placeholder

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

I wrote that I didn't watch all of it. That said, as far as this subject goes, did Putin say anything that the Russian govt hasn't said? Any surprises here?

Apparently, your suspicions are very recent:

There's nothing in this interview Putin hasn't said before most of it many times. At least, as much of it as I watched. I'll be glad to read a transcript whenever becomes available at no charge.

And speaking of "over the top" Biden Says Israel’s Response in Gaza is ‘Over the Top’ President Joe Biden on Thursday gave his sharpest criticism yet of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military campaign, which has killed more than 27,000 Palestinians, according to health officials in Gaza. “I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza, in the Gaza Strip, has been over the top,” Biden said in response to a reporter’s question at the White House. Biden said he has been “pushing very hard” for a temporary cease-fire in exchange for the release of hostages held by Hamas and freeing of Palestinians in Israeli jails. https://www.voanews.com/a/biden-says-israel-s-response-in-gaza-is-over-the-top-/7480608.html

Has Israel finally gone over-the-top in its prosecution of the war? It looks like the Biden administration thinks so: The U.S. and U.N. warn Israel that a military advance in Rafah could be disastrous. The Biden administration said on Thursday that it would not at this point support Israeli plans for a military operation in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza where more than half of the enclave’s total population has sought shelter, and both a White House spokesman and the U.N. secretary general warned of catastrophe should Israel attack. “Given the circumstances and the conditions there that we see right now, we think a military operation at this time would be a disaster for those people,” a White House spokesman, John Kirby, told reporters. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/09/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#us-intelligence-officials-tell-congress-that-israel-is-not-close-to-eliminating-hamas

If anyone was a "pot plant" it was Carlson. Might as well have put up a cardboard image of him for all the probing questions he asked Putin.

Here are your own words: "I hate it when interviewers cut their guests off as they do so often to appear clever or smart." You think it's a worthy motivation for an interviewer to ask questions for the sake of appearing clever or smart?

It's not just ice cores. There are lots of ways to get independent correlation from various biological processes. And they confirm each other. I don't know if you are familiar with the hockey stick controversy. Michael Mann, a climatologist, published a study that showed a sharp rise in temperatures. Denialists jumped all over it. Subsequent studies, drawn from different sets of data have all confirmed this.

Not surprisingly, you have to pay to read the transcript which is a far better way to fact-check and analyze the interview.

As I pointed out earlier, he already got called out by the Kremlin spokesman for claiming that Western media hadn't made attempts to interview Putin. “Mr Carlson is not correct. In fact, there’s no way he could know this,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday. Mr Peskov went on to say that the Kremlin receives “numerous requests” for interviews from Western media, which are all denied because the Kremlin does not deem the media outlets impartial." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-vladimir-putin-interview-b2492192.html It looks like he's even more pro-Putin than Putin himself.

Says you. For one thing, the Minsk agreements required the withdrawal of all foreign forces. The Russians said that didn't apply to them since they didn't have any troops in Donbas. It is to laugh.

Here's how this sub-thread began: No arguments or evidence you have posted since has contradicted my assessment. Unless you count repeated denials unbacked by arguments or evidence as valid rebuttals.

No one has contended that Putin is stupid. As for others who contend that Putin knows where bodies are buried without explaining why he hasn't revealed them, one might legitimately question the quality of their reasoning.

So, your basic point is to attribute unworthy motivations when journalists challenge the people they interview. Just another example of right wing mind reading.

So what exactly is Carlson's function here?

I'm listening and so far it seems like Carlson is basically taking dictation. There is a transcript available, but you have to join Team Tucker to access it. That's $6 I'm not going to give him.

Whatever the gist of your comments may be, they certainly do not support Sirineou's prediction of the inevitability of decisive action being taken by the US. I don't see how a gradual step-by-step increase in pressure is compatible with that assertion. As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed that point at all but rather chosen to delineate what steps the US might take to ratchet up pressure. So, you may disagree about my contention that we basically are in agreement on the issue of decisive action, but I don't see that you have explained why that is the case. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about agreement.

On the basis of their comments and questions, it looks like the Justices are going to be unanimous or close to it in their overruling of the Colorado attempt to disallow Trump from being on the ballot. And their argument makes sense. The Civil War was fought over the issue of states rights vs federal government rights. And it would seem odd that the outcome of that war was an amendment that would elevate the rights of states over that of the federal govt in the case of federal elections. The justices seemed to suggest that it would take an act of Congress to empower the states to disallow candidates.

Well, in the case of the Gaza massacre, US sources affirmed they had strong intelligence that the Iranian govt was as surprised by the news. In the case of the Houthis, apart from their ideological motivation, it has given their popularity a boost. Their bad governance was doing them no favors with the citizens of Yemen. So they had motives of their own. These groups supported by Iran such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas have their own agendas. Insofar as it might serve what the mullahs perceive to be in Iran's interest, they won't interfere.

Well, my comment on this thread began with a claim from Sirineou that America was inevitably going to take decisive action. I asked what that decisive action would like like. Nothing in his comments specified what that might be. Your comments on the other hand suggest that decisive action is not likely for the time being and certainly not inevitable. Apart from something unforeseen happening. I suppose if the Iranian regime were to collapse, that might do it. Possibly the Chinese might prevail on the Iranians since Iran sells China a lot of petroleum and the Chinese economy is more dependent than most on external trade. As for a clear victory in this matter...that would be not about overthrowing the Houthis but rather the far more modest goal of restoring free passage in the Red Sea. The 2 shipping giants, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, and others are currently not sending vessels through the Suez Canal. And all the experts I have read on the subject seem to agree that nothing that air and sea power are likely to accomplish will persuade them otherwise. So, for the time being, it's Houthis 1, Opponents 0.

LIke the Supreme Court? Which ruled against the forces crying election fraud in 2020? Or the 2 highly conservative judges who lambasted Aileen Cannon for her ruling that favored Trump? Conservative and liberal justices alike have repeatedly ruled against Trump.

Endorsing only positive stuff and nothing negative about a prominent figure like Putin obviously qualifies Carlson as an over-the-top fan. What kind of evidence would even satisfy the criterion you seek to impose. In fact, your request is ridiculous. And thanks for another attempt at deflection. And no, I'm not going to get into a discussion comparing the threat from China vs. the threat from Russia.

History may show it, but you haven't. Please spare us your visions of the future. Actually, if my comment about "Putin's own people" referred to the people of Russia rather than his own staff - that would make it even worse. Once again, Putin's own spokesperson said Carlson's claim about western media was false. As for the lawsuit in question, it wasn't about the election. Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts When Tucker Carlson says on his show “[r]emember the facts of the story; these are undisputed" no reasonable person would believe that he was about to state facts. At least, that was Tucker Carlson's own argument in defending himself from a libel suit. That argument convinced U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who dismissed a lawsuit brought by model and actress Karen McDougal. McDougal sued for defamation, alleging Carlson baselessly told his audience she was extorting the President. President Trump allegedly paid $150,000 to help keep quiet a year-long affair with the former Playboy model. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/

Please share with me some remarks from Carlson about Putin that are negative. I did a search and couldn't find any. Once again, Tucker Carlson is an over-the-top fan of Vladimir Putin. And I'm not going to fall for your other comments which are just an attempt to deflect from the point I raised.