Trump trying to block the release of Jack Smith's report

11 January 2025, 19:42

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:

Policy debate is all we have left and must be engaged. To do less is to surrender the government. To do more is to violate the Constitution.

I would not violate the Constitution even if I thought it needed saving.

I MUST agree with you LHeym. To do otherwise would be hypocritical because doing otherwise would be advocating the end justifies the means. That's what GOPers are doing, and they are spinning it with the narrative that democrats did it first so we are justified reciprocating.

I don't think policy debate is worth much given the current situation. But the least we can do on a national scale is not let them pull us down to their level.

It may be a rationalization on my part, but I think Smith's report ought to be released to the public, and I also think it doesn't violate the constitution, nor is lawfare. If not released, IMO it is surrender to corruption and lies.

And as a simile, like a spinning gyroscope knocked off center, wobbling, it will center itself if not knocked in the other direction or broken.

However, I think the following satire is close to the truth.

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

https://theonion.com/america-defeats-america/

Published: November 6, 2024

WASHINGTON—In a historic outcome that promised to halt the rising scourge of the United States in its tracks, America has defeated America at the ballot box, sources confirmed Wednesday. “After 248 years of tense and often divisive conflict, we can finally say, as of this morning, that the nation turned out at the polls and delivered a decisive blow to the nation,” said electoral analyst Kurt Howitzer, describing the results as a remarkable triumph of the democratic experiment over democracy. “It’s a stunning turn of events. But it really shows the power of one citizenry to come together and prevail over themselves. The message was loud and clear: We are sick and tired of our country, and we want it to end.” At press time, millions of emotional Americans had reportedly gathered on the National Mall in an impromptu celebration of their resounding victory over the forces of liberty and equality.

*************
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” George Orwell, 1984
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Degenerate 1:1
1 Then Trump said, "Let Us re-make a Nation in MY Image, after My likeness, to rule over everything in the Nation, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it".

Degenerate 1:2
2 Then Trump said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay on your behalf."

Degenerate 1:3
3 "My Kingdom come, My will be done."

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

O.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr.

“When the rich rob the poor, it's called business ... When the poor fight back, it's called violence.” - Mark Twain

"Be careful. When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health." - Albert Camus

11 January 2025, 21:07

LHeym500

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
The political path forward is to address policy: What, Why, Effect, and let the vote be cast and the debate on that issue end save the courts.

If you're waiting for Trump and his cult followers to suddenly support reasonable policies that others can accept, don't hold your breath.

I do not on the whole which is why we must engage in the debate on those policies. To do less is to surrender the government.

11 January 2025, 21:14

Magine Enigam

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...abc54e0c9a3658&ei=75

'Enough capitulation': Ex-Republican appalled to see Democrats 'bordering on servility'
Story by Brad Reed • 1d • 2 min read

Former Republican Mona Charen is finding herself feeling appalled by the current state of the Democratic Party, which is making noises about "working with" President-elect Donald Trump even as he muses about potentially starting a war with Denmark.

In her latest column at The Bulwark, Charen begins by declaring Democrats have already done "enough capitulation" and have behaved with an "acquiescence bordering on servility."

...

"Democrats are in a haze," she charges. "Instead of behaving like the loyal opposition—loyal, that is, to the Constitution — they’re behaving like a junior partner to the Republicans, withholding judgment on some of the wilder Trump cabinet nominees, and focusing on areas in which the two parties can work together rather than the ones on which they differ. The papers are filled with chirpy articles about how Trump can really make a difference on housing policy, or public health, or our energy future."

She then recommends that the party turn its ire toward X owner Elon Musk, who is wielding massive influence over American politics despite having received precisely zero votes in any election.

"Not content with threatening to primary any Republican who dares assert independence from Trump, Musk has gone abroad seeking fascist-adjacent leaders to support," she writes. "The man Trump has entrusted with vast influence has endorsed the German AfD, a Russia-philic, extremist right-wing party that cannot seem to stop using racist and antisemitic slogans; agitated against the British government by spreading lies, promoted the cause of right- wing provocateur Tommy Robinson; and announced, as if ex cathedra, that Nigel Farage is no longer acceptable as the leader of the Reform UK."

