Jump to content

facelessman07

VIP Contributor
  • Content Count

    19,689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

facelessman07 last won the day on May 11 2019

facelessman07 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17,622 Hall of Fame

About facelessman07

  • Rank
    extremely stable genius

Recent Profile Visitors

3,066 profile views
  1. So what you're saying is that they're only interested in succeeding if we succeed their way? What if their way doesn't lead to success? Should we continue to do what hasn't worked simply due to effort justification?
  2. Why is it that our resident leftists only show up to post when there's some bombshell or purported imminent threat to Trump's presidency or agenda? For example, the board was flooded with them during the Mueller investigation, but since? Largely absent. Sure, there was a small peep during the impeachment hearings and every other anonymously sourced story that promised to bring Trump down, but after the fact? Completely missing, the only place their faces could be found were on the back of a milk carton. Where are they during the good times? Shouldn't they actually want our nation to succeed, regardless of who is leading the country? Can we not all celebrate achievements together? And why is it that our resident conservatives are here during ALL of the highs and lows of 45's presidency? When we were guaranteed that Trump was a Russian agent, they were here. When Trump had a fondness for getting pissed on by random hookers? Still here. Guaranteed to be gone within the first 100 days in office? You guessed it, still here. Record highs in the economy, winning on trade wars, getting our allies to pony up their fair share (as Bernie Sanders would say), reduction in crime, reduced illegal border crossings, etc etc etc. As a whole, they've largely ridden the wave, although at times their footing was unsure. They've been faithful and have taken, oftentimes literally, hit after hit from the left yet have not resorted to violence, they're not screaming at the sky, and have largely remained peaceful in the face of adversity. Any answers?
  3. United States Led Entire World In Reducing CO2 Emissions In 2019 Ryan SaavedraFebruary 12th, 2020 The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. “The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.” “A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019,” the IEA continued. “Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather. The IEA noted that 80% of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly to the increase. “In China, emissions rose but were tempered by slower economic growth and higher output from low-carbon sources of electricity,” the IEA reported. “Renewables continued to expand in China, and 2019 was also the first full year of operation for seven large-scale nuclear reactors in the country.” “Emissions growth in India was moderate in 2019, with CO2 emissions from the power sector declining slightly as electricity demand was broadly stable and strong renewables growth prompted coal-fired electricity generation to fall for the first time since 1973,” the IEA concluded. “Continued growth in fossil-fuel demand in other sectors of the Indian economy, notably transport, offset the decline in the power sector. Emissions grew strongly in Southeast Asia, lifted by robust coal demand.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to the news by writing on Twitter, “FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 o’clock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000.” The news came after the media promoted far-left climate extremists like socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Greta Thunberg who demonized the U.S. and economic growth for polluting the world. Thunberg attacked the U.S. last month during a speech she gave at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland for leaving the Paris Climate Accord, despite the fact that the U.S. leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions. “The fact that the U.S.A. is leaving the Paris accord seems to outrage and worry everyone, and it should,” Thunberg said. “But the fact that we’re all about to fail the commitments you signed up for in the Paris Agreement doesn’t seem to bother the people in power even the least.” LINK
  4. Just a reminder...this is NOT satire. Poor pathetic leftists.
