Donald wins: 'Deplorables' trump Clinton

[YADA]

I don’t think we should underestimate these people…

The number of outspoken white supremacists might not be that high, but sympathizers probably exist in greater numbers than we think…(Of course I hope I’m wrong)

Internet = Anonymity and ability to be vicious

And I do not think you should believe a majority of them are Republicans and not Democrats …

The most racist people I have met have all been liberals ideologically

 

[Michael68]

And I do not think you should believe a majority of them are Republicans and not Democrats …

The most racist people I have met have all been liberals ideologically

I have the same experience!!! That’s why I’m sceptical of all this racism on the part of Trump supporters. Its just not true! Racism on the liberal side is there for all to see!!!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No need!
The Title of the Article is: “Paris Stunned As Scientists DEBUNK Climate Change Hysteria”.

Not every article title is true. Especially article titles from a tabloid website.

And even if the hysteria is debunked, the basic non-hysterical science behind it is not.

 

[pnewton]

Tell us about plan for fixing Obamacare.

I do not know if this is a joke, or you think I have months to waste on an answer, but the greatest problem with the Affordable Health Care Act is that it did nothing to address the affordability of health care. It only addressed the affordability of health care insurance. In a world where there is not enough medical services to go around, it is time to stop a system driven by law suits and redundancy in testing. Every time some lawyer advertises seeking clients for their class action suits, health care goes up.

I would begin with large scale law suit exemptions for pharmaceutical research, as long as there is full disclosure. I would also exempt law suits for medical services for the indigent, under a Good Samaritan law. I would also cap the amount law firms can collect from any suit, and do away with class actions suits. However, since we keep electing lawyers to Congress, it is unlikely they will pass anything hurting their profession’s cream.

In any case, it will harm our country to repeal laws en masse every election.

 

[RCinMT]

Not every article title is true. Especially article titles from a tabloid website.

And even if the hysteria is debunked, the basic non-hysterical science behind it is not.

I think there’s a real problem with information that is disseminated to liberals: the question isn’t whether climate change is occurring. The question if whether it’s anthropogenic and what man can do about it.

 

[Lormar]

And I do not think you should believe a majority of them are Republicans and not Democrats …

The most racist people I have met have all been liberals ideologically

The most racist is right. The most narrow minded too. And hateful. And intolerant. And violent.

Since when do sane, reasonable, and mature citizens of a country riot when they don’t get their way in an election?

 

[Melissa]

Tell us about plan for fixing Obamacare.

What we should be doing as Catholics in the first place.

In Catholic hospitals, we still practice charity care (providing medical care and if someone truly cannot pay, it is written off). Of course, people do have to apply for the charity care and demonstrate need (ours also has levels, so someone can qualify for a percentage reduction even if it’s not a full write-off), not just that they’d rather not spend the money.

The charity care also applies for care provided by the doctors in the medical group (so your basic doctor visits, even specialist visits).

And of course, there were people who were (and are) perfectly fine with paying for their care out of pocket and only carried catastrophic insurance before Obamacare. And what’s wrong with that?

There’s cost-sharing programs (again, mostly religious, from my experience–but why can’t a group of like-minded people without religion form a community-based group? I know the Amish (they’ve got a fair-sized community in my general area) manage to pay their bills, even catastrophic care in this way.

Of course, none of these will allow people to simply demand that someone else pay for their lifestyle choices.

 

[RCinMT]

I do not know if this is a joke, or you think I have months to waste on an answer, but the greatest problem with the Affordable Health Care Act is that it did nothing to address the affordability of health care. It only addressed the affordability of health care insurance. In a world where there is not enough medical services to go around, it is time to stop a system driven by law suits and redundancy in testing. Every time some lawyer advertises seeking clients for their class action suits, health care goes up.

I would begin with large scale law suit exemptions for pharmaceutical research, as long as there is full disclosure. I would also exempt law suits for medical services for the indigent, under a Good Samaritan law. I would also cap the amount law firms can collect from any suit, and do away with class actions suits. However, since we keep electing lawyers to Congress, it is unlikely they will pass anything hurting their profession’s cream.

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”.

 

[RCinMT]

What we should be doing as Catholics in the first place.

In Catholic hospitals, we still practice charity care (providing medical care and if someone truly cannot pay, it is written off). Of course, people do have to apply for the charity care and demonstrate need (ours also has levels, so someone can qualify for a percentage reduction even if it’s not a full write-off), not just that they’d rather not spend the money.

The charity care also applies for care provided by the doctors in the medical group (so your basic doctor visits, even specialist visits).

And of course, there were people who were (and are) perfectly fine with paying for their care out of pocket and only carried catastrophic insurance before Obamacare. And what’s wrong with that?

There’s cost-sharing programs (again, mostly religious, from my experience–but why can’t a group of like-minded people without religion form a community-based group? I know the Amish (they’ve got a fair-sized community in my general area) manage to pay their bills, even catastrophic care in this way.

