jesseriley wrote:
With FDR, dems turned left very successfully. The key was that pubs offered a poor alternative (just like now) and revolution was waiting even further left (currently possible, but more because of fallout from environmental concerns than poverty).
I think widening income inequality is pretty important, too.
Even if some people deny that it exists...
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
If Bernie wins the nomination then the answer will be "yes".
Have there been ANY Democrats who said they are opposed to open borders? Have there been any Democrats (and I include Congressmen and Congresswomen) who have said they are opposed to giving health insurance to illegals? The Democrats have gone off the rails. They have become a radical party. To say anything but the party line will get you nothing but smears. Does the Democratic party even allow moderates to voice their opinions anymore? Is there any Democrat who can oppose abortion and not be viciously attacked? The party is a mess.
Roe v Wade, allowing abortions, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, under a Republican administration. The law has been maintained through a succession of Republican administrations since. It appears to be what most Americans want, who are not fanatical evangelists.
Armstronglivs wrote:
"A team of researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. found that global warming has caused a shift in wind patterns that are ultimately bringing more warm ocean water into contact with the region’s ice."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-antarctica-is-melting-shifting-winds-driven-by-global-warming/One more for the climate-change deniers here, like Sally, who think it's all "a crock".
Good lord, dude - give it a rest.
1) Everyone with an IQ above single digits knows that human-caused climate change is real.
2) Everyone on here knows that Sally, Rigged and Igy are some combination of astonishingly stupid and/or trolls.
If you want to make yet another thread about climate change, please do so. That way you can post on and on to your heart's content without hijacking the Trump thread.
Totally agree about income inequality being a huge factor. I guess I just feel the environmental concerns are affecting the economics even though people deny it.
Yosinglercz wrote:
More reasons not to vote for Sanders.
A vote for Bernie puts Trump back in the White House.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/sanders-trump-2020-general/index.html
That map is very favorable to Trump and still doesn't put him back in the White House.
It gives him 260 and he needs 270.
PA and WI will be hard for Trump to get.
I think AZ is more toss up than leans R.
Iowa is a toss up, too.
And how is Florida likely R?
Same with North Carolina.
If that map help up and Trump took WI while Bernie took PA, it would be a 270-268 win for Trump.
Or if that happens and Bernie wins all 4 electoral votes in Maine (instead of 3), then it's 269 - 269.
In that case, Pelosi and the House get to pick the winner. I wonder how that would go.
Imagine if Trump wins the popular vote, ties the electoral vote and the House chooses the Dem as the winner.
That would really be civil war.
Trump rips dems for insisting that money allocated for coronavirus ACTUALLY be spent on coronavirus. Because it’s, like, in the Constitution.
P wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"A team of researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. found that global warming has caused a shift in wind patterns that are ultimately bringing more warm ocean water into contact with the region’s ice."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-antarctica-is-melting-shifting-winds-driven-by-global-warming/One more for the climate-change deniers here, like Sally, who think it's all "a crock".
Good lord, dude - give it a rest.
1) Everyone with an IQ above single digits knows that human-caused climate change is real.
2) Everyone on here knows that Sally, Rigged and Igy are some combination of astonishingly stupid and/or trolls.
If you want to make yet another thread about climate change, please do so. That way you can post on and on to your heart's content without hijacking the Trump thread.
P, go easy on him. He seems like he's new to thread and everyone goes through the learning curve of dealing with the resident trolls.
Give him time, he'll learn
L L wrote:
In that case, Pelosi and the House get to pick the winner. I wonder how that would go.
Imagine if Trump wins the popular vote, ties the electoral vote and the House chooses the Dem as the winner.
That would really be civil war.
In the case of a tie, the house would decide. When the house decides, each state delegation receives one vote. Currently 26 states have a majority of Republicans. 22 state house delegations have a majority of Democrats. The other two are tied. So, I don't think your scenario is in play.
L L wrote:
Yosinglercz wrote:
More reasons not to vote for Sanders.
A vote for Bernie puts Trump back in the White House.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/sanders-trump-2020-general/index.htmlThat map is very favorable to Trump and still doesn't put him back in the White House.
It gives him 260 and he needs 270.
PA and WI will be hard for Trump to get.
I think AZ is more toss up than leans R.
Iowa is a toss up, too.
And how is Florida likely R?
Same with North Carolina.
If that map help up and Trump took WI while Bernie took PA, it would be a 270-268 win for Trump.
When did Wisconsin go to a toss-up? I thought it was pretty solidly red for 2020
P wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"A team of researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. found that global warming has caused a shift in wind patterns that are ultimately bringing more warm ocean water into contact with the region’s ice."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-antarctica-is-melting-shifting-winds-driven-by-global-warming/One more for the climate-change deniers here, like Sally, who think it's all "a crock".