She concludes by demanding Democrats stop pretending that they want to find common ground with Trump when he has made clear that his second term will be one bent on destruction and revenge.

11 January 2025, 21:20

Magine Enigam

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...716d46b70d9f4d9&ei=8

Key Trump Cabinet nominee could be implicated in final Jack Smith report: legal expert
Story by Tom Boggioni • 2h • 2 min read

During an appearance on MSNBC's The Weekend," a former FBI general counsel urged the release of special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigation into Donald Trump stealing government documents and suggested it could contain "interesting details" that could have a bearing on one of his Cabinet picks.

Speaking with the hosts, Andrew Weissmann explained that he was interested in seeing what Smith found which could have a bearing on the nomination of Kash Patel to be the next FBI director.

"Basically on Monday, unless things change, the temporary stay that Judge [Aileen] Cannon issued is over," he began. "She shouldn't have even issued that with respect to either part of the report, but certainly the January 6th part is not a case that's in front of her."

"So by Monday, unless things change, we should see that report related to the January 6th investigation, and there could be interesting new details in that report," he continued. "With respect to the Mar-a-Lago part, the classified document part, I think that is something really worth keeping our eye on because there could be lots of information in there, not just about Donald Trump and why he did what he did, but also about Kash Patel, who is reported to have gone to the grand jury and has said that he was there when Donald Trump allegedly declassified everything."

11 January 2025, 23:44

crbutler

You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

12 January 2025, 01:37

RolandtheHeadless

quote:
Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately.

Instead of behaving like Putin and invading a neighbor, how about we build a military base there, like we do in Japan and S. Korea, other places where we have vital interests?

12 January 2025, 01:46

Jefffive

Under DOJ regulations any Special Counsel is required to submit a final report to the Attorney General outlining the evidence gathered and justifying the decisions made regarding prosecutions or the lack thereof, which is traditionally released publicly.

It is very interesting that our Republican brethren had no objection to such a report on the investigation of Joe Biden being released, only their Orange God who must be protected from the consequences of his actions.

Almost like they are wholly hypocritical...

12 January 2025, 01:49

Jefffive

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

You do realize that taking territory from another Country by force violates literally everything this Country has claimed to stand for, Federal Law and various treaties with the status of Constitutional Provisions, don't you?

12 January 2025, 02:07

M.Shy

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

Problem with any foreign wars Doc, is, the moment we kill single civilian, we loose in the end
Unfortunately that is reality

12 January 2025, 02:31

LHeym500

The problem is I need more then your if all Panama is is some old red meat that is past rotten.

That is my position. I oppose all this take Canada, take Greenland, take Mexico foolishness.

In fact, Trump sounds like Putin acts. I oppose Russia territorial expansion.

I suggest you go listen to Nixon’s interview on the Russians and how we were naive in WWII.

I do not like Nixon, but when he is right he is right.

I reject Easter’s politics and find his arguments lacking and rotted w hypocrisy.

12 January 2025, 03:06

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately.

Instead of behaving like Putin and invading a neighbor, how about we build a military base there, like we do in Japan and S. Korea, other places where we have vital interests?

because we are prohibited to do so by treaty -- i know, i know, you are shy to use anything like a search engine to backup your position -- all this, from landlocked Idaho -- good lord, headless, you are beginning to look as underinformed as fifi

12 January 2025, 03:09

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

You do realize that taking territory from another Country by force violates literally everything this Country has claimed to stand for, Federal Law and various treaties with the status of Constitutional Provisions, don't you?

Hey, Fifi -- have you head of puerto rico? or any other of the US territories? even the phillipines (at one point) --- pooor thing

quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
Under DOJ regulations any Special Counsel is required to submit a final report to the Attorney General outlining the evidence gathered and justifying the decisions made regarding prosecutions or the lack thereof, which is traditionally released publicly.

It is very interesting that our Republican brethren had no objection to such a report on the investigation of Joe Biden being released, only their Orange God who must be protected from the consequences of his actions.

