I saw Jesus in my Shredded Wheat this morning, though it wasn't obviously an affirmation of Trump.
Luckily despite my and my bowl of cereal's possible reservations of Trump he's turning me around by really getting behind science with his latest appointment to the EPA
I saw Jesus in my Shredded Wheat this morning, though it wasn't obviously an affirmation of Trump.
Luckily despite my and my bowl of cereal's possible reservations of Trump he's turning me around by really getting behind science with his latest appointment to the EPA
I saw Jesus in my Shredded Wheat this morning, though it wasn't obviously an affirmation of Trump.
Luckily despite my and my bowl of cereal's possible reservations of Trump he's turning me around by really getting behind science with his latest appointment to the EPA
Oh gods. Do I want to hear this?
Puja
My seeing the devine in cereal and milk, or Trump's latest climate change denier taking serious office in the face of any sensible rationale?
Digby wrote:
I saw Jesus in my Shredded Wheat this morning, though it wasn't obviously an affirmation of Trump.
Luckily despite my and my bowl of cereal's possible reservations of Trump he's turning me around by really getting behind science with his latest appointment to the EPA
Oh gods. Do I want to hear this?
Puja
My seeing the devine in cereal and milk, or Trump's latest climate change denier taking serious office in the face of any sensible rationale?
In partial defence of Trump his latest appointment,John Christy, is perhaps better known as a climate change skeptic than denier, and he is a scientist. Specifically he contends the impact of greenhouse gases on climate is vastly overstated in the models of just about anyone but him
I'm sure team Trump landed on one of the few scientists who in broad terms could be taken as endorsing pollution, or accepting certain economic activities as having more benefit than arresting our output of greenhouse gases, by accident. In no way will they have ignored the CVs of the greater grouping of possible advisors to the EPA to seek the oddball
Digby wrote:In partial defence of Trump his latest appointment,John Christy, is perhaps better known as a climate change skeptic than denier, and he is a scientist. Specifically he contends the impact of greenhouse gases on climate is vastly overstated in the models of just about anyone but him
I'm sure team Trump landed on one of the few scientists who in broad terms could be taken as endorsing pollution, or accepting certain economic activities as having more benefit than arresting our output of greenhouse gases, by accident. In no way will they have ignored the CVs of the greater grouping of possible advisors to the EPA to seek the oddball
It's painful to watch the jebus-addled gun show cracker crowd painfully initiate a slow wide turn as the USS Illiterate Businessman is forced to avoid the reef of scientific consensus.
Digby wrote:In partial defence of Trump his latest appointment,John Christy, is perhaps better known as a climate change skeptic than denier, and he is a scientist. Specifically he contends the impact of greenhouse gases on climate is vastly overstated in the models of just about anyone but him
I'm sure team Trump landed on one of the few scientists who in broad terms could be taken as endorsing pollution, or accepting certain economic activities as having more benefit than arresting our output of greenhouse gases, by accident. In no way will they have ignored the CVs of the greater grouping of possible advisors to the EPA to seek the oddball
It's painful to watch the jebus-addled gun show cracker crowd painfully initiate a slow wide turn as the USS Illiterate Businessman is forced to avoid the reef of scientific consensus.
It's even odder that the fields of battle.whether the likes of climate change or vaccinations, are in areas where science rather unusually does seem to have settled on a consensus. Absent of all else it'd have guessed people would pick fights where there was scope to pick a fight, but it seems howling at the moon is actually very persuasive, indeed the louder one howls the more trustworthy many view them
Digby wrote:In partial defence of Trump his latest appointment,John Christy, is perhaps better known as a climate change skeptic than denier, and he is a scientist. Specifically he contends the impact of greenhouse gases on climate is vastly overstated in the models of just about anyone but him
I'm sure team Trump landed on one of the few scientists who in broad terms could be taken as endorsing pollution, or accepting certain economic activities as having more benefit than arresting our output of greenhouse gases, by accident. In no way will they have ignored the CVs of the greater grouping of possible advisors to the EPA to seek the oddball
It's painful to watch the jebus-addled gun show cracker crowd painfully initiate a slow wide turn as the USS Illiterate Businessman is forced to avoid the reef of scientific consensus.
It's even odder that the fields of battle.whether the likes of climate change or vaccinations, are in areas where science rather unusually does seem to have settled on a consensus. Absent of all else it'd have guessed people would pick fights where there was scope to pick a fight, but it seems howling at the moon is actually very persuasive, indeed the louder one howls the more trustworthy many view them
It's hard to make people back something if there are two reasonable sides arguing - it's much easier to get them passionate if you can convince them that people are trying to hide the truth and that they are special for seein past the lies. Apart from anything else, any contradictory facts can be brushed off as "part of the establishment lies". Or "Project Fear" if you will.
