JCauto

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They would be privileged.

How many lawyers, assistants and time is needed to review 3.7 million documents?

Except that the Judges appear to be siding with the view that there was no Attorney-Client privilege between Cohen and his clients as he was acting more as a "fixer" and a consultant than a lawyer. And as one is seldom as careful in speaking as one is in writing, I'm expecting pretty much everything to come out in the wash. Won't that be a dainty dish to set before your King?

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

It’s really humorous to me that being opposed to immigration law seems to mean you need to try to change facts and use tricky wording. Why can’t legitimate facts be enough to let people decide? 

Or, alternatively, post one-line responses to complex arguments repeating the same already discredited line ad nauseum while carefully avoiding responding to the valid points made by one's interlocutors.

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you're awaiting trial then you haven't been convicted yet. By your logic, nobody who is charged with a crime and awaiting trial should be released into the community. And this is a victimless crime to boot. So nothing in the nature of the crime represents a threat to the community. 

 

Bawk! Law is law! Bawk! Black or white! Bawk! 

Just thought I'd give you bushdoctor's response to save him some time. His favourite book in the last 10 years was a bit naughty, "0 Shades of Gray".

48 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

How many billionaires do you actually know? They can be asses just like the rest of us. 

None. You said smart people, not billionaires. And you just made my point - you don't necessarily have to be smart to be a Billionaire. 

Just now, bushdoctor said:

A border wall is exempt. National security. 

Exempt from causing ecological and environmental damage? 

Trump and his minions like the execrable scumbag Pruitt of course will ignore the obvious environmental impacts of the wall. They have no vision to think about long-term consequences. I have no idea what your previous comment had to do with mine, which was referring to these impacts and the likely scale of the project. If you possess great knowledge of the area, you should surely have something useful to add to these aspects, no?

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Are you sure? Trump is a smart guy. 

The government doesn’t have to resolve the lawsuits by agreeing on a fair price or identifying all the landowners to begin construction. Once the Justice Department sues and tells the court it’s taking the land, the property belongs to the federal government. As I said, it’s called Eminent Domain. A legal challenge over fair price could still be made, but wouldn’t stop the land from being acquired.  

 

Then there is invoking the national security clause. That’s is where U.S. presidents have huge leverage and something Trump is well aware of. 

 

About half the Texas land has already been acquired under previous administrations for their own border fence plans. Most people probably wouldn’t have a problem with selling a 25 foot strip of border land for a wall, as long as they got  a fair price. If they refuse then the land will be condemned and will still end up in government hands. Even if an unforeseen situation did arise in a certain area, that wouldn’t prevent construction of the rest of the wall. 

I'm not sure that Trump is a smart guy at all, but that's a different issue. You're correct about eminent domain, they would certainly be able to do that and Trump has already used the "National Security" excuse for tariffs on Canadian steel which are very obviously no such thing. So no doubt he would do it in this case.

The only issue I would raise is that there's no way you end up with a mere 25 foot of eminent domain easement when you're talking a national security measure that's being actively patrolled. They'd put a perimeter road of significant size completely around it along with regular access routes for starters. There would be regularly spaced outposts for agents, facilities for the patrolling, etc. This would be a yuuuugggeee project with a massively negative environmental impact that wastes billions of dollars on something that is not a major problem for the US (California crops are already starting to rot in the fields due to lack of workers)...

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Really!  .The government has the right to acquire land under the provisions of the 5thn amendment for a fair market value but any attept will be tied up in court for many years.  You obviously don't know much about the Rio Grande Valley.  The many farmer's and ranchers in both Comedic and the US rely on the river to provide irrigation for their crops and water for their cattle.  In addition there are many recreational companies that offer facilities, tours and outings all along the river.  These people will not allow the government to put them out of business without a significant legal fight which will go on as on as the current immigration spat.  If they have no access to the river their businesses, farms and ranches will cease to exist.  What is the"fair market value" for that. It'll never happen!!!!