Almost like they are wholly hypocritical...

oh, fifi -- you are confusing required with traditionally -- i know, big words scare you, but even you can see those aren't the same words -- i am stunned that you routine present your "intelligence" in public, and don't expect to get slagged for it

very few things are "normal" and "the same" outside of peckerwood county, kleagle

12 January 2025, 03:42

jeffeosso

and, apparently, jack smith resigned 4 days ago, effective yesterday .. "the most transparent administration in history" strikes AGAIN

12 January 2025, 03:50

LHeym500

Why would a special counsel not resign when the matter is over?

12 January 2025, 03:59

TomP

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6837956ddc461e&ei=77

Trump seeks to block 'imminent' release of special counsel Jack Smith's report

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...YaS?ocid=socialshare

Donald Trump Urges Jack Smith Be Fired, Stop Report From Being Released

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...56837956ddc461e&ei=9

If it's documented fact and admissible evidence, I would guess Trump would want it buried, deep.
There might be more interested parties among his fellow citizens.

12 January 2025, 04:03

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Why would a special counsel not resign when the matter is over?

1/20/25 --

12 January 2025, 04:10

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem is I need more then your if all Panama is is some old red meat that is past rotten.

That is my position. I oppose all this take Canada, take Greenland, take Mexico foolishness.

In fact, Trump sounds like Putin acts. I oppose Russia territorial expansion.

I suggest you go listen to Nixon’s interview on the Russians and how we were naive in WWII.

I do not like Nixon, but when he is right he is right.

I reject Easter’s politics and find his arguments lacking and rotted w hypocrisy.

Nixon was very good at diplomacy, and he was right about a lot. I think it's a real shame that he overstepped. Such a waste. He had the bull by the horns and destiny at his will. He just fucked up, and paid.

In comparison, Trump's fuckups are rewarded, and he's right about practically nothing.

12 January 2025, 04:12

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Why would a special counsel not resign when the matter is over?

1/20/25 --

You both are saying the same thing.

12 January 2025, 04:16

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by TomP:
If it's documented fact and admissible evidence, I would guess Trump would want it buried, deep.
There might be more interested parties among his fellow citizens.

"Documented fact and admissible evidence" - that's redundant.

No guessing about it. Trump distains documented and admissible evidence. If he can't bury it, he'll spin it.

There are many interested parties, hopefully some GOPers in congress.

12 January 2025, 04:38

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

Alrighty, then let's have policy debates.

First, let's consider our sphere of influence.

My sphere is very limited compared to yours or Dr. Easter's and many others herein.

IMO, it's not productive or satisfying to debate policies when it clearly is futile.

For example, I think the national policy ought to be support the EPA for the good of us all. Protect the environment, and if and since necessary, at the expense of cooperations and individuals who do harm, and to quit with this climate science denial nonsense. And that's just for starters.

And it's a null debate when dealing with Rightists.

So, my first "policy" suggestion is to ban lying and belief thereof in the political arena.

What's your "policy" suggestion that would make a difference?

12 January 2025, 05:03

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:
Originally posted by TomP:
If it's documented fact and admissible evidence, I would guess Trump would want it buried, deep.
There might be more interested parties among his fellow citizens.

"Documented fact and admissible evidence" - that's redundant.

No guessing about it. Trump distains documented and admissible evidence. If he can't bury it, he'll spin it.

There are many interested parties, hopefully some GOPers in congress.

no, cargo cult, they aren't the same .. but, as usual, you cling to a talisman of words you don't fully comprehend - these are a congruence (it's a great word, look it up, maggie) between documented and admissible .. like when, was it your 2nd or 3rd mail order bride, and the "lesbian activist judge" (your words) wanted to bring unspeakable things up in the courtroom, and the judge allowed it .. oh, how you ranted and raved here in the PF ----

that's ALMOST as funny as you stating that you don't consider yourself to be a liberal ....

(insert donkey braying meme)

12 January 2025, 05:14

Magine Enigam

You are about as predictable as a daily bowel movement.

