Government Shutdown

Teetime wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:A $10million dollar deal to enrich one's self while the president of a college is a little bit more of a scandal than grabbing someone's pussy. (PS- she has since been found innocent BTW)

Right now, Biden is the only one polling to beat Trump and he has a problem within his own party.  Many Dems are revolting against the idea of a Biden run based on the idea he's not "progressive" enough.  He could pull a lot of the swing vote and he'd have a huge campaign ally in Obama, but I don't see him making.  I do think he is the best threat to Trump.

And I've never heard of your Klobuchar.  Maybe that makes me ignorant, but I'd be willing to say that I've never heard of her, I don't know how she's going to be able to put together a nationwide winning strategy in 12 months.

PS- if the Starbucks guy actually gets on the ballot in 50 states, you may as well start planning the Trump 2021 inauguration.

Wasn’t Mr. Trump the President of Trump Umiversity that ripped off people for way way more than 10 million dollars to enrich himself? He wasn’t acquitted BTW. It wasn’t one pussy he grabbed....it was about 17

With Biden as the nominee the entire party would rally around him, Democrats are good at that.

You need to read up on Klobuchar. She has been elected to three terms as Senator and is far better known than Barack Obama was at this exact time prior to the 2008 campaign. If she decides to make a run she will be a force. Plus, she is Minnesota nice.

If the Starbucks guy were running he would have said so on his 60 minutes segment Sunday. Schultz said he is never the smartest guy in the room and in a tweet this morning Mr. Trump said “we already have that”. I think he meant we already have a president who is never the smartest guy in the room. I agree.

According to Willie Brown, it sounds like Karmala Harris is great in the rack. She might get elected because she knows her "f#%*ing business." Trump got elected for saying if your rich, woman will let them grab them in the p#$%y. Hey, they can be the poster children for what's been going on for thousands of years - men will use power and money to get sex, women will use sex to get power and money.

That is a fair point, Pike.

I think (but I'm not sure) that Mr. Trump said "if you're famous" not "rich", but the point is the same.

I have never said anything bad or good about Sen. Harris. If she ends up being the nominee of the Democratic party I will vote for her over Pres. Trump. If the Republicans nominate a real candidate that is qualified for the job and he/she were running against Sen. Harris I would really have to take a look at the Republican.

I'm really hoping that Amy Klobuchar runs.

BirdWatcher wrote:

ramblinman wrote:
Bill Clinton:  1,574,121 * 8 = 12,592,968
George Bush:  1,024,022 * 8 = 8,192,176
Barack Obama:  423,102 * 8 = 3,384,816
Donald Trump:  310,531 * 2 = 621,062

That's almost 25 million illegals since Reagan gave amnesty in exchange for real border security.  Mmmmm.

No wonder Republicans don't trust Democrats to follow thru on Border Security.

First of all, these stats are apprehensions of illegal immigrants.  So it's 25 million apprehensions of illegals, not 25 million illegals.  Many illegals attempt to cross the border and are apprehended multiple times before they either give up or are successful.  

Secondly, you edited my stats to indicate that Trump has had two years.  The 310,531 number was for 2017.  No 2018 numbers are available yet.

Lastly, how are you looking at these numbers?  To me, it looks like Clinton's administration was more dedicated to (and effective in) enforcing border laws than the following three administrations combined.  Either that, or the numbers of people attempting to cross the border have dropped substantially.

Trump can't claim that a wall is needed because of the teeming horde of immigrants trying to enter the US illegally if his administration is doing a piss poor job of apprehending those people in the first place.  If it isn't doing a piss poor job in that area, then perhaps those steps that have already been taken by past administrations and his own (existing walls and border control efforts) are resulting in far fewer attempted illegal border crossings.

Regardless, Trump should not be claiming that the border is a sieve if, in fact, it isn't.  Nor should he be claiming that there is a teeming horde if there is not, in fact, a teeming horde.

ramblinman wrote:

BirdWatcher wrote:

ramblinman wrote:
Bill Clinton:  1,574,121 * 8 = 12,592,968
George Bush:  1,024,022 * 8 = 8,192,176
Barack Obama:  423,102 * 8 = 3,384,816
Donald Trump:  310,531 * 2 = 621,062

That's almost 25 million illegals since Reagan gave amnesty in exchange for real border security.  Mmmmm.

