placeholder

Right. 600+ court cases and I think the Trump team won something minor once. And even arch conservative justices shot Trump's cases down. I really can't believe that you, of all people, are now predicting a judicial finding of a stolen election? Would you bet your life on it? And, by the way, calling people corrupt is in no way evidence that they are corrupt. What don't you understand about the fact that the Trump campaign hired 2 teams of forensic investigators to look for fraud in the 2020 elections and they came up with nothing significant? Were they corrupt, too?

Trump made the U.S. energy dominant in oil and gas? Once again, you ignore trends. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265215/us-oil-production-in-million-metric-tons/#:~:text=Oil production in the U.S. 1998-2022&text=Oil production in the United,by 391.4 million metric tons. So you're claiming that inflation was mostly caused by the rise in energy prices? And the evidence for Biden being the cause of this is? As anyone who actually follows this issue knows, banks and other financing sources pulled back on funding oil companies drilling because of a history of low oil prices making such searches unprofitable. Chronic Underinvestment Could Push Oil Prices Higher In 2022 By Alex Kimani - Dec 29, 2021, 7:00 PM CST https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Chronic-Underinvestment-Could-Push-Oil-Prices-Higher-In-2022.html As for high oil prices, are you aware of an organization called OPEC+? That's a cartel. Do I have to explain to you how a cartel works? Wait there's more: US Oil Output to Hit Record This Year, Helping Counter Saudi Cuts US output to hit record of 12.8 million barrels a day in 2023 Agency’s outlook for refined-products demand has weakened https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-08/us-forecasts-record-oil-production-helping-counter-saudi-cuts?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner And I'm not sure how Biden drawing on the strategic petroleum reserve raised the price of oil? Most people with a basic understanding of supply and demand would say that increasing the supply would tend to lower the price. Can you explain why you believe differently?

Michael B. Mukasey? Really? Mukasey on Trump raid: What made it 'impossible' for FBI to use less intrusive measures? https://www.foxnews.com/media/mukasey-trump-raid-made-impossible-fbi-use-less-intrusive-measures

You suppose wrongly. Hanging a flag of whatever size is ramming opinions down someone's throat? Did she strap viewers into a chair, prop open their eyelids and make them stare at the flags? You keep on edging closer and closer to She was asking for it.

This is by far the best performance of all G7 nations except for Japan. And the Japanese govt heavily subsidizes various consumer goods.

Thank you for falling into the trap and blatantly revealing your double standards. Do you think the covid epidemic and it's effects on the economy stopped on Jan 20, 2021? Why do you give Trump a pass and not Biden? As for crediting Trump with the economic growth during his first 3 years: Here's a chart showing GDP growth in the Obama years and the Trump years. See any sharp change in those first 3 years? https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1351276/wage-growth-vs-inflation-us/ Pay Raises Are Finally Beating Inflation After Two Years of Falling Behind https://archive.ph/gKfPr https://www.wsj.com/articles/pay-raises-are-finally-beating-inflation-after-two-years-of-falling-behind-3e89bc2d And workers are still ahead of where they were in 2019 https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/

Was it Trump's fault that the economy took a nose dive when he was President?

Do you actually still believe that the 2020 elections were stolen? Trumps campaign hired 2 forensic teams to support that claim and even they came up with virtually nothing. And some news is going to break any day now that supports your belief? Got any news for us about the date that Jesus is coming back? I hear it's real soon.

Destruction? US Wage Growth, Lower Unemployment Underpin Solid Jobs Market https://archive.ph/lU1nO https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-04/us-adds-187-000-jobs-unemployment-rate-drops-to-3-5?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner Biggest Pay Raises Went to Black Workers, Young People and Low-Wage Earners https://archive.ph/4eSMD#selection-115.5-115.80 https://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-pay-raises-went-to-black-workers-young-people-and-low-wage-earners-11674425793

Tell that to the chief stolen election claimant, Donald Trump.

For now. In the general election let's see how Trump's appointment of Justices who cancelled Roe v. Wade works out. Dobbs hasn't exactly been a major success with the electorate so far, has it. And then there are his lies about the election being stolen. He doesn't seem to be able to stop airing them over and over and over. How did candidates who ran on the claim of the stolen election fare in the 2022 elections? I recall some people on election night preemptively gloating about the imminent Republican electoral wave. They vanished after the results came in.

Just another silly cheap shot from you. No they don't make their living from climate change Hysteria. Unless you're calling the findings of the ipcc Hysteria.They are climatologists and, surprisingly enough to some, make their living from studying the climate.

The point is, as the authors note, it's about recycling CO2. As the authors explicitly state, leaves suck it up in the spring, and then it eventually gets released after the leaves die and fall to the ground. Not about a net increase.

Nonsense. It's the scientific opinion of the members of the IPCC. You know, climatologists.

Actually, it's about literacy. Here's what you wrote: "Context is important... you missed it. When Biden was first interviewed Trapper gave Biden the benefit of the doubt... now Trapper says that he now believes that Biden was lying..." And then you dug the hole deeper by writing this: "No... reread the article and if you can comprehend what you read you will see the difference." Here's what Tapper explicitly said: "About Biden’s denial, he added, "I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter, but this blind spot is a problem." It's you who needs to read that article again. Or maybe you need to finally read the whole thing. You know, get past the headline and the first few paragraphs.

Good news for the Democrats.

Got a link to support that claim? From the landing page of the World News Forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

I was planning on getting around to it even though I have nothing but contempt for your efforts to make things personal and your calumny. So here it goes. Deflecting onto Greta Thunberg and Al Gore says nothing about the science. My cult, if you want to call it that, is what the climatologists at the IPCC say about the consequences if certain CO2 levels are breached. To distance myself from Al Gore and Greta Thunberg would mean that at one time I was a follower of theirs. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this just more of your baseless nonsense? People like you who try to make it personal do so because they have no good replies to the science. Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong. I've asked you repeatedly Are you claiming that the predicted rise in temperature is wrong? Are you claiming that the predicted faster warming of the poles is wrong? Are you claiming that the huge net loss of water from the world's glaciers is wrong? Are you claiming that the predicted cooling of the stratosphere is wrong? And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims? Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead. And that's because you've got nothing.

Here's his comment. It's located all the back in the distant past: 37 minutes ago and on the same page as your comment.

You know that someone has nothing when they try to make it personal with such comments as "I'm sorry it's upsetting..." Still, no specific rebuttal to the obvious flaw in your interpretation of that article. And the reason is that there can't be one. The gist of the article is that the CO2 is recycled. Sucked up in spring and returned ultimately after death. No net addition to the atmosphere. And you still have no rebuttal for the powerful evidence based on nuclear physics.

You must be desperate for allies if you call someone perceptive who clearly got it massively wrong about what a research paper said.

. I showed exactly why your interpretation of the article is wrong and you come back with empty generalities. If you can't even decpher a simple and accessible research paper accurately, why should anyone believe your general claims at all. In other words, you've got nothing.

Your post is a masterpiece of irony. If you truly had an open mind, you couldn't possibly have come with the conclusion that you from that MIT article titled "The Mathematics of Leaf Decay" If ever there was an example of closed and obsessive thinking, your interpretation of that article fits the bill perfectly.

You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2. For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface. "The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes. Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.