You are the reason that I don't disclose personal information anymore, with limited and careful exception. Some AH is sure to use it inappropriately by fucking up the premise of a discussion/thread by making it personal, just like troll behavior.

quote:
these are a congruence between documented and admissible

Yes. of course, it must be documented to be admissible - in the judicial system.

In the court of public opinion, it's admissible as spin which renders it documented.

quote:
that's ALMOST as funny as you stating that you don't consider yourself to be a liberal ....

If rational and liberal are synonymous, then I'm okay with that.

12 January 2025, 05:24

jeffeosso

honey, you gave the data, hoping for sympathy -

oh, language - there's no reason to swear

remember when you got all "offended" by being partially quoted? LMAO, then you call me a morning bowel movement ... well, at least i serve a good purpose

12 January 2025, 05:28

jeffeosso

oh, just in case the big words confused you, are are being called out for being an inconsistent hypocrite, but can still pull a 10 in mental gymnastics

12 January 2025, 05:31

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

If rational and liberal are synonymous, then I'm okay with that.

lolz /.. rational AND liberal? here's a liberal senator saying the cali wildfires are a preview of things to come under trump -- even though trump hasn't been in power for 4 years
https://www.foxnews.com/politi...p-bought-off-big-oil

12 January 2025, 05:46

Magine Enigam

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:24
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:28
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:31

12 January 2025, 18:35

ledvm

quote:
that's ALMOST as funny as you stating that you don't consider yourself to be a liberal ....

12 January 2025, 18:36

ledvm

I guess Smith resigned from the DOJ.

12 January 2025, 18:37

Magine Enigam

No, Jeffee, you didn't kill this thread yet. Nice try.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6fd7a5bc8280a6&ei=36

Merrick Garland offered easy path to release Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago report immediately

Story by Tom Boggioni • 19h • 2 min read

According to a former SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief, Attorney General Merrick Garland can resolve his dilemma over the release of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation of Donald Trump's stolen government documents with a simple instruction to his Department of Justice.

Appearing on MSNBC with host Katie Phang on Saturday afternoon, ex-prosecutor Kristy Greenberg claimed Garland's decision to release the report to select lawmakers is wrongheaded and easily fixed.

At issue, she noted to the host, is Garland's fears that information revealed in the report could impact the potential trials of Trump associates Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira which is currently under appeal after being shut down by Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon.

According to Greenberg, "Merrick Garland has, you know, made I think, a really bad call here. He said, 'Well, because this appeal of Cannon's dismissal of the case, as to those two co-defendants is still going on, because that's pending, we're not going to publicly release the classified documents volume, and we're just going to share it with certain members of congress privately, because releasing it publicly could potentially prejudice those two co-defendants.'"

"Well," she added. "In nine days, that case against those two co-defendants is going away. Trump is going to have his DOJ drop that appeal, so why not just drop the case against them, drop that appeal against them now? And then you can release this report."

"It's silly, it's not pragmatic," she added.

12 January 2025, 19:02

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:24
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:28
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:31

but you self-proclaim that you are good at taking correction -- and you state you don't consider yourself to be a liberal --

good times -

i guess you can't take correction if you "hide post" ...

12 January 2025, 19:13

Magine Enigam

quote:
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:02

12 January 2025, 19:14

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:02

we know how the hide post button works, honey -- but if it makes you feel better, yeeeha for you

12 January 2025, 19:15

Magine Enigam

quote:
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:14

12 January 2025, 20:42

Magine Enigam

https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal...5b05d2aeab5d7d&ei=79

Don't waste your time on the opinions of fools who are only looking for mistakes or negativity.

12 January 2025, 21:52

crbutler

If it truly is an existential threat, I would not argue about doing it.

Invade, take over, and remove the government that is causing the issues, then leave.

I also don't see how the canal would be an existential threat to us.

quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

You do realize that taking territory from another Country by force violates literally everything this Country has claimed to stand for, Federal Law and various treaties with the status of Constitutional Provisions, don't you?

12 January 2025, 22:39

crbutler

quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

Alrighty, then let's have policy debates.

First, let's consider our sphere of influence.

My sphere is very limited compared to yours or Dr. Easter's and many others herein.

In politics, your sphrere is roughly equal. We each have one vote.

