Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
I was just looking at my Tarot cards.......just happened to notice....
the end is near!
well actually I heard it on CBS this morning...local radio at lunch...... so I tuned into CNN "the most trusted name in News".... and they confirmed it!
the end is near!
well actually I heard it on CBS this morning...local radio at lunch...... so I tuned into CNN "the most trusted name in News".... and they confirmed it!
Last edited:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Why the argument against the Paris Agreement is wrong
The primary argument for pulling out of the #ParisAgreement is that it’s a job killer. Here’s a few facts.
1.) The fastest growing job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is in the Wind industry. We should be training people for these jobs.
2.) Combined, the entire renewable energy industry creates jobs at a rate 12x that of the REST OF the U.S economy.
3.) The average price per kwh in the US is 12 cents, renewable energy, specifically hybrid Wind/Solar projects produce energy at a rate around 4.4 cents per kwh.
4.) A majority of those hybrid projects are built in rural environments bringing jobs and tax revenue to communities in need of economic development.
I could go on, but the reality is that of all the things this president threatened, there are two that keep me up at night. The complete disregard of the complexity associated with healthcare and climate. These are issues that truly are life and death.
This … matters people. Elections … matter.
Finally, examine this screen shot from the Department of Energy’s January 2017 report on energy and employment.
You decide which energy technology is currently employing more Americans and is the the future of jobs in America.
No matter what Washington does, whether we truly can negotiate a new deal as the President announces he intends to do, is irrelevant.
The momentum for renewable energy is blazing forward. It’s now up to us to help keep moving forward.
D
Deleted125623
Guest
The 97% consensus on global warming
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level...
Basic
Intermediate
Advanced
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:
Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=82
Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.
Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study:
Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
Vision Prize
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields
As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Vision Prize answers and expected distribution to the question "What influence has human activity had on global average ocean temperatures in the last 250 years?"
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level...
Basic
Advanced That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:
Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=82
Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.
Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study:
Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
Vision Prize
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields
As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Vision Prize answers and expected distribution to the question "What influence has human activity had on global average ocean temperatures in the last 250 years?"
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Physics
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
- British Antarctic Survey
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Environmental Protection Agency
- European Geosciences Union
- European Physical Society
- Federation of American Scientists
- Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
- Geological Society of America
- Geological Society of London
- International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Royal Meteorological Society
- Royal Society of the UK
13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academie des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
- African Academy of Sciences
- Cameroon Academy of Sciences
- Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Kenya National Academy of Sciences
- Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
- Nigerian Academy of Sciences
- l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Uganda National Academy of Sciences
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Tanzania Academy of Sciences
- Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
- Zambia Academy of Sciences
- Sudan Academy of Sciences
D
Deleted125623
Guest
What Trump Got Totally WRONG About The Paris Climate Agreement (VIDEO)
By Ted Millar on June 5, 2017
Categories: Economy, Environment, Trump
FacebookTwitterSubscribeRedditStumbleuponPinterest
The magnitude of what President Donald Trump got wrong Thursday when he announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords will take several years to truly feel as our businesses lag behind other nations’, our economy flags, and climate change’s effects intensify.
But we’re talking about the Trump administration, where disinformation — or “alternative facts” — are the compass steering the ship toward Scylla and Charybdis.
According to a piece in Vox, the most telling thing President Trump said to justify his decision to pull out of the Paris accords wasn’t about climate change, but about the speedy advance of a non-existent tax bill in the United States Congress.
On Thursday, Trump tweeted:
@POTUS: “Our tax bill is moving along in Congress and I believe it’s doing very well.” pic.twitter.com/3ydxrv7cbN
However, no tax bill has been introduced to the US House of Representatives, the Senate, nor has the White House released a tax plan detailed enough to allow experts to assess its economic or fiscal impact.
Last week, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney explained that what most experts interpreted as a $2 trillion accounting mistake in the White House budget was, in fact, deliberate.
About it, Mulvaney said:
“It is and was too early to make any assumptions about what the final tax bill looks like.”
Trump also couched several assertions in conspiracy theories and flat-out lies.
He claimed:
“The world went crazy when the Paris agreement was signed. They went wild. This was because it placed America at a serious economic disadvantage.”
According to IFL Science, Trump is essentially basing this monumental decision on the assumption the world is conspiring to use the Paris accord to steal America’s money, not put regulations in place to mitigate man-made climate change. The world went crazy because we — the most powerful nation on the ailing planet — signed on to the most comprehensive multi-national climate accord in history, allowing us to help lead the world away from fossil fuels.
This conforms to another claim Trump made:
“This agreement is less about the climate and more countries gaining a financial advantage to the United States.”
