(09-20-2019 03:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  art)

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/clim...days-21667

Climate change is turning cities into harsh sweltering hotspots. By 2075, Houston is projected to have 40 days a year above 100 degrees and possibly double that by 2100.

(answer to the 2nd part)

I guess that is why Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro are ghost towns.

When I moved to North Texas from the Rio Grande many years ago, I was amazed at people complaining about the heat when it was only 99 or so. I was used to 105+. and that is long before I ever lived in an air conditioned house or rode in an air conditioned car.

So how much cooler will plastic straws make it? Will it save Florida? AOC has predicted Miami will be under water in a few years.

AOC

A microview

In a lot of ways, this Minnesota town reminds me of the 90% Hispanic town where I was born and raised.

Main difference is who is the tax base.

Biden, ukraine

"Giuliani titled his first tweet, "NEW FACT," and said Hunter Biden received a one-time payment of $3 million from the Ukraine that went through Latvia and then to Cyprus, before entering the U.S."

That's a lot of laundering for an innocent payment.

Amazing to me that the party that got so incensed over purported foreign interference in an american election(Russia/Trump) can be so uninterested in real interference by a foreign country in an american election(Ukraine/Clinton). Amazing to me that a party so interested in a $130,000 payment to a bimbo can be so uninterested in a $3,000,000 payment to the son of a VP.

I guess the outrage is targeted toward their political opposition.

(09-23-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the outrage is targeted toward their political opposition.

Understatement of the year, or at least of the month.

I'm kind of surprised no one has chimed in on the news from the past few days.

I've been pretty steadfast all along I oppose impeachment proceedings (or inquiries, or whatever they want to call it). The phone transcript did nothing to change my mind there. I haven't read the full whistleblower account yet so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that.

I've been opposed to impeachment for several reasons. One, I truly feel the top levels of U.S. Government are corrupt across the board. Yes, I believe Trump has been dishonest and corrupt, but no more so than most presidents (please don't ask me for evidence for this - you can probably find a post here or there among the 449 pages of this thread where I've mentioned some of my beefs). And I don't think I've seen anything that calls for impeachment.

Secondly, I don't think it's a good strategy on the democrats' side (and let's face it, it's a strategy pure and simple despite claims of politicians saying he's broken the laws). I feel like Trump is beatable based on social issues alone (putting climate change in that category). Plus I think the ongoing tariffs will continue to hurt his midwest farmer vote.

Finally, I just feel that even if Trump were impeached, and even more improbably, removed from office, I don't think it will be good for this country. It's going to create an even greater civil rift between the two political ideologies. Plus, you'll absolutely see tit-for-tat, and if a Democrat did win the White House next year, the Republicans will then do everything in their power to impeach that new president.

The one thing I do find interesting from today is that there are clearly laws in place which protect federal whistleblowers. And Trump absolutely has to proceed with caution in his criticisms of this CIA whistleblower. Talking about him as a spy, and talking about what the U.S. used to do with spies, is not a good start on that front. Let's see what transpires in the days and weeks to come.

(09-26-2019 06:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm kind of surprised no one has chimed in on the news from the past few days.

I've been pretty steadfast all along I oppose impeachment proceedings (or inquiries, or whatever they want to call it). The phone transcript did nothing to change my mind there. I haven't read the full whistleblower account yet so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that.

I've been opposed to impeachment for several reasons. One, I truly feel the top levels of U.S. Government are corrupt across the board. Yes, I believe Trump has been dishonest and corrupt, but no more so than most presidents (please don't ask me for evidence for this - you can probably find a post here or there among the 449 pages of this thread where I've mentioned some of my beefs). And I don't think I've seen anything that calls for impeachment.

Secondly, I don't think it's a good strategy on the democrats' side (and let's face it, it's a strategy pure and simple despite claims of politicians saying he's broken the laws). I feel like Trump is beatable based on social issues alone (putting climate change in that category). Plus I think the ongoing tariffs will continue to hurt his midwest farmer vote.