IMO, it's not productive or satisfying to debate policies when it clearly is futile.
Yet you continually do it, to the point where you annoy folks into attacking you. Maybe you are not actually debating policy, but rather are calling others names, albeit in a more highbrow fashion.

For example, I think the national policy ought to be support the EPA I would say support the purpose of the EPA, not "the EPA" for the good of us all. Protect the environment, and if and since necessary, at the expense of cooperations and individuals who do harm, As Hetm likes to say, with the process of due process of law. and to quit with this climate science denial nonsense. There is the rub. You think its settled science. It isn't. Look at what is coming out from the whole COVID debacle. And that's just for starters.

And it's a null debate when dealing with Rightists.
As a conservative, I would say its equally a null debate with folks like you as well... But debating you shows folks in the middle that your side is not viewed as being absolutely correct or that there are not reasonable people who disagree with you.

So, my first "policy" suggestion is to ban lying and belief thereof in the political arena.
That would be interesting. What would you say if all the sudden all your global warming science needs to be removed because it cannot be proven to be truthful? Who gets to say what is a lie?

What's your "policy" suggestion that would make a difference?

For one, I would suggest that we insist that government agencies stay within their specific area of authorization. Congress states the area of authorization, and the president (executive) ensures that those laws/mandates of congress are carried out to the best of his ability.

Secondly, I would insist that a budget be made, and that it must be balanced.

13 January 2025, 04:59

Magine Enigam

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

Alrighty, then let's have policy debates.

First, let's consider our sphere of influence.

My sphere is very limited compared to yours or Dr. Easter's and many others herein.

In politics, your sphrere is roughly equal. We each have one vote. I'm referring to sphere of persuasion.

IMO, it's not productive or satisfying to debate policies when it clearly is futile.
Yet you continually do it, to the point where you annoy folks into attacking you. Oh Honey, look what you made me do. Maybe you are not actually debating policy, but rather are calling others names, albeit in a more highbrow fashion. I'm arguing against belief in fiction.

For example, I think the national policy ought to be support the EPA I would say support the purpose of the EPA, not "the EPA" Same thing. for the good of us all. Protect the environment, and if and since necessary, at the expense of cooperations and individuals who do harm, As Hetm likes to say, with the process of due process of law. Yea, GOPer congress arbitrarily cuts budget based on science denial. and to quit with this climate science denial nonsense. There is the rub. You think its settled science. It isn't. Some very significant aspects of the science on global warming is settled science. Just as in the field of medicine some related science is settled. Look at what is coming out from the whole COVID debacle. And that's just for starters. Much of what came out of the COVID thing, mostly the debacle was from the deniers and antis.

And it's a null debate when dealing with Rightists.
As a conservative, I would say its equally a null debate with folks like you as well... False equivalence. I don't lie and I don't believe in fiction, and I will accept correction. But debating you shows folks in the middle that your side is not viewed as being absolutely correct or that there are not reasonable people who disagree with you. I never made such a claim.

So, my first "policy" suggestion is to ban lying and belief thereof in the political arena.

That would be interesting. What would you say if all the sudden all your global warming science needs to be removed because it cannot be proven to be truthful? Yes it can and yes it is truthful. Claiming otherwise is harping conspiracy theory. Who gets to say what is a lie? The one who provides the proof that it's a lie.

What's your "policy" suggestion that would make a difference?

For one, I would suggest that we insist that government agencies stay within their specific area of authorization. I thought they did that already. Congress states the area of authorization, and the president (executive) ensures that those laws/mandates of congress are carried out to the best of his ability.

Secondly, I would insist that a budget be made, and that it must be balanced.[/color] So, you don't approve of Dear Leader wanting to remove the debt ceiling.

13 January 2025, 05:32

Magine Enigam

Doc Butler, you being a doctor means to me that you are reasonable, at least more reasonable than average (whatever that is

).

I post two articles for consideration. The point of contrasting the two articles is to highlight my claim that the national "problem" is Belief in Fiction.