Good lord, dude - give it a rest.
1) Everyone with an IQ above single digits knows that human-caused climate change is real.
2) Everyone on here knows that Sally, Rigged and Igy are some combination of astonishingly stupid and/or trolls.
If you want to make yet another thread about climate change, please do so. That way you can post on and on to your heart's content without hijacking the Trump thread.
And who is the biggest climate-change denier of all, other than the POTUS? it's a bit rich to talk of hijacking a thread on Trump when a greater proportion of it is dedicated to taking Democrats apart and purely personal exchanges between commenters. Also, despite what you say about IQ levels, most Trump supporters and quite a few Republicans are also climate-change deniers.
moderates suck wrote:
In the case of a tie, the house would decide. When the house decides, each state delegation receives one vote. Currently 26 states have a majority of Republicans. 22 state house delegations have a majority of Democrats. The other two are tied. So, I don't think your scenario is in play.
I guess I didn't read deep enough into the details.
An advantage of having so many large, low populated states that lean Republican and the Dakotas with a total of 2 House reps getting the same weight as NY and Cali combined that have a total of 80 House reps.
Racket wrote:
P wrote:
Good lord, dude - give it a rest.
1) Everyone with an IQ above single digits knows that human-caused climate change is real.
2) Everyone on here knows that Sally, Rigged and Igy are some combination of astonishingly stupid and/or trolls.
If you want to make yet another thread about climate change, please do so. That way you can post on and on to your heart's content without hijacking the Trump thread.
P, go easy on him. He seems like he's new to thread and everyone goes through the learning curve of dealing with the resident trolls.
Give him time, he'll learn
I am not saying that humans and the ever-increasing CO2 emissions might be damaging the Earth. But the Libs/Global Alarmists here like Fat Hurts never answer this question. Fat Hurts claims that the Earth will keep getting warmer and warmer until we all are dead. BUT, they never answer this ... the Earth has always gone through cooling and warming trends. For all its history of 4.6 billion years. So another Global Cooling IS going to happen. So when it DOES HAPPEN, won't all this worrying about dying in a Global inferno be for naught? Or are you saying that another global cooling phase will NOT happen? Which is it? Are we doomed to die from an inferno or will we enter another cooling phase? Answer me that if you are brave enough.
So a popular vote landslide win for the Democrat coupled with an electoral tie would then mean the Republican wins.
Still a civil war.
After the first hour of trading today, the Dow is down another 900+ points.
Armstronglivs wrote:
P wrote:
If you want to make yet another thread about climate change, please do so. That way you can post on and on to your heart's content without hijacking the Trump thread.
And who is the biggest climate-change denier of all, other than the POTUS?
P refuses to believe Trump is climate denier #1 in the world.
Trollminator wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER3wURDWsAETFis?format=png&name=360x360
Went ANOTHER 1000 points already this morning.
kibitzer wrote:
After the first hour of trading today, the Dow is down another 900+ points.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dow+jones+today&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=dow+j&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l2j69i57j0l3j69i60.4110j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
But trigged said buy buy buy several days ago!
Sally Vix wrote:
Racket wrote:
P, go easy on him. He seems like he's new to thread and everyone goes through the learning curve of dealing with the resident trolls.
Give him time, he'll learn
I am not saying that humans and the ever-increasing CO2 emissions might be damaging the Earth. But the Libs/Global Alarmists here like Fat Hurts never answer this question. Fat Hurts claims that the Earth will keep getting warmer and warmer until we all are dead. BUT, they never answer this ... the Earth has always gone through cooling and warming trends. For all its history of 4.6 billion years. So another Global Cooling IS going to happen. So when it DOES HAPPEN, won't all this worrying about dying in a Global inferno be for naught? Or are you saying that another global cooling phase will NOT happen? Which is it? Are we doomed to die from an inferno or will we enter another cooling phase? Answer me that if you are brave enough.
This has been answered ad nauseum to you by many, and you refuse to acknowledge the answers given.
You certainly don't deserve any thoughtful answer to any of your stupid questions, but I will give a short, incomplete answer that your pea brain might actually understand, though I admit you probably won't.
It doesn't matter that the Earth has had a history of cooling and warming. If I go to an isolated place in a forest where no human has ever been and pick a spot on the ground, that ground has had a history as long as the Earth has existed, of heating and cooling. But, if I start a fire there, I have changed the normal heating and cooling of that area. If I keep that fire going as long as I live, I have changed the temperature of that area for the rest of my life. That is what has happened with pollution causing climate change and indeed global warming.
Your refutation of global warming is a political one only, and you refute the science that is overwhelming even though you are not a scientist.