  5. Michael Avenatti Is Winning the 2020 Democratic Primary He won’t be the nominee. But he’s setting the terms of the debate—and that could damage the rest of the field, and the country. Alexandra Glorioso Attorney Michael Avenatti listens during an event in Las Vegas, Nevada, a key early state. Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ.” One month ago, Michael Avenatti—the Stormy Daniels lawyer, Donald Trump antagonist, and yes, potential 2020 presidential candidate—spoke at an Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser and declared to a cheering crowd that there was “no greater question facing our party and our nation” than “how” Democrats fight. He chastised Democrats for having “a tendency to bring nail clippers to a gun fight” when they should be fighting “fire with fire.” Avenatti is the lead storm chaser in a little-noticed front in the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign: Who can out-Trump the sitting president by going the furthest to break procedural “norms”? Even if Avenatti has little chance of winning the nomination, he could still wreck the 2020 Democratic race. In fact he’s already doing it, by using his considerable media skills and political instincts to frame the contest around how far Democrats should go when wielding power, and to pressure his rivals to follow his cue. If we begin measuring candidates on the basis of who has the weakest attachment to the written and unwritten rules which have stabilized American democracy for centuries, the country will be in serious danger. The reverberations from Avenatti became apparent during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, as two likely presidential candidates sought to prove their willingness to subvert norms. Sen. Cory Booker boasted about risking expulsion by releasing documents deemed classified by the Republican-led committee, to protest attempts to minimize access to Kavanaugh’s emails from when he worked in the George W. Bush administration. And Sen. Kamala Harris shared on Twitter a truncated video clip of Kavanaugh referring to birth control pills as “abortion-inducing drugs” that left off his attributing of the phrase to anti-abortion Catholic plaintiffs. Then when media fact-checkers called her out, Harris, seemingly following Trump’s “never apologize” philosophy, refused to admit error or recalibrate her charge. The Democratic antics during the Kavanaugh hearings came on the heels of Avenatti issuing an ultimatum on Twitter: “In light of the [Merrick] Garland seat that was stolen, together with the events of today and the hiding of docs, etc., the court must be expanded to 11 seats after 2020. The Dem nominee must commit to this or not receive the nomination IMO.” During the hearings, Avenatti proceeded to bird-dog both Booker and Harris. In a two-tweet thread, which followed a dramatic interrogation of Kavanaugh by Harris that has failed to amount to anything, he cautioned: “I sincerely hope (1) those four docs that were released this morning by Mr. Booker really were still confidential, so he can prove the GOP is lying and (2) that Ms. Harris discloses the evidence of the communications she suggested last night exists and then eviscerates Kavanaugh. Because if not ... ” We can finish his sentence: If not, it shows these pretenders don’t know how to fight the way I do. To follow the call to put down the clippers and pick up the gun with an embrace of court-packing clarifies what exactly Avenatti means by fighting harder: fighting without restraint by governing norms. Avenatti is tapping into a desire on the left to burn the rulebook that has simmered since the 2000 presidential recount. In the opening of the 2004 agitprop film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore skewered runner-up Al Gore, who resisted the unofficial tally for 35 days, for ultimately accepting legal and constitutional reality. Moore’s movie revisited the spectacle when Gore, as president of the Senate, had the unfortunate ceremonial role of certifying the 2000 Electoral College count. Several House Democrats made a last-ditch attempt to object, but Gore turned them away because their petition lacked a Senate sponsor. Moore didn’t acknowledge that Gore’s actions were necessary to avoid a constitutional crisis that could easily have led to violence. He just demeaned Gore as weak and callous. “One after another,” said Moore, the primarily African-American dissenters “were told to sit down and shut up.” This Democratic distrust of constraining norms intensified during the Obama presidency, which was constantly buffeted by Republican obstructionist tactics. When congressional Republicans would refuse to raise the debt ceiling in order to extract concessions, some (including Bill Clinton) called on Barack Obama to stretch a Civil War-related provision in the 14th Amendment and declare the entire debt ceiling unconstitutional. Others, like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman backed another legally questionable and economically risky proposal: for Obama to direct the U.S. Treasury to mint a trillion-dollar coin to get around the debt ceiling and pay its obligations. Of course, these proposals were in response to Republican threats to governing norms—namely, seizing the full faith and credit of the United States for use as a bargaining chip. But you can’t protect the sanctity of government debt obligations by undermining the sanctity of government debt obligations. In the final days of Obama’s tenure, calls rose for Obama to give Garland, the Supreme Court nominee whom Republicans refused to consider, a recess appointment. As the New Republic’s David Dayen