Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

While you are admitting to your mistakes, are you ready to admit that you were wrong about this one too?

Where is your list of thousands of climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change?

If you can't name any more than that one retired climate scientist, I think you need to just admit your were wrong about the thousands.

You're wrong about EVERYTHING but the trivial details... lol...

I'll say the Bears are better than the Packers. You'll argue that the Packers are better than the Bears.

I will point out that the Bears beat the Packers by 27, therefore, they were the better team and you thrust your chin and the air and say AHA! The Bears didn't win by 27 they won by 24 and I was right all along!

You're not making the point you think you're making.

The "Prager University" video was a commentary by Richard Lindzen who literally taught at MIT. You're so busy attacking the messenger on every single issue the actual arguments all go sailing over your empty head.

I could give you a thousand names and you would ignore 100% of their arguments and dedicate all of your time to discrediting them as people because you're a fool.

The scientists exist even in the toxic atmosphere of stupidity people like yourself have created.

More importantly, the SCIENCE exists and can't be refuted by the alarmists.

Science has NOTHING to do with consensus.

Dude, I thought that you were trying to agree with "Adult"! Why in the world would you post that? Why utterly humiliate the guy when he so consistently backs you?

It is embarrassing how stupid you people are...

I didn't argue that the world was cooling, or that the predictions from the 70s were correct. I argued that they happened.

Why you painfully stupid people think proof that my argument was correct makes you look is baffling.

That should say "makes you look good". The thought of your ideas making you look good was absurd I couldn't even finish the sentence...

😂😂😂

Poor old Sally.

You said there were thousands of climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change.

So far, you have named one guy who retired almost 10 years ago.

Why can't you just admit that your assertion was false?

Right now we are just establishing that climate scientists overwhelmingly accept anthropogenic climate change.

Since you can only name one long-retired climate scientist who doesn't share this view, I am obviously right about it.

I am sure you would agree that climate scientists should never accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame, i.e., that it is settled science.

Senile and obviously can't do the job. He's gotta go.

Impeach Biden 2023.

Most embarrasing answer ever in the public sphere ...

Karine Jean-Pierre made her historic debut as White House press secretary this week. And after watching her first four performances as the president’s spokesperson, only one word sums it all up: amateur.
To be sure, White House press secretary is one of the hardest white-collar jobs in the world, if not the hardest. Oftentimes, as we witnessed with Jean-Pierre’s predecessor, Jen Psaki, the job calls for defending the indefensible. And when 79 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and when the public’s approval of the president’s handling of the economy and the border is languishing in the 20s, that’s not a job most would sign up for.
But Jean-Pierre isn’t just a victim of bad luck regarding the president for whom she works. This early conclusion comes after watching this press secretary read answers to questions, oftentimes for extended periods of time, verbatim.
The confidence simply is not there, nor is the conviction. Consider this exchange between the new press secretary and Peter Doocy on Monday after the Fox News White House correspondent read the following tweet from Biden on May 16.
“You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share,” the president tweeted.
Doocy: “How does raising taxes on corporations lower the cost of gas, the cost of a used car, the cost of food, for everyday Americans?”
What followed was akin to a high school student putting together a series of sentences in order to achieve a mandatory word count on a term paper. Here was the answer verbatim, per the official White House transcript:
Jean-Pierre: “So, look, I think we encourage those who have done very well — right? — especially those who care about climate change, to support a fairer tax — tax code that doesn’t change — that doesn’t charge manufacturers’ workers, cops, builders a higher percentage of their earnings; that the most fortunate people in our nation — and not let the — that stand in the way of reducing energy costs and fighting this existential problem, if you think about that as an example, and to support basic collective bargaining rights as well. Right? That’s also important. But look, it is — you know, by not — if — without having a fairer tax code, which is what I’m talking about, then all — every — like manufacturing workers, cops — you know, it’s not fair for them to have to pay higher taxes than the folks that — who are — who are — who are not paying taxes at all or barely have.”
The original question about how raising taxes on corporations lowers inflation did not get answered.
On another occasion on Wednesday, a reporter asked if there is “a new level of alarm within the White House about the stock market?” The question came after stocks plunged for a sixth straight day, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing more than 1,100 points, the biggest drop in two years.
Jean-Pierre: “We do not — that’s not something that we keep an eye on every day. And so, I don’t — I’m not going to comment about that from here.”
So while more than 144 million Americans own stock, and many more are invested in 401Ks for their retirement, the White House isn’t keeping an eye on it. Sleep tight, America.
For all Psaki’s flaws – among the most notable were pushing hilariously false narratives such as blaming former President Trump for the current border crisis and arguing that spending additional trillions will lower inflation and the deficit and that Republicans want to defund the police – there was confidence behind her answers regardless of whether they were convincing or not. Psaki left the White House for MSNBC, which led to Jean-Pierre’s promotion.
Then there’s the question of Jean-Pierre’s credibility based on her past statements which, if uttered by a conservative or anyone named Trump, would be characterized as a chilling attack on democracy.
“Stolen election … welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump,” she tweeted after the 2016 election.
“Trump always finds a way to take it to the lowest of lows. Not only is he petulant dotard but also a deplorable illegitimate president,” was her sentiment in 2017.
“Reminder: Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams,” she said of Abrams’s gubernatorial loss to Republican Brian Kemp.
It’s a good thing the new Government Disinformation Board has been put on hold, because these reckless claims should be placed at the top of the list. And of course, Twitter did not suspend Jean-Pierre’s account or take those tweets down despite breaking it’s number one rule regarding false or misleading claims.
Elon Musk is correct: The platform does have a “very far-left bias.” Jean-Pierre should apologize while taking these tweets down, but that ain’t happening and likely never will because a mostly compliant media isn’t broaching them or calling her a conspiracy theorist. And you know that would not be the case if a press secretary for a Republican president made such chilling claims.
The coverage of Jean-Pierre thus far has focused not on her performance but on her gender, race and sexual orientation.
Karine Jean-Pierre leads history-making first briefing as White House press secretary” — USA Today
“New press secretary hails barrier breakers who paved the way for her” — NBC News
Meanwhile, on Friday, it was announced that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby is heading to the White House. Multiple reports say Kirby will appear in place of Jean-Pierre on occasion but will not be officially sharing duties with her.
Kirby, who is steady, likable and credible in this role at the Pentagon, should have been the president’s first choice to replace Psaki. He’s also relatively fearless in appearing on all the cable news networks, including Fox News on multiple occasions. The decision about Psaki’s replacement should have been one of the easier ones for the president to make. Alas, it went to Jean-Pierre.
Akhil Amar and the Dobbs draftWe must help Ukraine avert a global food crisis before it’s too lateAnd if she is wise, she will reach out to past successful press secretaries who served under Democratic presidents. Mike McCurry was excellent under President Clinton, as were Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney and Josh Earnest under President Obama.

