Had enough yet

[mark blazejewski]

. The earth has warmed and cooled for the last 4.5+ billion years.

That is the basis for my skepticism. Does a hundred years of record keeping provide sufficient data, and an adequate time frame, to confirm the existence of the climate change within the meaning of the "change" so forcefully presented by the likes of Gore and company? After all, without regard to Biblical references, the Earth is purported to be millions of years old.

I'm not a scientist, but that data base seems pretty thin to me, and makes me approach the acceptability of that "theory" with some questions. But, I again, I'm not a scientist.

[HipKat]

100 years of Data?? Ever heard of Geology??


Or how about 100 years+ of pumping toxins into the Earth, water and atmosphere? How can you possibly think that has no effect on the planet? I mean. it's pretty simple, really.

I'll be honest with you Mark, I think you're a pretty smart guy. Lefty, too, when he's not being a smug ass. But anyone that denies Climate Change and our effect on it, to me, is pretty stupid. You guys talk about cyclic changes that have happened over the course of the lifetime of the planet. But those changes took thousands of years. What we're seeing is rapid change. Every year, every year, record temperatures. Every year, sea levels rise, and on and on.

[mark blazejewski]

100 years of Data?? Ever heard of Geology??





Or how about 100 years+ of pumping toxins into the Earth, water and atmosphere? How can you possibly think that has no effect on the planet? I mean. it's pretty simple, really.



I'll be honest with you Mark, I think you're a pretty smart guy. Lefty, too, when he's not being a smug ass. But anyone that denies Climate Change and our effect on it, to me, is pretty stupid. You guys talk about cyclic changes that have happened over the course of the lifetime of the planet. But those changes took thousands of years. What we're seeing is rapid change. Every year, every year, record temperatures. Every year, sea levels rise, and on and on.

HipKat, I am not saying global warming is or is not true. I am questioning the reasons for, and the credibility of, the the generally accepted data base supporting any such purported warming. As I stated: "climate change withing the meaning of the 'change' so forcefully presented by the likes of Gore and company.​"



IE, a rapidly moving process because the perhaps because something may be happening to the sun, or if a evolutionary process because of some unknown or unexplained way of nature, or, perhaps you and Lee are correct in concluding than man is f**** up because of the species' reckless use of fossil fuels.

[HipKat]

.....or all of the above, but even if so, man still has a negative impact in that equation

[HipKat]

And speaking of Lee, here's one, that's more on topic;

First, there were never any meetings with Russians, then, oops, there were meetings with Russians. Mike Flynn lied about meetings with Russians, then got fired, once the truth came out. Jeff Sessions lied about meetings with Russians, the recused himself from anything to do with Russia once the truth came out. Jared Kushner lied about meetings with Russians, now is under the gun after the truth came out about those lies on his application for his security clearance. Don Jr lied about meetings with Russians, now under the gun for possibly committing a criminal act, once the truth came out. Paul Manafort lied about meetings with Russians, now the truth is out.

Then Russia never tampered with the election, then, oops, yes they did. That is indisputable, although Russia tampering with the election in itself, really shouldn't be the issue it's made out to be. America has no leg to stand on when it comes to enforcing our will on other countries Government. However, looking for dirt on the American Secretary of State is possibly treasonous.

Then the Russian Government wasn't involved, until we found out Don Jr met with reportedly, yet still unconfirmed, reps from the Russian Government. right after the date this meeting happened, Trump announced that he would be "making a speech on Monday" that would show up Hillary's crimes. That speech never happened. Maybe because it turned out there was nothing from the Russians?

And this is just one topic in a litany of missteps, lies and cover ups.

Regardless, tell me again why I'm supposed to support this President?

[mark blazejewski]

To me, this entire issue of Donald Jr. meeting with the Russian babe, is very troubling. Collusion is not a crime; the meeting was not a crime; lying to federal investigators may or may not be a crime; but stupidity should be a crime. Regrettably, I do not think stupidity is at issue here.

Perhaps there may have been collusion: between the Clinton/Obama campaign and high-ranking, establishment players within June, 2016 Trump Campaign, to set-up then-candidate Trump.

Donald Jr. was, and in some ways remains, a political amateur.

Kushner, I do not know how to assess him, but he gives me reason to pause.

But, Paul Manafort is a seasoned old pro. HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER, rather than to encourage such a high-profile, pre-convention meeting, with such an untested source.

(Curious to know if Manafort knew of the existing Donald Jr. email chain, and if he approved of the brilliant exclamation "Love It!")

The candidate's son and namesake, the candidate's son-in-law and chief adviser, and his campaign manager (who along with Kushner prematurely left the meeting, and Donald Jr. holding the bag so to speak): a pretty hefty group of heavy-hitters just to hear the vague rantings of some unvetted Russian lawyer, who had over-stayed her "Probation Visa," and had connections within the Obama administration.