strained to argue, on January 3, 2017, there would have been “metaphysical” space between the end of the 114th Congress and the beginning of the 115th, in which Obama could claim the Senate was in recess and appoint Garland without Senate confirmation. After none of those fantasies came to pass, and after watching Trump chew up and spit out norms as part of his daily routine, the movement of progressive norm-breakers has grown. Roosevelt University political science professor David Faris this year published It’s Time to Fight Dirty, which called for packing the Supreme Court, ending the legislative filibuster, and breaking up California in hopes of creating more blue states and more Democratic senators. Now, Avenatti is poised to elevate court-packing to the level of progressive litmus test. If the progressive credentials of the 2020 field become judged based on the extent of their disregard for norms, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party and American democracy will all suffer. If Democrats and progressives are perceived as driven by the accumulation of personal power, not the betterment of America as a whole, they will find it challenging to claim the moral high ground when making the case for their preferred policies. And if both parties continually rewrite the rules to consolidate their power whenever given the opportunity, faith in democratic institutions will erode and sow the seeds of authoritarianism. The latter point was made by Harvard University government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in the book How Democracies Die: “This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy—packing and ‘weaponizing’ the courts and other neutral agencies, rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents.” Faris finds this concern quaint at a time when Republicans have been engaged in scorched earth governance, akin to “fretting about whether you should shoot the terrorist sitting next to you on your flight after he’s already blown a hole in the hull.” Faris’ hyperbole obscures the fact that Democrats have reaped benefits not only from respecting norms, but also from occasionally ending them. Consider the demise of the judicial filibuster. While Republicans guffaw that Sen. Harry Reid largely scrapped it in 2013, only to grease the path of Trump’s nominees, it is also the case that the rule change helped Obama overcome furious Republican filibustering and appoint two more judges than George W. Bush. Yes, Trump is going to get his share of judges, but Democrats will get another turn soon enough. That rule change didn’t fundamentally undermine our norms; it allowed the usual political pendulum swings to maintain a rough judicial balance. Even so, if Obama had tried one of those cockamamie, and legally dubious, debt-limit schemes in his first term, the full faith and credit of the American government would have been called into question, risking an economic meltdown that would have effectively ended his presidency. And if Reid and the Democrats had ended the legislative filibuster, whatever ambitious laws they got passed under the new rules would have been repealed by a Republican Congress exploiting the same. Instead, today’s Republican legislative output, and ability to roll back Obama’s policy legacy, is greatly constrained. Or if the Obama Democrats had undermined the legitimacy of the judicial branch with a brazenly illegal recess appointment of Garland, Republicans could be ignoring Supreme Court rulings today as illegitimate. Keep in mind that there are conservatives—most prominently Mike Huckabee—who disparage the “false god of judicial supremacy” and urge Republicans in the other branches of government to ignore unfavorable judicial rulings. Yet Trump and the Republican Congress have not gone that far. While we appropriately recoil at Trump’s authoritarian musings, he has not dared violate the essential norm of judicial review, even though that norm is suffocating his project of dismantling Obama’s regulatory legacy. Attempts to roll back Obama-era rules protecting student borrowers, maintaining chemical plant safety, regulating waterways, cutting methane and ozone pollution, and combating segregated housing have been blocked by judges, several of whom were appointed by Obama. Democrats such as Avenatti who pine for court-packing don’t look to Obama or Reid for inspiration but Franklin D. Roosevelt, who tried to do so in 1937. In their telling, Congress didn’t go along with Roosevelt’s scheme, but the Supreme Court underwent an ideological shift soon after his proposal, suggesting that the norm-busting won the overarching war. But that version of the story misses a key fact: The Supreme Court justice who made the “switch in time that saved the nine,” Owen Roberts, switched in a key minimum wage case in December 1936, two months before Roosevelt announced his court-packing plan. Scholars still debate why exactly Roberts switched. While it’s possible that speculation of a court-packing plan factored into his thinking (though Roberts denied it), the fact remains Roosevelt didn’t need to actually pack the courts to get what he wanted. More important, Roosevelt’s insistence on lobbying Congress for his proposal after the court had switched was a political disaster. The public was appalled at the power grab. Roosevelt’s increasing alienation from conservative Democrats contributed to a 1938 midterm debacle that stymied his domestic agenda for the rest of his presidency. An old chess adage proved correct: The threat is stronger than the execution. In a similar vein, Booker and his fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats weren’t out of line in leaking “confidential” documents that had no business being confidential. Booker’s error was not in the leaking, but the boasting—suggesting that his willingness to break rules was proof of his mettle. Harris is hardly the first politician to get a little overzealous in spinning the meaning of someone else’s words. But it’s hard to condemn Trump for disparaging the news media and then not submit yourself to the judgment of its fact-checkers. Even if the transgressions are not equivalently grave when assessed in isolation, they can feed a perception, however unfairly, that “both sides” do it. When Avenatti says, “When they go low, I say, we hit harder,” he is explicitly encouraging both sides to do it. Such an attitude may become depressingly common as Avenatti sets the pace of the primary. Democrats need not be angels. A strategically employed sharp elbow has its uses. But a race to the ethical bottom should not be welcomed. A party that has been properly warning throughout the Trump presidency that “this is not normal” should be careful not to become abnormal itself. LINK
  6. More in U.S. Say They Are Better Off Than in Past Elections February 12, 2020 by Jeffrey M. Jones WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running. In the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, exactly half said they were better off. In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle, an average of 45% said they were better off. Americans' Assessments of Their Personal Situation Comparatively Better Than in Prior Presidential Incumbent Re-Election Years Are you better off than you were three years ago, or not? Yes, better off No, not better off As well off (vol.) % % % 2020 61 36 3 2012 45 52 3 2004 50 42 8 1996 50 34 15 1992 50 38 11 (vol.) = volunteered response; Data for 1992, 1996 and 2020 based on poll conducted in January of the election year. Data for 2012 based on average of three polls conducted in October 2011, December 2011 and August 2012. Data for 2004 based on an October 2003 poll. Gallup The current results, from a Jan. 16-29 Gallup poll, echo record highs, measured earlier in January, in Americans' satisfaction with the way things are going in their personal life and in their assessments of their personal finances. Relatedly, 52% of U.S. adults say it is easier for them to "go and buy things in the stores" than it was three years ago, higher than in the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, when the figures were closer to 40%. More Americans Report Better Financial Situation Now Than in Past Presidential Incumbent Reelection Years Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was three years ago, or not? Yes, easier No, not easier No opinion % % % 2020 52 36 11 2004 41 46 13 1996 42 40 16 1992 36 51 12 (vol.) = volunteered response. 1992, 1996 and 2020 data based on poll conducted in January of the election year. 2004 data based on October 2003 poll. Gallup Americans' perceptions of whether they are personally better off, and whether it is easier to buy things, appear to be influenced much more by their party leanings than by their economic situations. Sixty percentage points separate Republicans' (89%) and Democrats' (29%) assessments of whether they are better off than three years ago. Independents are essentially in the middle of the two groups, at 60%. Meanwhile, 64% of those in both upper- and middle-income households say they are better off, as do 49% of those in lower-income households. The Republican-Democratic gap is smaller -- 44 points -- when people indicate whether it is easier for them to buy things than it was three years ago: 76% of Republicans versus 32% of Democrats say it is, as do 49% of independents. The party gaps on the "better off than three years ago" question were much smaller in the past, partly because supporters of the incumbent president's party were less upbeat about their situations than Republicans are today. Americans' Perceptions of Whether They Are Better Off Than Three Years Ago, by Political Party Are you better off than you were three years ago, or not? Republicans Independents Democrats Party gap % % % pct. pts. 2020 (Trump, Rep) 89 60 29 60 2012 (Obama, Dem) 27 46 60 33 2004 (GW Bush, Rep) 64 48 37 27 1996 (Clinton, Dem) 49 50 53 4 1992 (GHW Bush, Rep) 66 49 36 30 Gallup In addition to higher ratings among Republicans, today's higher