The irony here is that for someone who talks a good game about the “American worker” and “bringing jobs back,” in one fell swoop he handed the other Paris accord signatories a financial advantage over us. They will be the ones producing new jobs, increasing efficiency, and saving money on climate change prevention measures. America will be footing a “yuuuge” bill attempting to prop up the coal industry.
Another claim Trump made:
“China can do whatever they want. They can build coal plants, and we can’t.”
Yeah, we can. The Paris Climate Accord is a non-binding agreement. It merely sets targets and expectations. We can still build coal plants in or out of the deal. China, however, is voluntarily making the switch to renewable energy.
Then there’s what businessman Trump said about “renegotiating:”
“So we’re getting out, but we’ll start to negotiate, to see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can that’s great, if we can’t that’s fine.”
IFL Science likens this to someone saying:
“I’m starving. If I get food, great. If not, who cares.”
We’re out. We don’t renegotiate something we just refused to be a part of.
Most experts are unanimous in the assessment that Trump’s decision is a mistake for the American economy and diplomacy. Our withdrawal also makes other countries’ endeavors to address climate change more challenging.
Featured image from YouTube video.
By Ted Millar on June 5, 2017
Categories: Economy, Environment, Trump
FacebookTwitterSubscribeRedditStumbleuponPinterest
The magnitude of what President Donald Trump got wrong Thursday when he announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords will take several years to truly feel as our businesses lag behind other nations’, our economy flags, and climate change’s effects intensify.
But we’re talking about the Trump administration, where disinformation — or “alternative facts” — are the compass steering the ship toward Scylla and Charybdis.
According to a piece in Vox, the most telling thing President Trump said to justify his decision to pull out of the Paris accords wasn’t about climate change, but about the speedy advance of a non-existent tax bill in the United States Congress.
On Thursday, Trump tweeted:
@POTUS: “Our tax bill is moving along in Congress and I believe it’s doing very well.” pic.twitter.com/3ydxrv7cbN
However, no tax bill has been introduced to the US House of Representatives, the Senate, nor has the White House released a tax plan detailed enough to allow experts to assess its economic or fiscal impact.
Last week, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney explained that what most experts interpreted as a $2 trillion accounting mistake in the White House budget was, in fact, deliberate.
About it, Mulvaney said:
“It is and was too early to make any assumptions about what the final tax bill looks like.”
Trump also couched several assertions in conspiracy theories and flat-out lies.
He claimed:
“The world went crazy when the Paris agreement was signed. They went wild. This was because it placed America at a serious economic disadvantage.”
According to IFL Science, Trump is essentially basing this monumental decision on the assumption the world is conspiring to use the Paris accord to steal America’s money, not put regulations in place to mitigate man-made climate change. The world went crazy because we — the most powerful nation on the ailing planet — signed on to the most comprehensive multi-national climate accord in history, allowing us to help lead the world away from fossil fuels.
This conforms to another claim Trump made:
“This agreement is less about the climate and more countries gaining a financial advantage to the United States.”
The irony here is that for someone who talks a good game about the “American worker” and “bringing jobs back,” in one fell swoop he handed the other Paris accord signatories a financial advantage over us. They will be the ones producing new jobs, increasing efficiency, and saving money on climate change prevention measures. America will be footing a “yuuuge” bill attempting to prop up the coal industry.
Another claim Trump made:
“China can do whatever they want. They can build coal plants, and we can’t.”
Yeah, we can. The Paris Climate Accord is a non-binding agreement. It merely sets targets and expectations. We can still build coal plants in or out of the deal. China, however, is voluntarily making the switch to renewable energy.
Then there’s what businessman Trump said about “renegotiating:”
“So we’re getting out, but we’ll start to negotiate, to see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can that’s great, if we can’t that’s fine.”
IFL Science likens this to someone saying:
“I’m starving. If I get food, great. If not, who cares.”
We’re out. We don’t renegotiate something we just refused to be a part of.
Most experts are unanimous in the assessment that Trump’s decision is a mistake for the American economy and diplomacy. Our withdrawal also makes other countries’ endeavors to address climate change more challenging.
Featured image from YouTube video.
While I agree that we need to clean up our pollution, lower carbon emissions, invest in alternative energy, and greatly reduce fossil fuels. I think the extremist are blowing climate change way out of proportion. The climate has been changing since before human - we are not the primary cause. Smoke and mirrors. Yes, our pollution has an effect, everything has a cause and effect, but it's not the end of the world and we are not going to suddenly be covered in water.
There is plenty of info from both sides, the truth is someplace in the middle.