In perspective, the Nixonian equivalent of Julie and David Eisenhower, H.R. Haldeman, and John Mitchell taking such a meeting with a foreign operative cozy with Lyndon Johnson.

Did Manafort ever watch Godfather II, and is he familiar with the meaning of a low-level "buffer?" Anyone's eyebrows raised yet?

Manafort has been connected with the Republican establishment at least since the 1976 Ford campaign. I'm not directly defending Donald Jr., but, I just wonder if Manafort's establishment roots fed a possible Fifth Columnist tree?

[mark blazejewski]

And speaking of Lee, here's one, that's more on topic;

First, there were never any meetings with Russians, then, oops, there were meetings with Russians. Mike Flynn lied about meetings with Russians, then got fired, once the truth came out. Jeff Sessions lied about meetings with Russians, the recused himself from anything to do with Russia once the truth came out. Jared Kushner lied about meetings with Russians, now is under the gun after the truth came out about those lies on his application for his security clearance. Don Jr lied about meetings with Russians, now under the gun for possibly committing a criminal act, once the truth came out. Paul Manafort lied about meetings with Russians, now the truth is out.

Then Russia never tampered with the election, then, oops, yes they did. That is indisputable, although Russia tampering with the election in itself, really shouldn't be the issue it's made out to be. America has no leg to stand on when it comes to enforcing our will on other countries Government. However, looking for dirt on the American Secretary of State is possibly treasonous.

Then the Russian Government wasn't involved, until we found out Don Jr met with reportedly, yet still unconfirmed, reps from the Russian Government. right after the date this meeting happened, Trump announced that he would be "making a speech on Monday" that would show up Hillary's crimes. That speech never happened. Maybe because it turned out there was nothing from the Russians?

And this is just one topic in a litany of missteps, lies and cover ups.

Regardless, tell me again why I'm supposed to support this President?

HipKat, you were posting, as I was coincidentally writing. See above my friend.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Semantics, when it comes to ‘climate change’. We all seem to agree climate change is taking place, has taken place for eons and is cyclic.

To say ‘global warming’ has not taken place since the start of the Industrial Revolution, through the use of fossil fuels, with the planet now growing to over 6 billion people and the way mankind has polluted the plant defies all logic and scientific data. Yes, we could see a mini ice age period in the near future, but to say we are not experiencing global warming now is irrational – IMO.

The storm that we experienced today is no longer a 100-year event.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Aw, HipKat, you’re trying to draw me into this tomfoolery again. There is so much lying and BS going on on both sides it no longer is relevant to me as this witch-hunt by the left is going nowhere.

I don’t expect you to respect Trump anymore than I respected Obama and Clinton and now Shumer and Pelosi. In fact, as I post often: With rare exception all politicos suck!
Your outright hatred for Trump is obvious and falls in line with the left who go out of their way to subvert Trump’s agenda. Peaceful protests, absent violence are one thing. Bloody heads, F*** Trump signs, blowing up the Whitehouse, TV host mocking Trump, etc., are examples of displays that would never had been permitted in the Obama administration. And Obama’s administration was filled with miscues as well – across all 57 states.

Unfounded, mean-spirited political identity charges used to label Trump supporters or anyone who voted for him are still in vogue; used by the left under the guise of a party that labels itself the ‘tolerant, inclusive party’. Add to that the vacuous message spirited by one of the most inept, corrupt and disingenuous candidates to ever seek the presidential office. And still the left is floundering in trying to find a message that will appeal to those who don't buy into their World Order agenda.

[HipKat]

BTW.... Former Soviet Counter Intelligence Officer at Meeting With Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Lawyer

The Russian lawyer who met with the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counter intelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned.

[BorderBob]

Why does everyone give DJT Jr or DJT for that matter a pass when it comes to this meeting? That it is an "amateur" mistake? This is the master negotiator, the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal. Politics is a parallel to business, the strategies are the same, the techniques. Politics exist in business, the private and public sector. Amazon has a job title in counterintelligence. And government to government. You do not become a master negotiator or business leader and not understand politics. Unless, of course, your allegiance is to money and not to country of course.

We have known for a while now that obstruction of justice occurred. The lies, the Comey firing, all point to secrets and the zeal in the process of a cover up. What we never knew until recently was what that coverup was. It is coming together. The Russian government deliberately attacked democratic institutions in the U.S.A. for the purpose of damaging this country. I cannot say it began with the compromise of Donald Trump in 2013, but espionage is a "long game." Certainly starting in June of last year and ongoing, the Russian government has engaged in social engineering of internet media and hacking of USA democratic institutions and voting infrastructure. The Trump campaign, if not the President himself. participated and encouraged this effort.

It is not a "witch hunt." Evidence exists of money laundering, espionage (not treason), FEC violations. People will go to jail.