Finally, I just feel that even if Trump were impeached, and even more improbably, removed from office, I don't think it will be good for this country. It's going to create an even greater civil rift between the two political ideologies. Plus, you'll absolutely see tit-for-tat, and if a Democrat did win the White House next year, the Republicans will then do everything in their power to impeach that new president.

The one thing I do find interesting from today is that there are clearly laws in place which protect federal whistleblowers. And Trump absolutely has to proceed with caution in his criticisms of this CIA whistleblower. Talking about him as a spy, and talking about what the U.S. used to do with spies, is not a good start on that front. Let's see what transpires in the days and weeks to come.

The biggest thing I’ve seen come out of the complaint is that there is an accusation that the Trump admin has tried to cover up multiple calls with foreign leaders for political, rather than national security reasons.

The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

If only trump kept his call transcripts on a private server and then destroyed it when it was subpoenaed by the DOJ. Then the left would be content.

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

The Biden corruption allegations have merit, imo, but there were definitely smarter ways for Trump to play this.

I'm glad to see some progress on impeachment, but I'm not getting too excited.

(09-27-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

The events of the past few years up to and including the last few days, lead me to believe we actually do NOT have non-partisan ways of handling investigations.

Clearly, many of the actions by the FBI and Congress have been nothing but partisan.

I am extremely tired of the bickering, lies, and hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats. They don't care about the country - only getting Trump. They do nothing on anything - except getting Trump.

They are crying now that nobody is above the law.

Except Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Comey, GPS Fusion, Brennan, Clapper, Holder, Susan Rice, and a long long list of others who share one characteristic - they are Democrats.

Personally, I would hope that Biden emerges untouched from this. I would prefer him to the Socialists who would take over if he falters., and that people here would vote for in a heartbeat. But the Dems who are running against him will make sure it hurts him.

I think it is all much ado over nothing. But the Democrats are good at making a mountain out of a molehill, as they have shown the past few years.

I guess the objective is to put Pence in office, on the theory he will be easier to beat. 1976 all over again.

Also the silence on this board while all this has been unfolding over the last several days was d e l i c i o u s.

(09-27-2019 10:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Also the silence on this board while all this has been unfolding over the last several days was d e l i c i o u s.

Yeah, waiting for facts is new to some people.

(09-27-2019 10:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Also the silence on this board while all this has been unfolding over the last several days was d e l i c i o u s.

Yeah, waiting for facts is new to some people.

Bless your heart

(09-27-2019 10:55 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Also the silence on this board while all this has been unfolding over the last several days was d e l i c i o u s.

Yeah, waiting for facts is new to some people.

Bless your heart

You are such a sweet, grandmotherly person.

(09-27-2019 10:42 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm glad to see some progress on impeachment, .
]

Two years ago I could see this. But why now?

I had hoped when the Mueller report came out, we would at last be free of the impeachment hysteria, and Adam Schiff in particular. I guess for some, they have been chasing this goal so long that nothing else matters.

There is little doubt they can impeach - a biased jury always reaches the verdict it wants.

But removal will not happen, so what is the point? Just a smear?

At least with Clinton, there was evidence he committed both perjury and OOJ - forensic evidence. And yet he was not removed. Twenty years later, the Dems want to pursue this farce to the same conclusion, on weak evidence, innuendo, and hate. What is the point?

(09-27-2019 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:42 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm glad to see some progress on impeachment, .
]

Two years ago I could see this. But why now?

I had hoped when the Mueller report came out, we would at last be free of the impeachment hysteria, and Adam Schiff in particular.

I completely agree with you.

But then Trump went ahead and asked a foreign power to investigate his primary opponent for POTUS in the next election, and people within the administration attempted to hide the conversation from the American public.

Whoopsie.

(09-27-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:42 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm glad to see some progress on impeachment, .
]

Two years ago I could see this. But why now?

I had hoped when the Mueller report came out, we would at last be free of the impeachment hysteria, and Adam Schiff in particular.

