Donald wins: 'Deplorables' trump Clinton

[LeafByNiggle]

A group of agronomists at Texas A&M did a study and arrived at the conclusion that if even only the U.S. grasslands were managed optimally, they would consume 100% of all man-made CO2 produced in the U.S. The woodlands would add to that.

Can you give me a reference to that study? I would like to look it up. It is not that I disbelieve it. I just want to see what the assumptions were.

 

[RCinMT]

The fact that they quote a number of scientists does not make the claim true in its most general sense, which is the sense in which the original posting of that article was presented. If the title had been more limited in scope, criticizing specific remedies to climate change and considering their economic effect, that would have been OK. And that is the area addressed by your second reference. But the title “Climate Change Debunked” gives the mistaken impression that the basic theory of climate change being affected by human activity has been debunked. It most certainly has not. The most you can say is that there are some dissenting voices. The term “debunked” implies proof of falseness. That has certainly not happened, so the title is misleading.

So your contention is simultaneously that a number of scientists dissenting on something doesn’t make it true but that a number agreeing on the same issue does make it true? Fascinating.

nationalreview.com/article/388535/crumbling-climate-change-consensus-john-fund

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread has wandered. Please return to the topic of the presidential election

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think he’s open to overturning the “right” to gay “marriage”.

At least by appointing justices that don’t make legal pretzels.

Whatever. Trump has attended many gay weddings. I don’t think he has anything against them.

 

[EIF5A]

Whatever. Trump has attended many gay weddings. I don’t think he has anything against them.

You’re probably right — wishfully thinking he’ll have a sudden conversion while in office.

Anything’s possible though…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You’re probably right — wishfully thinking he’ll have a sudden conversion while in office.

Anything’s possible though…

Oh brother. You should stop reading all the liberal news.

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, it occurred, but yes, most people would have considered it abhorrent. Children were valued and seen as assets instead of burdens.

That’s because there was no Social Security and people needed kids to work the farm and support them in old age - which is still true in many parts of the world.

Also the death rate for before the 20th century was high and death was not associated with old age as it is today. So people had to have big families so that at least a few adult children would be around to support them in old age.

Since the Republicans (who now control everything) are in favor of reducing or getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, then perhaps we might see a resurgence of value being placed on children again.

 

[lynnvinc]

So your contention is simultaneously that a number of scientists dissenting on something doesn’t make it true but that a number agreeing on the same issue does make it true? Fascinating.

nationalreview.com/article/388535/crumbling-climate-change-consensus-john-fund

Truth is from God. God is Truth. God is Love.

I think Pope Francis understands this, which is why he wrote Laudato Si and admonished us to mitigate climate change even if we don’t quite accept it is happening.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s because there was no Social Security and people needed kids to work the farm and support them in old age - which is still true in many parts of the world.

Also the death rate for before the 20th century was high and death was not associated with old age as it is today. So people had to have big families so that at least a few adult children would be around to support them in old age.

Since the Republicans (who now control everything) are in favor of reducing or getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, then perhaps we might see a resurgence of value being placed on children again.

Misguided in part. True in part.

Yes, peoples’ children used to support their parents. Now peoples’ children are obliged to support the parents of children who are not willing to support them. No miracle with either option.

The Bible measures the lifespan of a man at “…three score and ten years”; that is, 70 years. It’s hardly different now.

Repubs have no intention of getting rid of SS and Medicare. They might even reinstate the billions Obama reduced Medicare. But it’s true that children ought to have more sense of responsibility for their parents, and vice versa. It works both ways.

 

[pnewton]

Legal costs make up less than 2% of the health care spending. I support tort reform but not on the grounds that it will significantly reduce health care costs. There are several issues with the ACA that make repel a far better option than just “fixing”.

And this response is why I don’t like to chase rabbits. I am sorry I took the bait. Let me just say this is not the thread for me to rebut this and I am letting it go, at the moderator’s request.

Besides, until Trump, or Congress come up with a change, there is little to discuss. I will bet this topic is revisited shortly after the first of next year.

 

[DeniseNY]

Since the Republicans (who now control everything) are in favor of reducing or getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, then perhaps we might see a resurgence of value being placed on children again.

