yoink

Nope. Not in France I cannot. There are many who think that is the way it should be. There are some who go one further and claim I have no right to an opinion on the matter. However you feel about it, I am not indifferent to the results and they *do* affect me... Ok. I didn't know. I guess I believe that only citizens should be able to vote for their leaders. Resident aliens, even permanent ones, aren't eligible here and I don't think they should be. And I don't believe that "millions" (or even a handful) voted illegally. But that doesn't mean you don't get to have an opinion, or that the results won't affect you. As a resident alien currently in the process of naturalization in the US I agree with this. As much as I wanted to be able to vote in the last election it wasn't appropriate for me to be able to do so.

Welcome to May 2015 for the UK, November 2016 for the US and June 2017 for the UK again... Glad France has caught up.

Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Trump's turning out to be quite the 'liberal' president. His inability to handle a reporter who's pressing him on an issue is comical. Pretty much ANY politician would be able to do better. I wonder what his negotiations with Putin would be like?...

Good for you Bill, but I was referring to national averages. Give green energy the 350 years of use that coal has had and I suspect they'll find ways to reduce the cost to the user - Just as coal did. Not convinced? http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Clark_Jacks.pdf Coal in the 1700's priced at 32s per tonne. I didn't find an exact converter, but let's make it more generous for your argument - let's do the computation from 100 years later, after it gets into widespread use - 1830. http://www.concertina.com/calculator/ 32s in 1830 is about $1,245 dollars in today's money. That was the equivalent price per tonne for coal. Today's price per tonne? About $36, taken as an average... https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal The cost of some sort of green energy will go down as it's adopted over time. Just as coal did.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39683518 I'm sorry, but whether this guy is a spy or not I have no sympathy for any American who goes to north Korea and gets incarcerated. Or any foreigner, for that matter. It happens every time and NK just uses it as an excuse for propaganda. The US will make a public apology in 3 months, along with some sort of symbolic trade negotiation and he'll be released back to his family.

You can state stuff as fact all you like, but it simply isn't true. There's plenty of data to support both of those positions. You may not choose to believe it, but stating that there is ZERO(Caps must make it true?) proof is simply WRONG. And that's a fact.

What data would it take to convince you that climate change as a result of man-made CO2 was real?

Probably. A more hygienic option is just to make up a dilute dish-soap solution and use that instead.

and in tomorrow's news: 'We knew you American pig-dogs were cowards!" states Kim Jong Un via facebook shortly before 'President Trump authorizes all out attack on Korean Peninsula'.

While that protects mainland US from being nuked (which is great), it doesn't help the entire world much if Kim-Jong-Nutcase sets a bunch off on the Korean peninsula because Trump dares him to. Or launches chemical weapons against Seoul using artillery. I'm not sure what the solution to the NK problem is (probably getting China to annex NK after assassinating the entire leadership), but brinkmanship between Trump and the NK leader is seriously worrying. If Kim-Jong-Un feels like he's forced into a no-win position (which in his mind might possibly be as simple as backing down from a threat), there's a real possibility he'll say 'fuck it' and preemptively burn the whole place down.

"Don't test Trump" warns vice president to North Korea. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39620243 "Fuck you. We'll test missiles weekly." replies North Korea... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39623882 Oh, ,this is going to end well... We already know that the pres reacts poorly to people mocking him. (Probably on account of his tiny penis and giant ego) and while NK may or may not have ICBM technology (probably not), and may or may not have nuclear warheads of some description (probably), they certainly have enough weaponry to cause full scale carnage in any war they're involved in, and (I think) the craziness to use everything in their arsenal. It's not going to be good.

Every contract or legal document written is full of these 'weasel words' as you call them. If you're telling me that if you were CIC instead of Obama and would have approved a statement that said 'I am 100% absolutely certain that Syria has no more chemical weapons' instead of leaving yourself some room for 'to our best possible knowledge' you're either an idiot or a liar. Why you're trying to use this particular piece of nonsense to attack Obama when a) there must be so many other avenues (he was president for 8 years, after all), and b) he's not really relevant now, kind of baffles me. I guess it just shows how much anti-Obama you might be. Everything he ever did or said MUST be wrong, right? Obama did a LOT of stupid stuff. Defining a 'red line that must not be crossed' that he wasn't willing to enforce is just one example that is relevant to the Syria situation thhat you might use, but taking personal responsibility for Syria hiding chemical weapons from the inspectors after saying they're all disposed of isn't even a stretch. It's just a stupid argument.