I completely agree with you.

But then Trump went ahead and asked a foreign power to investigate his primary opponent for POTUS in the next election, and people within the administration attempted to hide the conversation from the American public.

Whoopsie.

My take is that he wanted to know if Biden improperly used his influence as VP to help his son. Did he?

So the millions and billions in Hunter's pockets and the firing of the prosecutor are so much chaff blowing in the wind?

I thought Biden was bragging about how he used the threat of withholding american $$$ to get an investigator fired. did I miss the part where he threw his hands up to indicate no foul?

There is a good reason that Trump brought this up with Ukraine, and not France or Ireland. Ukraine is where Biden's son was making a ton of money off his daddy's influence.

I have every qualification that Hunter Biden has, except the daddy. Can I get that job?

Everybody is talking, except Hunter.

(09-27-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with you.

But then Trump went ahead and asked a foreign power to investigate his primary opponent for POTUS in the next election, and people within the administration attempted to hide the conversation from the American public.

Whoopsie.

It's pretty clear we don't know whom will emerge from the pack.

If Biden pressured Ukrainian officials and his son profited millions as a result, all you're really saying is that Trump shouldn't have directly acted.... despite clearly speaking to a leader whom also seems to have run as an outsider like trump and on draining the swamp. It does, to people who align that way, seem a natural ask.

Yours is the opinion that most who don't like Trump... most who do, don't care... most in the middle care more about whether Biden pressured Ukraine and his son profited as a result. We KNOW Biden pressured Ukraine and we KNOW his son profited. All we don't know is the 'as a result' part.

As far as 'hiding the conversation', that's a bit of a stretch. It can be inferred but not proven from the facts on the ground... and no significant legal maneuvers were taken to shield the conversation. Trump has hidden his taxes (and Obama his birth certificate) far more aggressively. I doubt many people who don't already hate Trump will feel as you do.

(09-27-2019 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with you.

But then Trump went ahead and asked a foreign power to investigate his primary opponent for POTUS in the next election, and people within the administration attempted to hide the conversation from the American public.

Whoopsie.

It's pretty clear we don't know whom will emerge from the pack.

If Biden pressured Ukrainian officials and his son profited millions as a result, all you're really saying is that Trump shouldn't have directly acted.... despite clearly speaking to a leader whom also seems to have run as an outsider like trump and on draining the swamp. It does, to people who align that way, seem a natural ask.

Yours is the opinion that most who don't like Trump... most who do, don't care... most in the middle care more about whether Biden pressured Ukraine and his son profited as a result. We KNOW Biden pressured Ukraine and we KNOW his son profited. All we don't know is the 'as a result' part.

As far as 'hiding the conversation', that's a bit of a stretch. It can be inferred but not proven from the facts on the ground... and no significant legal maneuvers were taken to shield the conversation. Trump has hidden his taxes (and Obama his birth certificate) far more aggressively. I doubt many people who don't already hate Trump will feel as you do.

My opinion isn't that if there was shady business between Biden and a Ukrainian oil company that it shouldn't be investigated. It's that the POTUS should not be involved, ESPECIALLY if it involves his political rival.

We KNOW that Trump was involving himself in this matter.

We don't know if there was any wrong doing on either Biden. We KNOW that there were bad optics around it, so if it needs to be investigated, use the proper channels. Trump should not be involving himself, and using the power of his office to influence such investigations, ESPECIALLY when they involve a political rival.

And good God, but your last paragraph is almost crazy. The statement that they tried to hide it isn't "inferred" it is "alleged" - big difference. So either you believe the whistleblower to be truthful, or you think he is lying. At least be honest and say you don't believe him. But how you think it is inferred, based on the complaint itself, is crazy.

The complaint reads:

Quote:In the days following the call I learned from multiple US officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

You can read the complaint here: https://qz.com/1716859/white-house-knew-...oblematic/

edit: and how can I forget that you actually brought up Obama's birth certificate! Yowza