There is plenty of info from both sides, the truth is someplace in the middle.
I know I am anti-trump and etc.... BUT I really think his stance on climate change... NATO.... economy.... all is part of Russia's plan to hurt America and break us away from our allies!
thanks to "jr." collusion is now a given....... the question now is treason!
thanks to "jr." collusion is now a given....... the question now is treason!
did you read where Trump has ties to 44 different Russian biz people.... all under investigation for corruption?
don't suppose he made some promise's do you?
and the WH did not take kindly to the "treason" question.... you know Trump is boiling about now..... won't be long and family will start turning on each other!
already someone has mentioned dumping Jr to save the ******* in law!
something else.... here we are what 2 years later and still talking emails..... NOT Clintons.... but trumps!
don't suppose he made some promise's do you?
and the WH did not take kindly to the "treason" question.... you know Trump is boiling about now..... won't be long and family will start turning on each other!
already someone has mentioned dumping Jr to save the ******* in law!
something else.... here we are what 2 years later and still talking emails..... NOT Clintons.... but trumps!
Last edited:
....Already happened ... the e-mail Trump Jr had showed cc's to Jared & C Manaford, who had already denied any meetings ... looks like brotherNLaw Jared might spend a couple years in prison. I'm sure Junior's sister isn't too happy about it. ALL of them have lawyered UP now.
And STILL .... the Big Cheese himself, Trump, keeps denying everything.
Last edited:
Nothing going to happen to him... YET!
problem is among congressional republicans he has an 86% approval rating..... they love the ******* this asshole is pulling!
BUT they will soon change their mind when it looks like it might cost them in elections.... until then they will stick with him and Russia
just a little note.... in this die hard redneck state.... had 2 special elections here this week...... both seats were vacated by republicans.... (resigned) were filled by democrats
what these republicans are forgetting.... they really are the minority!
the ONLY reason they get anywhere in National elections ..... one voter apathy and the Dems just don't get off their ass and vote.... the other is people like the "Trumpies".... something didn't go their way so they vote republican thinking it will put things their way (stupidity)!
Trump has woke up those with voter apathy!... as for the others it will take time for some of those programs to hit home.... when it does.... naturally it will take a while to repair all the ******* Trump has done. so they aren't going to be happy either
Last edited:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
And in further breaking news,
The British Army demonstrated how they can build the Mexican wall, cheaper, quicker and all without leaving their cab.
The British Army demonstrated how they can build the Mexican wall, cheaper, quicker and all without leaving their cab.
Only 2 people voted against more sanctions in Russia...... but Trump is pushing to "lighten up" on those sanctions.... and now they can't seem to get together on what to do to Russia.... party over country!
Trumps friends in his home state of Russia are counting on him to get those sanctions lifted.... AND they want those 2 compounds back that Obama took away from them........ so they can get their spy equipment set up before the next election!
and Trump sure is pushing hard to do away with health care.... doesn't care how bad it is.... he is just determined to do away with anything Obama did.... but a lot of the right are taking heat at home about it!
well except people like Ryan and McConnell.... they didn't hold any town hall meetings.... said to much fighting..
Trumps friends in his home state of Russia are counting on him to get those sanctions lifted.... AND they want those 2 compounds back that Obama took away from them........ so they can get their spy equipment set up before the next election!
and Trump sure is pushing hard to do away with health care.... doesn't care how bad it is.... he is just determined to do away with anything Obama did.... but a lot of the right are taking heat at home about it!
well except people like Ryan and McConnell.... they didn't hold any town hall meetings.... said to much fighting..
Emails show Trump Jr. embraced help said to be from Kremlin
CHAD DAY and ERIC TUCKER,Associated Press 10 hours ago .
Donald Trump's eldest ******* revealed Tuesday that he was eager to hear damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, disclosing a series of emails that marked the clearest sign to date that Trump's campaign was willing to consider election help from a longtime U.S. adversary.
The email exchange posted to Twitter by Donald Trump Jr. showed him conversing with a music publicist who wanted him to meet with a "Russian government attorney" who supposedly had dirt on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The messages reveal that Trump Jr. was told the Russian government had information that could "incriminate" Clinton and her dealings with Russia.
"I love it," Trump Jr. said in one email response.
As the emails reverberated across the political world, Trump Jr. defended his actions in an interview with Fox News, blaming the decision to take the meeting on the "million miles per hour" pace of a presidential campaign and his suspicion that the lawyer might have information about "underreported" scandals involving Clinton. Trump Jr. said the meeting "really went nowhere" and that he never told his ******* about it because there was "nothing to tell."
"In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently," Trump Jr. said.
