ok, so did Donald Trump win or lose in this election?

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the recount process. Totally different thing.

Government officials threatening to arrest journalists is not something to be concerned about?

NBC News had to get a judge to say it was okay.

You guys constantly screech about "fascism", and yet you ignore this? Lol

they literally Screech about the president kicking a journalist out of the White House two days ago, but not this.

BECAUSE THEY JUST ORANGE MAN BAD.

They're not the Patriots they say they are.

[Cecily]

I’ve actually been depressed, not due to politics, on the couch since Election Day. All I know from that point there’s a bunch of hand flapping republicans in FL atm and that California is on fire.

California being on fire is sad, but Caitlin Jenner’s house burnt down so I’m ok with it.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’ve actually been depressed, not due to politics, on the couch since Election Day. All I know from that point there’s a bunch of hand flapping republicans in FL atm and that California is on fire.

California being on fire is sad, but Caitlin Jenner’s house burnt down so I’m ok with it.

California is always on fire.

I don't think Trump pointing that out is going to win him any friends though.

People who believe in witchcraft will think it's global warming.

It's bad forest management.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

California is always on fire.

I don't think Trump pointing that out is going to win him any friends though.

People who believe in witchcraft will think it's global warming.

It's bad forest management.

what's bad about it?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People who believe in witchcraft will think it's global warming.

It's bad forest management.

There is a point here buried in Mick's denialism. That when it comes down to it -- there are faster and more effective ways to stop the forest from burning down every year than trying to reverse the GLOBAL trend of GLOBAL warming.

It's one thing to be like: "god damn bugs on my porch -- its probably global warming" -- and then use some damn bug spray. But if I sit around acting like someone is going to fix global warming so their won't be bugs on my porch is beyond retarded.

Many agree that forest fires are caused by the Forest Service putting out smaller brush burning fires and waiting until big fires get started. Some even theorize this is because once a forest is damaged from fire -- mills can use this as a pre-text for a "salvage" operation that lets them cut down wood they normally couldn't. So we should be looking here to solve the west coast forest fire problem.

When it comes to things like tornadoes, hurricanes though...pretty much at the mercy of humans' ability to tackle global warming.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When it comes to things like tornadoes, hurricanes though...pretty much at the mercy of humans' ability to tackle global warming.

so tornadoes are caused by global warming.

seems legit.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so tornadoes are caused by global warming.

seems legit.

Global climate patterns are relevant in the frequency and intensity of tornadoes

Hope this helps

[Wonkie]

merry Qmas to all

[Wonkie]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:


In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

Here's the problem with that measurement. It doesn't capture the fact that incomes and business opportunity influenced by the federal government (basically everything to varying degrees) have a huge impact on the wage people earn in America.

There are quite a few people -- right now -- that used to pay more tax than they recieve from transfers, that now do not because of international trade agreements.

You recognize the danger that people can vote to tax income that isn't theirs and use that money for things that benefit themselves. But seem completely ignorant of the fact that people can (often behind the scenes in congressional committees) use the government to make sure they are the ones with more income in the first place, or that others have less.