You're also neglecting the disastrous ecological impact it will have on wildlife in the border regions.

What this article fails to mention however is the revelation from a couple of months ago that Cohen typically would record and keep all of his conversations with his clients. When one does this, probably little need to document them. But oh boy, what a treasure trove those recordings are likely to be.

4 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Nope, it’s entering the country illegally that’s the problem, it’s a crime.  Applying for asylum is fine. 

Trump nor anyone else has nmade misdemeanors into felonies. 

It's a "crime" that has been treated as a misdemeanor in both Democratic and Republican administrations since its promulgation in 1996 (under Bill Clinton). As you well know, the administration has choices they can make in terms of how they view the law and prosecute it. And this administration has broken with previous ones in most respects, including this one, with the explicit choice of making life particularly difficult on anyone seeking to enter the USA, whether legally (seeking asylum) or not. When you remove people's ability to seek asylum by restricting the avenues by which they can do that and make any alternative illegal, then you inevitably are driving desperate people to escape their situation (which is life and death in terms of those seeking asylum) through breaking the law. That these policies and outcomes didn't occur prior to this administration demonstrate how different administrations treat the law differently and achieve very different outcomes. 

What I don't understand is why are the Trump supporters continuing to try to defend the clumsy and obvious attempts to change the application of the law as being something other than what they are. He ran on this platform, his Base are clearly in favour of these actions and want them continued, and they've managed to manufacture consent among a significant number of people that "illegal immigration" is a major problem despite not having much evidence for the claim. So why try to pretend this is just some continuation of business as usual? You have pushed for this policy and want it, so defend it. You wanted this, you got it, now you can't live with the optics of the cruelty that underpin it. This is because, ultimately, anyone with basic empathy for others can see what this is - institutionalized racism. 

28 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Again, it’s not immigrants that are the focus. It’s the illegal immigrants. 

 

Incorrect. According to the law, those seeking asylum from persecution are not illegal immigrants. It is the manoeuvering by the present administration that first ratcheted up the penalties to try to make misdemeanors into felonies and then to abrogate their longstanding agreements with respect to human rights to criminalize the act of seeking refuge. To seek asylum is a human right according to the agreements entered into (and mostly written by) the United States. The current administration disagrees with these rights, but rather than fight that fight publicly, they've instead resorted to sophistry and manipulation of the application of the laws to achieve their ends. 

45 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

If not, honest Canucks will have to apply for asylum in the US of A...

Oh really? Only Right-Wing Folk are honest, eh? Why waste time? You should go join your buddies down South as soon as you can, doubt they'll be in power there for much longer.

37 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

Trump thought he could use it to squeeze the Dems to make a deal for his Wall. Instead looks like the excrement splattered back on Humpty Dumpty.

 

Nothing to do, but blame it on Dems, Declare Victory and tweet a bunch a rambling incoherent BS.

Trumpty Numpty.

19 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I'll give you the deficit spending point. 

The other points are mainly your take on it. Changing social norms is not always progress. The Al Quaida payout was exceptionally offensive to the majority of Canadians, and it doesn't matter that electing celebrities is becoming normal. It's still foolish. That being said, quite e few celebrities have better qualifications to be a national leader than Trudeau.

Well, er, of course they're my take, that's what forum debate is. Normally, if one wants to pursue those points they offer counterpoints which reflect their take. But whatever, as I noted, I'm not that interested in Canadian politics anyway. I do appreciate though when counterpoints are offered in a measured and reasonable way such as in this post, which contribute to discussion.

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Obviously the hyperbole was tongue in cheek. I don't think he should get a special place in hell, just a regular place would be fine. 

He's a prime minister who is more interested in gender issues than making the economy work, he is expanding the deficit at a record pace, he paid an Al Queda murderer 10 million for getting arrested for killing a non combatant. And he really just annoys the heck out of me knowing that he only got in there because his dad was a legend to Eastern Canadians. The guy himself is likely unable to balance a check book. It's like being ruled by an obnoxious prince who is more interested in painting pretty PC cultural Marxist rainbows instead of helping Canada compete in the global economy. 