Because they didn't want to blow $7m on a publicity stunt?

Brian?

you'll like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39451358 and Flynn in September: https://twitter.com/axios/status/847601535777333251 Interesting, but ultimately pointless. Those who don't approve of Trump already think he and/or his team colluded with the Russians to manipulate the election, and those who do approve of him wouldn't believe anything he testified to even if Putin had 'I stole the US election' tattooed on his tallywhacker and fed it to them. Plus, can't immunity only be granted by the AG? The person in which position Trump fired not long ago for abiding by the constitution and replacing them with a sock puppet who has already had to recuse himself for links with Russia... Immunity by that guy? Not likely.

Holy shit. Maybe not every politician is corrupt... Whoda thunk it? Obamacare isn't perfect. But it's better than rushing through a PoS replacement that isn't properly thought out just to score some sort of one-up victory. How long until Trump blames Obama meddling in the background?

So that's the House Intelligence Committee Chairman saying there was never a wiretap... and here's the FBI director saying that "neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice had evidence to support Trump’s claims that his predecessor Barack Obama wiretapped his phones ahead of the election. " http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-39328507 Trumps tweets - FAKE NEWS!

Someone remind me - How many times during Obama's 8 year administration did the United States formally and publicly apologize to an ally for some sort of transgression? We could open a book on the number of times it's going to happen in Trump's term. I'm certain at some point he's going to have to apologize to Germany and Japan.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39297439 Well there's a shocker... It won't matter to Trumps supporters that he has just been shown to have lied directly to them. Again. It's last weeks news... What about those tax returns, eh? That'll prove he's a good guy for the people! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! etc etc.

You're looking at this the wrong way. We need more allies to be shooting at stuff with patriots. Drones. Birds. Weather Balloons. We sell them replacements and pretty soon our budget deficit is gone! Good job, Trump!

Do you think a judge should temporarily ban me from owning a gun, until the situation can be looked into further? No. Because that would be against the law. Your right to buy a gun would be protected by the constitution. Personally, I think that part of the constitution is wrong but I don't get to decide how to apply it in certain situations just because I don't like it. It's either the law and applies equally to everyone, or it isn't. If the law was rewritten to include postponing the ability to buy a gun based on mental status, behaviour or anything else then that would be a different situation - But it isn't. You have to apply the law fairly as it exists, even if the law is wrong. The moment a judge can say 'despite your iron-clad defense this is what I think your motivation was' I think we've taken a big step away from justice. The closest a situation can get to being like this up to now is Jury Nullification - where a jury can deliberately choose not to find someone guilty, despite thinking they are. It's so controversial that even discussing it can get you barred from jury duty or theoretically sent to jail if you're attempt to get it effected.

The interesting part is that is was blocked because of the 'intent' shown by Trump before and during the campaign to specifically target Muslims. Not because of any illegality in the document itself. Personally, I completely agree that that is the intent of the document - to specifically target a specific religion and that it was written in a way to get around the constitution and that it's abhorrent. Despite that, I'm not convinced that blocking it on intent is a good precedent to set. Either something is against the law or it isn't.

Some things know no bounds.... I know I've probably been the worst offender over the years for getting sucked into arguing over Rush's mirror-reality, but at this point even I don't think there's any value in engaging him anymore. Just let the old man shout at the birds Quite. It's my new years resolution. Just to ignore rushmc.

Fuck the media. This is absolutely non-news. It's the equivalent of drawing a scientific conclusion based on cherry-picked data. Any conclusions drawn from an incomplete and non-current tax return are completely irrelevant. 15 years ago Trump paid a lower overall tax rate than I do. That's shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... As Kallend states, he would have so many options to write things off that aren't available to most people - That in itself doesn't make him either a bad or smart person. It means he has lots of good accountants. So what? He can afford them and it's legal and smart to do so. The only news that I see in the story is the part where Trump is currently trying to eliminate the part of the tax code that resulted in the huge majority of his payment 15 years ago. is it the same in his current situation - Who knows? There's more important stuff to be covering. Actual 'running the government' stuff. This is just another diversion to get over the hump of the 'wiretap' which in itself distracted attention from SCJ nominations, Russiagate and so on. In 2 - 3 weeks there'll be another completely worthless 'revelation' that will draw attention away from this bullshit.