Democrats in Congress voiced outrage and insisted the messages showed clear collusion, with California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, declaring that "all of the campaign's previous denials obviously now have to be viewed in a different context."
Yet Republicans — who stand the most to lose politically from Trump's Russia ordeal — did not join in the condemnation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was confident Senate investigators would "get to the bottom of whatever happened." And Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican on the intelligence committee, cautioned that the emails were "only part of the picture."
Trump Jr., who was deeply involved in his *******'s presidential campaign, portrayed his decision to release the emails as an effort "to be totally transparent." In fact, they had already been obtained by The New York Times.
Hours after the ******* posted the emails, the ******* rose to his defense.
"My ******* is a high quality person and I applaud his transparency," the president said in a statement read to reporters by White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Although Sanders declined to answer questions about the emails, she stood by the White House's longstanding insistence that no one in Trump's campaign colluded to influence the election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jr-admits-wanted-clinton-russian-073431363--politics.html
CHAD DAY and ERIC TUCKER,Associated Press 10 hours ago .
Donald Trump's eldest ******* revealed Tuesday that he was eager to hear damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, disclosing a series of emails that marked the clearest sign to date that Trump's campaign was willing to consider election help from a longtime U.S. adversary.
The email exchange posted to Twitter by Donald Trump Jr. showed him conversing with a music publicist who wanted him to meet with a "Russian government attorney" who supposedly had dirt on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The messages reveal that Trump Jr. was told the Russian government had information that could "incriminate" Clinton and her dealings with Russia.
"I love it," Trump Jr. said in one email response.
As the emails reverberated across the political world, Trump Jr. defended his actions in an interview with Fox News, blaming the decision to take the meeting on the "million miles per hour" pace of a presidential campaign and his suspicion that the lawyer might have information about "underreported" scandals involving Clinton. Trump Jr. said the meeting "really went nowhere" and that he never told his ******* about it because there was "nothing to tell."
"In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently," Trump Jr. said.
Democrats in Congress voiced outrage and insisted the messages showed clear collusion, with California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, declaring that "all of the campaign's previous denials obviously now have to be viewed in a different context."
Yet Republicans — who stand the most to lose politically from Trump's Russia ordeal — did not join in the condemnation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was confident Senate investigators would "get to the bottom of whatever happened." And Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican on the intelligence committee, cautioned that the emails were "only part of the picture."
Trump Jr., who was deeply involved in his *******'s presidential campaign, portrayed his decision to release the emails as an effort "to be totally transparent." In fact, they had already been obtained by The New York Times.
Hours after the ******* posted the emails, the ******* rose to his defense.
"My ******* is a high quality person and I applaud his transparency," the president said in a statement read to reporters by White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Although Sanders declined to answer questions about the emails, she stood by the White House's longstanding insistence that no one in Trump's campaign colluded to influence the election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jr-admits-wanted-clinton-russian-073431363--politics.html
Congressional GOP shrugs off latest Trump-Russia twist
MARY CLARE JALONICK and ERICA WERNER,Associated Press 9 hours ago .
Emails released by President Donald Trump's eldest ******* Tuesday detailing communications with Russians provoked a collective shrug from many Republicans in Congress.
Scant new concern was evident from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on down, despite the revelation of an email chain showing that Trump's ******* eagerly accepted help from what was described to him as a Russian government effort to aid his *******'s campaign.
"The investigation in the Senate's being handled by the Intelligence Committee, and I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of whatever may have happened," McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters asking about his views on the matter.
McConnell gave similar responses when asked whether he still trusts the president on Russia issues, and whether he himself regrets not taking action after getting briefed last fall, along with other high-level House and Senate lawmakers of both parties, about Russia's attempted meddling in the U.S. election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congress...t-trump-russia-twist-061007012--politics.html
MARY CLARE JALONICK and ERICA WERNER,Associated Press 9 hours ago .
Emails released by President Donald Trump's eldest ******* Tuesday detailing communications with Russians provoked a collective shrug from many Republicans in Congress.
Scant new concern was evident from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on down, despite the revelation of an email chain showing that Trump's ******* eagerly accepted help from what was described to him as a Russian government effort to aid his *******'s campaign.
"The investigation in the Senate's being handled by the Intelligence Committee, and I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of whatever may have happened," McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters asking about his views on the matter.
McConnell gave similar responses when asked whether he still trusts the president on Russia issues, and whether he himself regrets not taking action after getting briefed last fall, along with other high-level House and Senate lawmakers of both parties, about Russia's attempted meddling in the U.S. election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congress...t-trump-russia-twist-061007012--politics.html
again.... party over country!
Similar threads