Right, that was the sort of hyperbole I was talking about.

Happy to discuss Canadian political issues, although I'm frankly much more invested in American ones which have mattered a whole lot more. But if that's the sort of position/analysis we can expect, not sure how productive it might be. But I'll give it a go anyway. 

Deficit

Here's the deficits between 1963 and 2015. As I recall, the Harper Government of the Progressive Conservatives were in power between 2006 and 2015. Afterwards, there's a link with the deficits of 2016 and 2017 for which Trudeau is responsible. I've taken the liberty of copying the graph from the second reference showing the Government Deficit by year.

Looks to me like that deficit dove prior to 2015 at quite the drop to almost 4% of GDP. So that's not correct.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-budget

Al Qaida Guy

Choosing to participate in the terrible and illegal actions of the US Government post-9/11 was an error by the Canadian security services who shared unreliable intelligence with the Americans in full knowledge of what the Americans were doing, then sent in questions for the interrogators to ask. Whether Omar Khadr was a Terrorist was never determined conclusively as any evidence obtained was done under torture. We in Canada do not condone torture and do follow the UN Human Rights Convention and Geneva Convention. These acts are explicitly illegal under Canadian and International Law. The Government security services supplied the incorrect information by which the 3 guys who just got $31 million in compensation were detained and tortured for. These things all happened under Harper's term. 

Princeling

Yeah, sure. As we see increasingly in politics from all political sides, the public appears to prefer famous amateurs to professional policy makers. Part of the increasingly dumb society we are becoming.

Marxist Rainbows

Yes, I know social progress is anathema to old white guys, but our world is no longer. It was fun while it lasted, and all, but we were not responsible stewards and it's time to let other people get involved. One of the many lessons America can learn from Canada is tolerance for diversity and ensuring that there is opportunity for all kinds of people. I prefer that those who are different and pursuing different lifestyles or are handicapped or otherwise having difficulty can make a living and be provided the kind of social and health services that enable that to happen. That way they're more productive and society as a whole prospers. Trudeau stood up to the bullying of Trump over his ridiculous sanctions and has received massive support from elsewhere in the world as a result, and has had his prestige increased as well. Smart political move to slam the President for the lying and ridiculous trade tirades he and his acolytes embarked upon. There are costs to these things, and they'll be born by the Americans while the Canadians strengthen trade with Asia and the EU. About time too, we're too dependent on an unstable America. The Royal Bank of Canada does not even OFFER Euro Accounts. Let Trump turn to coal, guns, prayer and dirty deals with dictators and dodgy regimes.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, only discussing LOS.

 

Worth noting that the snow line has been rising in New Zealand since the mid 1970s, so it's been going on a very long time in human terms. Plus, the world population was probably a few billion less than now. More to it than just human activity, IMO.

Of course there is more to it than human activity. The difference is that the human activity is a factor that didn't exist before (or was basically negligible) and that it pushes things only in one direction (towards warming), whereas naturally occurring cycles tend to go in both directions depending on the activity.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Whether C C has had an effect on weather here is irrelevant in the context of "flash floods swamping downtown C M". The monsoon has always brought a lot of rain, and every city in LOS should be prepared for it, but they are not, for all the usual reasons nothing in LOS is ever "prepared", not least actually cleaning out the drains already in place and clearing the drain covers.

 

As for the last paragraph, I dispute that "people both becoming aware of the issue and changing their practices to reduce their carbon footprints" is happening, especially in LOS. How many alternative energy power plants do you see? They do use gas, as it's available off shore, but they are doing ZERO to reduce use of carbon to power every vehicle in LOS or get people to use decent public transport. Often, public transport is so badly maintained that it is itself a major polluter.