No wonder Republicans don't trust Democrats to follow thru on Border Security.

First of all, these stats are apprehensions of illegal immigrants.  So it's 25 million apprehensions of illegals, not 25 million illegals.  

Yes, apprehensions. What's the catch rate? 50%? 30% 10%? Who knows? Really? Yes, a bunch of groups will estimate illegal populations, based on their agendas.

I believe the catch rate is 99.862%

President Trump is the greatest catcher of all time.

Head Idiot wrote:And let's be clear, there's been a lot of pussy grabbing on both sides of the aisle. Trump must got caught saying on audio.

And accused by many more women with bruised pussies than any man in history other than Harvey Weinstein.

"pussy grabbing" is a figure of speech. An inelegant one, but no different than saying you "kick someone's ass." Do you really, with your FOOT, literally KICK the posterior? No. It's a figure of speech.

Taken in context (which MSM never does with Trump) he was using a gross figure of speech to convey that when you're rich (or powerful or whatever) you can get away with stuff because the women are more interested in your power than your manners.

Now, Weinstein, he may have grabbed a pussy or two, I don't know...

Ole Elizabeth Warren just put out this brilliant message-

Pocahontas wrote: Our children & grandchildren should grow up in a world where they can breathe the air & drink the water – and go outside without risking their lives in extreme temperatures. It’s time to protect our planet & pass a Green New Deal. #PolarVortex2019 https://t.co/JYnVrxMf1t

With a link a link fo a site with live updates on the polar vortex.

I mean, come on man.

I know I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to breathe the air and drink the water.

Not you, HI?

Teetime wrote:I know I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to breathe the air and drink the water.

Not you, HI?

Really? Come on, Tee. That's not his point and you know it.

BirdWatcher wrote:"pussy grabbing" is a figure of speech.   An inelegant one, but no different than saying you "kick someone's ass."   Do you really, with your FOOT, literally KICK the posterior?  No.  It's a figure of speech.

Taken in context (which MSM never does with Trump) he was using a gross figure of speech to convey that when you're rich (or powerful or whatever) you can get away with stuff because the women are more interested in your power than your manners.

Now, Weinstein, he may have grabbed a pussy or two, I don't know...

It's not really just a figure of speech if 22 women have accused you of sexual misconduct including some pussy grabbing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

ramblinman wrote:Really?  Come on, Tee.  That's not his point and you know it.

Not really my point either. The Green New Deal has a lot of merit. Pointing at the polar vortex is a little crazy but protecting the environment for future generations, even at some cost to the current generations, is not a crazy idea.

Teetime wrote:

ramblinman wrote:Really?  Come on, Tee.  That's not his point and you know it.

Not really my point either. The Green New Deal has a lot of merit. Pointing at the polar vortex is a little crazy but protecting the environment for future generations, even at some cost to the current generations, is not a crazy idea.

And we have law upon law to do that, but you're not going to get anyone to spend trillions of dollars on this Green New Deal unless you can scare them into it by saying the world is going to end in 12 years ala AOC or that this week's weather was made by us.

I have no problem protecting the environment. I try to do so as much as possible. I am not, however, a big fan of a Green New Deal to line the pockets of Democrat's friends in the Green Energy industry base on fear tactics and the "settled science".

Teetime wrote:

ramblinman wrote:Really?  Come on, Tee.  That's not his point and you know it.

Not really my point either. The Green New Deal has a lot of merit. Pointing at the polar vortex is a little crazy but protecting the environment for future generations, even at some cost to the current generations, is not a crazy idea.

No it's not a crazy idea. But, this shouldn't an all or nothing exercise. Can someone be against this particular Green New Deal and still be in favor of taking steps not to invest in a healthy environment for our kids and grandkids? I think so.