The first, from New York Post (not NYT), I very much disagree with. It's a good thing they used the word "opinion" in the heading. But I think it's a harmful POV and filled with lies, and certainly gross slant. IMO, it's propaganda - affirmation for Belief in Fiction.

The world has now seen the ‘Trump Effect’ on full display
Opinion by Michael Goodwin • 11h • 5 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b773302f73fb02&ei=21

And here's the other article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...deced769e1bffe&ei=50

Fake news is driving us apart amid disaster — but slanted news is slowly drowning our democracy
Opinion by Sandra Matz • 3h • 5 min read

The upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States — and the four years of his presidency to follow — will put American democracy to the test. His return to the Oval Office has already reignited debates over the legitimacy of elections, with partisan media framing his presidency as either a triumph or a travesty. This polarization underscores a growing danger: We no longer share a common reality.

The erosion of trust in common facts and the fracturing of our nation's ability to engage in constructive dialogue means many of us can no longer accept a shared reality. In 2023, a CNN poll found that 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believed President Biden’s 2020 win was not legitimate. That’s not surprising given new reporting that popular conservative pundits are frequently sharing election falsehoods on YouTube, which stopped moderating election-related content 18 months ago.

It can be tempting to point to fake news and misinformation as the culprit. For the past few years, my research has focused on revealing the hidden relationships between our digital lives and our psychology, and the facts we’re learning about fake news are alarming. Leading up to the 2016 US presidential election, Facebook users spent more time reading fake news than real news. Studies show that — more often than not — people believe the content they consume even when it is factually wrong. How is it possible to maintain a functioning democratic system that is based on the will of the people, if the people are falling for lies?

(continued)

13 January 2025, 06:21

crbutler

I don’t disagree that there is a loss of common agreement.

On the left the whole trans women are women thing being an obvious one. That they are people is true, but their “truth” isn’t the same as factual reality.

In medicine, I’ve been around long enough to see once established orthodoxy to be changed and then come back again… I’m very reluctant to call anything “established science” and I well remember the crap I got here by pointing out masking was not established science for prevention of viral spread. They trotted Fauci and his claims on the news… and now he’s admitted there was no actual science supporting their claims.

A big part of being a professional is knowing where your certainty lies. Best practices isn’t the same as being right.

I find it rather unlikely that a relatively new field like climatology has anywhere near the experience and study that medicine/biological science does, yet you are expecting folks to bow to their rather broad and overwhelming claims with a pretty solid record of being wrong in detail for decades.

I’m not disclaiming that weather patterns are not changing, but rather not buying the certainty it is CO2 emissions directly causing it.

Personally, I think the crap we are putting in the oceans and the (IMO) unsustainable amount of harvest we are taking from it has more to do with climatic effects than planes, trains, automobiles, and cow farts.

13 January 2025, 06:33

Jefffive

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that there is a loss of common agreement.

On the left the whole trans women are women thing being an obvious one. That they are people is true, but their “truth” isn’t the same as factual reality.

In medicine, I’ve been around long enough to see once established orthodoxy to be changed and then come back again… I’m very reluctant to call anything “established science” and I well remember the crap I got here by pointing out masking was not established science for prevention of viral spread. They trotted Fauci and his claims on the news… and now he’s admitted there was no actual science supporting their claims.

A big part of being a professional is knowing where your certainty lies. Best practices isn’t the same as being right.

I find it rather unlikely that a relatively new field like climatology has anywhere near the experience and study that medicine/biological science does, yet you are expecting folks to bow to their rather broad and overwhelming claims with a pretty solid record of being wrong in detail for decades.

I’m not disclaiming that weather patterns are not changing, but rather not buying the certainty it is CO2 emissions directly causing it.

Personally, I think the crap we are putting in the oceans and the (IMO) unsustainable amount of harvest we are taking from it has more to do with climatic effects than planes, trains, automobiles, and cow farts.

I assume you understand the fairly elementary chemistry involved in the "greenhouse effect", in which some atmospheric gasses, most notably carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat due to the different wavelengths of light of direct insolation and the reflected light after it hits the surface.

How can you possibly therefore doubt the effect of CO2 going from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts-per-million to the current 420, while methane has more than doubled?