figures are also driven by more positive ratings among independents -- 60% today, compared with ratings near 50% in prior years. Assessments of U.S. International Standing Similar to Past Elections The majority of Americans do not believe the U.S. is as respected throughout the world as it was three years ago -- 38% say it is and 59% say it is not. The percentage who think the U.S. is as respected is no worse than in past election years, with only as many as 40% saying so (in 1992 and 2000). Additionally, 51% say the nation is as safe and strong as it was three years ago, while 43% say it is not. These readings are similar to what Gallup measured in the 2004 and 2012 election cycles, but lower than in 1992. Americans' Assessments of Changes in U.S. Standing in the World Are Similar to Past Incumbent Reelection Years Is America as respected throughout the world as it was three years ago, or not? Thinking about national security, do you feel that our nation is as safe and as strong as it was three years ago, or not? Yes No More/Stronger (vol.) % % % Is U.S. as respected throughout the world 2020 38 59 3 2012 30 65 1 2004 27 68 3 2000 40 54 -- 1996 34 58 2 1992 40 50 6 Is nation as safe/strong 2020 51 43 6 2012 49 47 1 2004 53 30 16 1992 64 29 4 (vol.) = Volunteered response Gallup As on the economic items, wide party gaps exist on the international items. Seventy percent of Republicans, but only 9% of Democrats, believe the U.S. is as respected throughout the world as it was three years ago. Thirty-two percent of independents hold this view. Also, 76% of Republicans, 51% of independents and 22% of Democrats believe the nation is as safe and strong as when President Donald Trump took office. Trump Given More Credit Than Obama for Economic Improvements Sixty-two percent give Trump a great deal or fair amount of credit for improvement in the state of the economy in the past few years -- more than the 51% giving former President Barack Obama the same level of credit. Trump Gets More Credit for Economic Improvements in Past Few Years Please indicate how much credit, if any, [Donald Trump/Barack Obama] deserves for the improvement in the state of the economy in the past few years -- a great deal, a fair amount, not much or none at all? Great deal Fair amount Not much None at all % % % % Donald Trump 37 25 19 18 Barack Obama 26 25 25 23 Gallup, Jan. 16-29, 2020 In 2000, Americans gave Bill Clinton slightly more credit for the economy (68% great deal or fair amount) than they give Trump today. In January 2018, Gallup asked Americans a similar question about Trump and Obama, albeit with a different question wording. At that time, more Americans gave Obama (56%) than Trump (49%) a "great deal" or "moderate amount" of credit. The economy will likely be as potent an election issue as any other, but there is no dominant issue in the public's minds. In December, the economy was among the top six issues that U.S. adults rated as "extremely important" to their presidential vote. The latest poll, which asked Americans to choose among those six issues as the single most important to their vote, finds 29% choosing the economy and 25% healthcare. Fewer indicated that immigration (14%), gun policy (13%), education (11%) or terrorism (6%) is their top overall issue. Bottom Line If Trump asks Americans whether they are better off than before he came into office, most would say they are. Trump also gets more credit for recent economic improvements than Obama does, though majorities give both credit. Trump was clear during his State of the Union that he plans to make the strength of the economy a major focus of his reelection campaign. Given Americans' generally positive ratings of the economy -- including a 63% job approval rating for Trump on the issue -- it is a sensible strategy. But with Trump's overall job approval rating still below the majority level, the ultimate question is whether his economic success will mean more to voters than the more controversial aspects of his presidency. Learn more about public opinion metrics that matter for the 2020 presidential election at Gallup's 2020 Presidential Election Center. View complete question responses and trends. Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works. LINK
  7. How much of a factor did the Russian witch hunt play in the public perception of Trump and thus interfere in the midterms? Important questions like these are noticeably absent on the talking points of the MSM. Anyway, what happened with the peach mints? Anyone got any updates?
  8. Writer musta been chewing on a nice cock while typing this out.
  9. @SaintRay, Don't let one of the backup dancers from the Lollipop Guild kill this thread and prohibit you from posting your culinary creations. If things come to a head, put him on ignore like I and so many others have done. Regrettably, you can still see their posts when others quote them, but it's better than nothing.
  10. I haven't kept up with this thread much lately but isn't monkfruit amazing??
×
×
  • Create New...