I get irked when someone like Warren uses this recent cold snap to try to gain political traction. It's not like this is the first time something like this has happened. You and I are both old enough to remember equally cold temps in the past. And, I'm sure that there were other "polar vortices" in the years/decades/centuries/millenia before us. Unless she can 100% prove that the this particular cold snap was the direct result of whatever enironmental damage she thinks has been caused by climate change, then all she is doing is fear mongering for her own political advantage.

This is what slays me about those that are climate science deniers (and I doubt you are one of those, and I doubt HI is one of those), anyone who can't 100% prove that the position they take on the environment is a fear mongering for political advantage. The 100% test is an impossibility since it's all predictive in nature.

HI goes so far as to say that they do it to line the pockets of the Democrat's friends in the green energy industry. I'd like to see the 100% proof of that.

It's nice that we can carve out a political position that respects the environment and that we take steps in our personal lives that help protect the environment....I would contend that if there weren't people like left wing politicians, at the extreme end of this issue, shaming us for our most egregious anti-green behavior we would all still be throwing our trash out of the car windows like people used to do in the 1960's. We would be "snowflakes" for wanting a clean environment to pass on to our grandkids.

President Trump also used the polar vortex to poo-poo the idea of global warming. He did it right in front of everyone with a tweet. I didn't see him getting lampooned here at Turk's for using that looney idea for his political advantage.

I don't think her position on the environment is fear mongering for political gain.  Her linking the cold snap to her position on the environment is absolutely fear mongering for political gain.

As for left wing politicians being the ones responsible for us not throwing trash out of the windows of our car like we used to do, I beg to differ.  I think that Lady Bird Johnson and Iron Eyes Cody (Keep America Beautiful ad campaign) had far more to do with that than people like Jerry Brown, Nancy Peolosi, Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, and Elizabeth Warren.

Trump should have been lampooned here and everywhere for that comment. The problem is that he is getting lampooned so often, we need to prioritize what we lampoon him for.

Teetime wrote:

ramblinman wrote:Really?  Come on, Tee.  That's not his point and you know it.

Not really my point either. The Green New Deal has a lot of merit. Pointing at the polar vortex is a little crazy but protecting the environment for future generations, even at some cost to the current generations, is not a crazy idea.

As a country, are we willing to do away with the internal combustion engine? No cars, buses, planes, trains, snow blowers, lawnmowers?
What will be the cost to implement a Green New Deal? Will it be cost effective?
Financially, what effect will it have on jobs, the economy, the wallet of American citizens?
What effect will a Green New Deal have on our National defense? Will the Russians, Chinese, whoever, play by the same rules?
I read awhile back, how many tons of horse dung, thousands of gallons of horse urine they cleaned off the streets of New York City and dumped in the Hudson and each East Rivers every day before the invention of the internal combustion engine.The overall smell of the city was was not too pleasant. .

What will the cost be if we don’t have air to breath?

I know that sounds extreme. So does doing away with the internal combustion engine. We aren’t far from having electrical cars. My guess is that lawn mowers and snow blowers are right behind.

I don’t know that other countries will take the same steps...my guess is that they will. Many countries were convinced to sign onto the Paris accord. We did. Then we didn’t.

Regardless of what we do, it's a global issue.  If we cut our CO2 output in half, it's hardly a dent.  And will that reduction be cost effective?  
Seems to me that we should be putting pressure on China and the Far East.

We are already leading the way; https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#104429b33535, we are doing A LOT already.  So, when certain politicians essentially blame the US for the global environmental changes, it's at a minimum, unfair.
Sorry, I can't figure out how to reduce the size of that graph. China owns 28% of the CO2 production in the world.

Teetime wrote:
President Trump also used the polar vortex to poo-poo the idea of global warming. He did it right in front of everyone with a tweet. I didn't see him getting lampooned here at Turk's for using that looney idea for his political advantage.

Trump's theories don't take thousands of dollars out of my pocket every year.

Nancy Pelosi isn't much of a fan of AOC's Green New Deal either apparently- https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal/index.html

Despite championing this Green New Deal since her election- AOC just released a document, sorta outlining what she's talking about.  Included in the Green New Deal to save the world's environment are-

AOC wrote:Providing universal healthcare and affordable housing, ensuring that all jobs have union protections and family-sustaining wages, and keeping the business environment free of monopolistic competition.