 

I also claim that probably not a single TVF poster is travelling by sailing ship to avoid using carbon to get to and from LOS ( I do not include those that sail for pleasure ) or ride horses to avoid travelling by IC engine power. I'm sure some use bicycles, but probably not for commuting ( with perhaps some few exceptions ).

 

If you know of any large scale government initiatives to provide alternative power generation, or a move to require non fossil fuelled vehicles, I'd be interested to learn about them.

 

As I always say in such threads, the largest contributor to pollution on planet earth is human overpopulation, and till that is reversed with a significant reduction in numbers nothing else is going to make any difference.

Oh, you were referring only to climate change efforts in Thailand? Yes, I would agree that they're hardly even attempting to dress the windows.

I would also agree about over-population being a huge underlying problem that nobody seems to be willing to even discuss. Seems the religious object to it.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's amazing to me that a problem caused by lack of maintenance or not providing sufficient drainage has been infiltrated by the climate change mob. It rains every year in C M, and the city administrators never prepare for it. That's the problem, not the average temperature.

 

BTW, though I ask on every climate change thread for ideas as what to do about it, the pro CC mob never have any realistic suggestions. Seems that they think if they just talk about it enough, and have enough conferences the problem will fix itself.

Certainly it would be spurious to attribute this particular incident to climate change, and no doubt the wonderful Thai attitudes to maintenance would contribute if not be the primary cause of the flooding problem.

The discussion with respect to climate change started when one poster made an observation about how weather had changed significantly in his 20 years in Thailand, and then indeed blamed anthropomorphic causes for the changes. The evidence that the climate has significantly changed in the last 20 years is clear, abundant and conclusive. To expect there to be no effects of this on Thailand would be absurd. So discussing climate change in the context of this event, despite its not being the primary cause, is relevant.

As to your question with regard to ideas about what to do about it, there are a number of ongoing efforts. One, indeed, is awareness-raising, and it, indeed, has had a major impact on people both becoming aware of the issue and changing their practices to reduce their carbon footprints. This is spurring a market in alternative carbon-neutral energy and other eco-friendly products. This has had such an impact that coal is no longer viable economically while the cost of solar and wind continues to plummet as investment in clean technology spurs improved efficiency - note that this is happening without coal being penalized for their carbon costs. Countries are progressively implementing carbon taxes, both as a way to generate revenue to support the shift of the economy away from fossil fuels and to move towards an economy where all costs are accounted for so that people can't extract benefits without leaving problems for others. Does that answer your question?

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Apparently there are still people around who are still clinging to the belief climate change and global warming are hoaxes.

Fact 1. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising inexorably since the advent of the industrial age.

Fact 2. No-one has ever been able to nullify the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Fact 3. The Antarctic Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates.

Fact 4. In the last ten years, Australia has had heat extremes in summer never previously experienced.

 

Every time we drive a vehicle, make toast or run an air-conditioner, we are pumping heat and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I am baffled by people who think this can be done without consequences.

 

Check out insurance companies. They are quietly assembling terms and conditions on property insurance which minimizes their risk of exposure to climate change. If you live on a seaboard, soon you will be paying through the nose for insurance.

Yes, the insurance companies changing rates and the revelations that Exxon and the other Big Oil companies had realised this was happening 25 years ago pretty much put the lies to rest. 

11 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I think the "major report" of June 2017 cited by the OP is addressed here:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

 

Apparently it appeared in, or was regurgitated at, Breitbart, not exactly a reliable source of information. It usually takes just nanoseconds to discredit the kinds of garbage disseminated (irresponsibly) by people such as the person who originally posted here, but people will believe what they choose to believe <sigh> ...

 

 

 

 

Yes, this one has adopted the "blast them with links" approach, assuming that nobody will bother to read them (which is usually the case, especially when linking to completely specious material).

15 hours ago, Justfine said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#7b0574213bb3

 

Debunked years ago

 

Scam over

 

 

For those without the time to go through this nonsense, fortunately some qualified people did. It did not go well for Mr. Bell.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/