thehill.com

Amateur hour at the White House briefing room

dallott

For all Psaki’s flaws, there was confidence behind her answers regardless of whether they were convincing or not.

Link:thehill.com/opinion/white-house/349679...

You can't be that stup!d. Can you?

Your "argument" was that the predictions of the imminent ice age popularized in the 70s (i.e., the pop culture of the time) were essentially equivalent to the current scientific understanding of global climate change and that therefore, today's scientific community detailing the manner, causes and future expectations with respect to climate change had no more credibility than the pop culture ("the ice age is coming, the ice age is coming") of the 70s.

In doing so, you showed that, beyond being stupid on a fairly pedestrian level, you were (and remain) completely incapable of understanding the difference between pop culture and science. That is also what Sally's article outlined - how stupid and ignorant people like you simply are incapable of understanding something so simple.

The article laid some blame on the Newsweeks and Times of the 70s for inadvertently catering to the morons of the 2020s (i.e., you). I wouldn't be so hard on Time, etc. They had to sell their magazines. And their target audience was the morons of the world. Not really their fault any more than it is Fox "News" fault that there are so many morons.

And in truth, it probably isn't really your fault either. You are a moron. You cannot understand anything beyond what your average 8 year old understands. It is simply beyond your fundamental capabilities. So, although I am tempted to despise you for it, I really need to channel my better self and simply pity you for your intellectual limitations.

You have my pity, dude. You are beautiful in your own, moronic way. But I simply don't have any more time to waste on someone who is not capable of understanding.

Carry on. You will be ignored by me from here. So, be sure to get your final, idiotic post in.

Cheers.

There's plenty of them. They all make similar arguments. You have NO IDEA what the arguments are. You just want names so you can attack the name rather than the argument.

The assertion is not false.

You are too dumb to comprehend that EVERYTHING you think you know about climate change comes through a lens. I've seen both sides of the debate. You deny any debate exists.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Much like your party's 26,000 genders... "anthropogenic climate change" is a SPECTRUM.

You have no idea what the term even means...

It does NOT mean that 100% of warming is man made. In fact, there isn't a scientist alive that can tell you what percentage of the warming has anything at all to do with man's activities.

ALL scientists agree that greenhouse gases can cause warming. This does not mean they all agree that man is the primary or even a significant driver of the warming.

I gave you 1 name and you still have NO IDEA what he thinks. All you've managed to figure out is that you don't like Prager University because they don't confirm your bias like the rest of the bubble you live in. Why would I waste my time providing you with more names of people you won't even listen to and certainly couldn't understand anyway??

No, we've established that you have NO IDEA what the debate even is.

You're just repeating catch phrases while having absolutely no idea what they mean.

Most skeptics don't deny anthropogenic climate change.

Do you not feel even a little stupid attacking an argument you've literally never even heard?