By the way, this could end in the same manner that the Cliniton email investigation did. There maybe no prosecutorial merit. Crimes likely occurred but may not be provable to the legal standard, or may not be worthy of prosecution due to other factors. The Kushner (and Sessions) for example. False statements on the SF-86 are rarely prosecuted. False statements typically result in loss of position due to loss of security clearance. If the job requires it, and the agency takes it away, you cannot continue in the position. No due process rights exist in a security clearance. As one pundit pointed out today, President Trump could just decide it doesn't matter that he lied. He keeps his clearance.

The FEC criminal violations seem pretty solid. But U.S. Attorneys are loath to prosecute cases that are not "slam dunks." Exceptions are untested new laws and cases where the defendant thinks he can beat the government, refusing plea agreements. It is why convicted persons get those strict sentences, extra punishment for going to trial.

Which leaves impeachment as the only accountability. It is a solely political process. It originates with the party in power in the House of Representatives and is tried in the Senate. By a two thirds vote for conviction. With an ideologue like Pence in the VP seat, how long before the GOP decides they have had enough? We are but a few points from two thirds of America not supporting POTUS.




Stay tuned...




b.b.

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE=BorderBob;1733393]

Why does everyone give DJT Jr or DJT for that matter a pass when it comes to this meeting? That it is an "amateur" mistake?

No one is giving anyone a "pass." I just think that the Trumps were not well served or advised by Manafort, who was certainly no amateur, and knew better. My take is that Manafort may have left the kid holding the bag.

If we are going to appeal to the cloak and dagger, I submit that Manafort's possible role in "collusion" with the Democrats is a far more likely than Trump being the "Mr. Big" of this entire Russia-collusion set-up script.

Bear in mind, Trump dumped Manafort. Apparently a very wise decision. The stated 2016 reason for the termination may have been incomplete. He should have kept Lewandowski and teamed him up with Conway as the campaign progressed, IMHO.

We have known for a while now that obstruction of justice occurred.

That is a premature rush to judgment.

The lies, the Comey firing, all point to secrets and the zeal in the process of a cover up

.

I think Comey ought to disinfect his less-than clean hands.

What we never knew until recently was what that coverup was.

What exactly are they covering up?

The meeting was not illegal.

Collusion, or attempted collusion? That is not illegal (But I think it should be.)

The stupidity of a public relations disaster meeting?

Yep, and that is a totally unnecessary cover-up. Bob, the Trump White House has not learned their Watergate Lessons 101. Put in all out there---everything, and do so before one is put into a reactive position. In other words, do it before the media does. This apparent drip, drip strategy does not appear to have served Trump well.

]It is coming together.

I guess if the left plotted a theme to convey the appearance of Trump-Russia collusion, the authors of the fiction will inevitably attempt to twist all disparate elements of meetings, schedules, events, comments, inferences, ect. into a plausible story line. No surprise there. That only shows skill at creative theme writing, not an evidence-based criminal indictment.

The Trump campaign, if not the President himself. participated and encouraged this effort.

It is not a "witch hunt.

"

Yep. Thanks to Manafort's stupidity or complicity, and a subsequent White House decision to pursue a timid, reactive strategy, the left has just enough to chew on to derail the Trump agenda, and throw the country under a bus.

With an ideologue like Pence in the VP seat, how long before the GOP decides they have had enough?

Let's see how the First Season's finale plays-out, before you start writing the fanciful scripts for Season Two.

Stay tuned...

To CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC? No thanks.

[mark blazejewski]

After listening to Michael Caputo and the news of another meeting participant, I believe a set-up theory makes more and more sense. I simply do not understand Manafort's thinking in handling this source and the potential information.

To prudently avoid direct Trump campaign contact, and any potential set-up and appearance of wrong doing, why didn't Manafort refer the Russian source over to a friendly media surrogate, like Laura Inghram? She is a lawyer, proficient in Russian, and a journalist.

Opposition research information is useless unless the source is credible, the information accurate, and then, publicly disseminated.

Inghram would have vetted the credibility of the source, verified and tested the information, then disseminated that information to a mass audience. More importantly, she would have served as a direct contact "safety wall" between the Trump campaign and the source. The only thing the Trump campaign had to do was to react to a publicly broadcast news story.

Caputo is correct. "This smells like fish."

[HipKat]

The base outrage which should be shared by everyone, no matter what political party they support is simple; it's RUSSIA!!! Russia is our political enemy. Putin is our enemy. End of story. Everything else is window dressing. No one should be giving a pass to people who deal with Russia when it comes to influence on our political system. This isn't Canada we're dealing with. It's the foundation of every Government we have problems with because Russia supports them, because Russia is our enemy. Period.

And just to be snide, I'll finish with the 4 words every Republican hates to hear/read; "If it was Obama...."

[mark blazejewski]

And just to be snide, I'll finish with the 4 words every Republican hates to hear/read; "If it was Obama...."

I'll finish the quote for you. Obama would say: "Tell Vlad that this is my last election. After the election, I'll have more flexibility" or words to that effect.

Does that comment "RE-SET" all of this crap?

Dosvedanya!