Of course, none of these will allow people to simply demand that someone else pay for their lifestyle choices.

Melissa: not a single point with which I disagree.

 

[therese1998]

The most racist is right. The most narrow minded too. And hateful. And intolerant. And violent.

Since when do sane, reasonable, and mature citizens of a country riot when they don’t get their way in an election?

Point!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That sounds great to me!

My only question is, couldn’t Democrats simply undo a lot of these measures? I suppose that’s why the Supreme Court is so important.

What we need is a pro-life Constitutional Amendment.

Wide-spread abortion was not even remotely envisioned when the Constitution was written.

 

[Michael68]

Not every article title is true. Especially article titles from a tabloid website.

And even if the hysteria is debunked, the basic non-hysterical science behind it is not.

There is no consensus among scientists this is fact. Without that conensus it is still just a theory. Some evidence points to a cooling, not a warming. Other evidence points to weather cycles. So this is far from scientific fact!!!

 

[jediliz]

What we need is a pro-life Constitutional Amendment.

Wide-spread abortion was not even remotely envisioned when the Constitution was written.

families were bigger back then…usually more than 2.1 children…killing a baby before burth would have been unthinkable…

 

[pensmama87]

families were bigger back then…usually more than 2.1 children…killing a baby before burth would have been unthinkable…

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

 

[7_Sorrows]

uch: I read your link. Heaven help us!

NPR? Really?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think there’s a real problem with information that is disseminated to liberals: the question isn’t whether climate change is occurring. The question if whether it’s anthropogenic and what man can do about it.

And which one of those questions did the article supposedly debunk?

 

[livnlern]

Not every article title is true. Especially article titles from a tabloid website.

And even if the hysteria is debunked, the basic non-hysterical science behind it is not.

The title of this article is true. The article quotes a number of scientists from various universities and institutions. Here’s another interesting quote from that article that delves into the real effects of climate change ideology:

“After the scientists gave their presentations, a panel discussion highlighted the massive damage being done — especially to the poor — by so called “climate” policies. Among those speaking was Lord Christopher Monckton, a giant in the climate realist movement. Climate alarmists have “the money, power, and glory, but we have the truth, so they have nothing, and we have everything.” If the UN summit succeeds in its goals, though, millions of people will die, he said. In an interview later with The New American, Monckton said the real agenda was to create a communist-fascist-style global government that would end self-government, prosperity, the middle class, and liberty. Another expert who spoke on the panel, Dr. Wolfgang Mueller with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), also explained that what the developing world needs is not “climate reparations” or CO2 controls, but affordable energy.”

 

[Michael68]

The title of this article is true. The article quotes a number of scientists from various universities and institutions. Here’s another interesting quote from that article that delves into the real effects of climate change ideology:

“After the scientists gave their presentations, a panel discussion highlighted the massive damage being done — especially to the poor — by so called “climate” policies. Among those speaking was Lord Christopher Monckton, a giant in the climate realist movement. Climate alarmists have “the money, power, and glory, but we have the truth, so they have nothing, and we have everything.” If the UN summit succeeds in its goals, though, millions of people will die, he said. In an interview later with The New American, Monckton said the real agenda was to create a communist-fascist-style global government that would end self-government, prosperity, the middle class, and liberty. Another expert who spoke on the panel, Dr. Wolfgang Mueller with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), also explained that what the developing world needs is not “climate reparations” or CO2 controls, but affordable energy.”

Its ok!!! This is a person willfully being mislead by the left wing Democrats. I bet Leafbyniggle thought Hillary was going to win!

 

[Ridgerunner]

The title of this article is true. The article quotes a number of scientists from various universities and institutions. Here’s another interesting quote from that article that delves into the real effects of climate change ideology:

“After the scientists gave their presentations, a panel discussion highlighted the massive damage being done — especially to the poor — by so called “climate” policies. Among those speaking was Lord Christopher Monckton, a giant in the climate realist movement. Climate alarmists have “the money, power, and glory, but we have the truth, so they have nothing, and we have everything.” If the UN summit succeeds in its goals, though, millions of people will die, he said. In an interview later with The New American, Monckton said the real agenda was to create a communist-fascist-style global government that would end self-government, prosperity, the middle class, and liberty. Another expert who spoke on the panel, Dr. Wolfgang Mueller with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), also explained that what the developing world needs is not “climate reparations” or CO2 controls, but affordable energy.”

There is a tremendous amount of environmental damage being done by mismanagement of the land. But it’s not in the First World, and it’s not climate change. It’s desertification caused by terrible management.

North America and Europe, even Russia, would benefit from a moderate degree of global warming, whatever might be the cause. I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. 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.

Right now, management of the grasslands is being greatly improved; first because ranchers are learning the science of it, and second because it makes economic sense and they have the capital to do it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The title of this article is true. The article quotes a number of scientists from various universities and institutions.

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.