CBS’s Margaret Brennan asked Trump about this contradiction in the interview (telegraphing the Syria withdawal via social media after a history of criticizing the previous administration for making military plans known before the event), pointing out that “you’re telegraphing your retreat” from Syria. Here’s Trump’s full answer to Brennan’s challenge:
"I’m not telegraphing anything. No, no, no. There’s a difference. When President Obama pulled out of Iraq in theory we had Iraq. In other words, we had Iraq. We never had Syria because President Obama never wanted to violate the red line in the sand. So we never had Syria. I was the one that actually violated the red line when I hit Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles, if you remember. But President Obama chose not to do that. When he chose not to do that, he showed tremendous weakness. But we didn’t have Syria whereas we had Iraq. So when he did what he did in Iraq, which was a mistake. Being in Iraq was a mistake. Okay. Being in Iraq — it was a big mistake to go — one of the greatest mistakes going into the Middle East that our country has ever made. One of the greatest mistakes that we’ve ever made."
The President of the United States ladies and gentlemen. So much fuck in one statement. There seems to some confusion what the metaphor "a line in the sand" actually means. Tango One Bedpan Foxtrot appears not to know which side of it he is on.There also seems an issue with knowledge of exactly who was in charge when the Iraq debacle was initiated.
I feel that the recent focus on Venezuela could not be in better hands.
morepork wrote:CBS’s Margaret Brennan asked Trump about this contradiction in the interview (telegraphing the Syria withdawal via social media after a history of criticizing the previous administration for making military plans known before the event), pointing out that “you’re telegraphing your retreat” from Syria. Here’s Trump’s full answer to Brennan’s challenge:
"I’m not telegraphing anything. No, no, no. There’s a difference. When President Obama pulled out of Iraq in theory we had Iraq. In other words, we had Iraq. We never had Syria because President Obama never wanted to violate the red line in the sand. So we never had Syria. I was the one that actually violated the red line when I hit Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles, if you remember. But President Obama chose not to do that. When he chose not to do that, he showed tremendous weakness. But we didn’t have Syria whereas we had Iraq. So when he did what he did in Iraq, which was a mistake. Being in Iraq was a mistake. Okay. Being in Iraq — it was a big mistake to go — one of the greatest mistakes going into the Middle East that our country has ever made. One of the greatest mistakes that we’ve ever made."
The President of the United States ladies and gentlemen. So much fuck in one statement. There seems to some confusion what the metaphor "a line in the sand" actually means. Tango One Bedpan Foxtrot appears not to know which side of it he is on.There also seems an issue with knowledge of exactly who was in charge when the Iraq debacle was initiated.
I feel that the recent focus on Venezuela could not be in better hands.
I remember hearing a thing about Bowie (I think) getting his lyrics by cutting up newspapers and jumbling all the words around. It often makes me think of that when I hear Trump speak.
"He resigned because I asked him to resign. He resigned because I was very nice to him. But I gave him big budgets, and he didn’t do well in Afghanistan. I was not happy with the job he was doing in Afghanistan. And, if you look at Syria, what’s happened — I went to Iraq recently. If you look at Syria, what’s happened in Syria in the last few weeks, you would see that things are going down that were not going down, that things are happening that are very good. So, I was not happy with him, but I wish him well."
Why the fuck would you let him out without a nanny?
In other news, a Trump-packed court has ruled that bans on gay conversion therapy, or brainwashing and abuse of minors as it should more properly be know, is unlawful because it violates the conversion "therapists" right to free speech.
Next up, a bunch of hitmen to bring a case to the courts clsiming that the murder laws are government unfairly impinging on their ability to do their jobs.
That's Pence. He has been wanching himself into rapture trying to stack courts with religious weirdos. They want to waive human rights for a perceived slight to a civil right. That's some classy logic right there. Academics and physicians really need to step up here and fill the void that seems to exist between some judicial ears.
Having heard we'd have been at war without Donald I'm pleased to say he's convinced me, build the wall, ideally having been inspired by This is Spinal Tap
So just to be clear when it comes to the economy ripping up trade deals isn't problematic, nor imposing tariffs which hurts producers and manufacturers and also undermines improvements to infrastructure, intentionally exploding the deficit is also of no consequence, but to investigate Trump for being a criminal, well that would ruin the economy.
We can only be grateful he finds the time to illuminate us mere mortals
Trump thanks fire service for arranging it so 10000 can fit into an 8000 capacity arena for his latest wankfest, fire service confirms 6500 attendance as per actual regs
And there were a good number outside, he didn't even need to lie to make the point he wanted to
Turns out he wanted to say it to claim he'd drawn a bigger crowd than Beto, which he did probably if one counts those outside the arena Trump spoke at. But feck me he's got issues around being validated