Please provide a source for this claim

 

[Michael68]

That’s because there was no Social Security and people needed kids to work the farm and support them in old age - which is still true in many parts of the world.

Also the death rate for before the 20th century was high and death was not associated with old age as it is today. So people had to have big families so that at least a few adult children would be around to support them in old age.

Since the Republicans (who now control everything) are in favor of reducing or getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, then perhaps we might see a resurgence of value being placed on children again.

I’m sorry, this is just silly!

 

[stinkcat_14]

Misguided in part. True in part.

Yes, peoples’ children used to support their parents. Now peoples’ children are obliged to support the parents of children who are not willing to support them. No miracle with either option.

The Bible measures the lifespan of a man at “…three score and ten years”; that is, 70 years. It’s hardly different now.

Repubs have no intention of getting rid of SS and Medicare. They might even reinstate the billions Obama reduced Medicare. But it’s true that children ought to have more sense of responsibility for their parents, and vice versa. It works both ways.

Actually medicare spending went up during the Obama administration, I don’t see where he reduced any spending. If he did reduce spending, I would be the first to praise him.

 

[Cider]

Something actually intelligent on Huffington Post for once

and don’t get distracted by the title, he makes some excellent point about what happened and is happening, here are some of the highlights

The Democratic Party Has Exploded

A significant chunk of Obama voters flipped to Trump. Trump won 10 percent of voters who approve of Obama’s presidency and 23 percent of voters who think the next president should “be more liberal,” according to CNN data. Trump significantly outperformed Romney among union households. He did 14 points better than Romney among whites without a college degree, according to The New York Times, and 16 points better among households with less than $30,000 in income. The Trump Democrat turns out not to be a myth, but a meaningful constituency that just cost Clinton the presidency.

a dominance struggle between Sanders supporters and the Steny Hoyer wing of the party is already underway. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is calling for a “complete restructuring” of the Democratic National Committee, and Sanders is promoting nominees.

 

[KSU]

Actually medicare spending went up during the Obama administration, I don’t see where he reduced any spending. If he did reduce spending, I would be the first to praise him.

How could President Obama spend more for Medicare? There was a lot less to spend because he shifted $716 B from Medicare funds to pay for Obamacare and thus buy young votes for Dems. To make up the difference for that theft and destabilization of Medicare, we old Deplorables and other seasoned citizens have had to spend a lot more money under our Medicare plans.

So, are you counting those increased amounts we have to spend when you say “medicare spending went up during the Obama administration”?

 

[KSU]

Has anyone else lost automatic notification of new posts?

 

[Lormar]

Has anyone else lost automatic notification of new posts?

Yes. It rarely works for me even when it is working.

 

[Melissa]

Actually medicare spending went up during the Obama administration, I don’t see where he reduced any spending. If he did reduce spending, I would be the first to praise him.

You mean like the sequestration, where Medicare payments (which are already pathetically low) are made at $0.98 on the dollar?

 

[KSU]

Yes. It [automatic notification of new posts] rarely works for me even when it is working.

Thanks; your reply scared it back on for me

 

[CaptFun]

That’s how his statements and actions have been represented, without a lot of accuracy.

But when it comes to “marginalization” I, for one, felt pretty “marginalized” when I learned there was an HHS Mandate that forces me to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. I felt pretty marginalized when Obama sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. I felt marginalized when I learned there were organizations set up by the Dem party to institute a “Catholic Spring” to combat my “backward”, “medieval” and “authoritarian” Church. I even felt marginalized when Obama sued the Lutheran Church.

Since it’s extremely doubtful Trump will attack the Catholic Church, I, for one, feel a major sense of relief.

I hope Trump invites the Little Sisters of the Poor to the inauguration.

And at the ball afterwards maybe the band can play:

Hey little sister what have you done
Hey little sister who’s the only one
Hey little sister who’s your superman
Hey little sister who’s the one you want
Hey little sister shotgun

It’s a nice day to start again …

(OK … the “shotgun” thing doesn’t QUITE go … but you never know … Little Sisters have Second Amendment rights too.)

npatrol: - stand down team. “Shotgun” was just a song lyric.