.S. as a nation out of the global conversation on how nations will have to work together to address it. That's a serious issue that I hope more voters will consider.

---

Killing an unborn child is science. Saying that you are a woman when you aren't is denying science.

Again, I have not seen anything in policy where Republicans deny climate change. I have seen where they disagree the affect humans are having on it and that the world will end in 10-12 years.

Getting out of the Paris climate accord is not denying science. It's refusing to participate in a meaningless conversation...one that leaves out the two biggest polluters of this world...China and India.

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

OK, I did find some people who don't believe in science change...

https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming

https://thefreedomarticles.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5e39c3673f9f

---

Climate change and man made global warming are not one and the same.

---

That's my point....

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/29/what-would-it-take-republicans-deal-with-climate-change/

Climate change is here. Short of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate, it will take both parties to agree to start legislating seriously on climate change, and so far that hasn't happened. So will there ever be a tipping point when Republicans will get on board?

There are early signs that, yes, there will be. But maybe not in the near future.

Politico recently reported that a number of GOP lawmakers want to do something about it after years of letting Democrats dominate the issues and conversation, while the New York Times reported Republican strategists are worried the party could lose voters if it doesn't turn around on this issue quickly.

But it seems that is still a long way off, too far off for science, which has found that major areas in the country are nearing the critical threshold of warming by 2 degrees Celsius.

It will certainly never happen in a Trump administration, say some conservative climate activists. President Trump didn't start the climate change denial movement, but he is its most prominent proponent. His stance that climate change is a "hoax" is in line with his base but incongruent with nearly half of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, who think dealing with it should be a top priority for the president.

"It's not an issue Trump seems to have much interest in or sees political advantages in approaching," said Joseph Majkut, the director of climate policy for the right-leaning Niskanen Center think tank.

Republican lawmakers in this political moment are carefully contemplating whether and how to address climate change in a way that doesn't "overwhelmingly disturb their political coalitions," Majkut said. "That's complex stuff to figure out," he said. And Trump's not providing them any leadership on how to navigate it.
...
An April Pew survey found a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say protecting the environment should be the top priority of Congress and the White House and that Republican millennial voters are twice as likely to say humans are causing the Earth's accelerated warming as their older party members. (Though that high is just 36 percent.)

"Not enough conservative constituents are reaching out," Backer said, "and not enough lawmakers are willing to extend their hand and say: 'This is an issue I'm going to prioritize.' "

---

Politico, NY Times...do you only read sources that support your way of thinking? Do you ever challenge yourself and read things that don't agree with your way of thinking? An echo chamber is no way to live.