Cause, you know, those are pressing climate change issues.

Oh, and there's no mention of how to pay for this, or anything else.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/green-new-deal-details/index.html

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd, welcome to socialism-

http://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

I think the most telling of this plan is that of the 4 parts, the smallest is the part about the actual climate/green initiatives.

Head Idiot wrote:Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd, welcome to socialism-

http://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

I think the most telling of this plan is that of the 4 parts, the smallest is the part about the actual climate/green initiatives.

Cost - $7 trillion, With how the US gov't has operated in the past, that figure will be much higher
Are we wiling to give up airplane travel and replace it with high speed rail? What will be the cost of implementing multi high speed transcontinental rail lines? (this will lawsuits, environmental studies that will come with it)
Are we willing to give up steaks, hamburgers to eliminate cow farts?
FDR's New Deal - did big gov't programs, gov't price, wage, production control end the Depression?
Will a ex-bartender's New Green Deal make our environment better?
I agree with you HI - confiscation of wealth, re-distribution of wealth, socialism at its finest (socialism's two choices - work and we will take 50+% or don't work and get free stuff but we control your life)

Pike Bishop wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd, welcome to socialism-

http://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

I think the most telling of this plan is that of the 4 parts, the smallest is the part about the actual climate/green initiatives.

Cost - $7 trillion, With how the US gov't has operated in the past, that figure will be much higher
Are we wiling to give up airplane travel and replace it with high speed rail? What will be the cost of implementing multi high speed transcontinental rail lines? (this will lawsuits, environmental studies that will come with it)
Are we willing to give up steaks, hamburgers to eliminate cow farts?
FDR's New Deal - did big gov't programs, gov't price, wage, production control end the Depression?
Will a ex-bartender's New Green Deal make our environment better?
I agree with you HI - confiscation of wealth, re-distribution of wealth, socialism at its finest (socialism's two choices - work and we will take 50+% or don't work and get free stuff but we control your life)

If you eliminate cow farts, you have to eliminate cows (how will PETA handle this?), you're eliminating the grain that they eat, meaning farmers suffer, the price of corn falls to pennies, and the agriculture economy collapses. Hello Venezuela!!!! I hear the weather is nice there, at least.

SIFBCoach7 wrote:

Pike Bishop wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd, welcome to socialism-

http://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

I think the most telling of this plan is that of the 4 parts, the smallest is the part about the actual climate/green initiatives.

Cost - $7 trillion, With how the US gov't has operated in the past, that figure will be much higher
Are we wiling to give up airplane travel and replace it with high speed rail? What will be the cost of implementing multi high speed transcontinental rail lines? (this will lawsuits, environmental studies that will come with it)
Are we willing to give up steaks, hamburgers to eliminate cow farts?
FDR's New Deal - did big gov't programs, gov't price, wage, production control end the Depression?
Will a ex-bartender's New Green Deal make our environment better?
I agree with you HI - confiscation of wealth, re-distribution of wealth, socialism at its finest (socialism's two choices - work and we will take 50+% or don't work and get free stuff but we control your life)

If you eliminate cow farts, you have to eliminate cows (how will PETA handle this?), you're eliminating the grain that they eat, meaning farmers suffer, the price of corn falls to pennies, and the agriculture economy collapses.  Hello Venezuela!!!!  I hear the weather is nice there, at least.

Our transportation system, will electrical powered semis be able to handle the same loads they handle now?
Ships - how will they re-powered mid ocean? Will we going back to sails and oar powered galleys?
No more three hour tours by the Skipper and Gilligan
Where will all the power for the re-charging stations come from?
Many of the rare metals/minerals used to make solar and wind power equipment is in Russia and China. Now we are dependent on them.
Wind Farms kill thousands of birds every year. Don't birds lives matter?
Whether you believe in climate change or not, we will have cold weather like we had last week and/or a heat wave. Will the new solar/wind power grid be able to handle increased power outage. I read that Minnesota's could not handle it last week.