placeholder

Well, letls face it, if Bowman hadn't broadcast his comment, then Greene would never have had to reply. Clearly, the onus is on him...oh wait a minute...

And so unusual for a Republican candidate to believe that Trump was robbed of his second term. Virtually unprecedented.

Just as much as your chart did. But no more nor less.

Because the atmosphere and the oceans are getting warmer, this means that glaciers will be moving South? Are you an inhabitant of oppositeworld?

As for Japan and the United States, didn't you post aa chart that included them.?

Just to show that GDP per capita is an inadequate way of measuring how well an economy is performing.

These are averages whether mean or median who can say since, let's face it, it's not much of a source you cited. At any rate, let's look at them from a standpoint of income inequality. The higher the number , the greater the inequality: United States:................... 18.5 United Kingdom ..............13.8 Italy........................................ 11.6 Canada.................................. 9.4 France................................... 9.1 Germany ..............................6.9 Japan.................................... 4.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Like you, he knew that in 2020, too.

My reply was in response to this: "I cannot have beliefs, thoughts, or ideas of my own? " You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you like no matter how scientifically questionable your beliefs may be. You are even entitled to call the overwhelming scientific consensus "propaganda". It's irrational, but irrationality isn't impermissible.

Obsessed much?

That you call the overwhelming scientific consensus propaganda says it all. Sure, you can believe whatever you like. You can believe that the moon landing didn't take place. You can believe that evolution is a fraud and the universe and everything in it was created about 6000 years ago. But such opinions are based entirely on belief and not on valid evidence.

Thanks for missing the point.

As per usual, no substantive response.

I'm not the one citing interested parties. You are.

Of course, you didn't deny that there is "global warming/cooling/ climate change" Denialists just claim that the current rapid warming trend isn't tied to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because the climate is always changing. This is a typical denialist ploy. They believe that semantics trumps science. Newtonian physics and relativity creep in because denialists claim that the science isn't settled. It is settled. The public only has the impression that it isn't settled because the fossil fuel industry has been doing its best to propagandize otherwise.

Really? You've been claiming that it could be about the jury's decision which you have repeatedly claimed is irrational and somehow that irrational verdict could be due to the judge's incorrect instructions. And you have been extraordinarily trusting in what Trump's lawyer claims.

Actually, your claim has been that the jurors' verdict didn't make sense which would give grounds for a reversal. I gave 2 reasons why their verdict did make sense. Presumably, judges are acquainted with such reasoning. And using the characterization of Trump's lawyers' to sum up the issue is,, somewhat suspect. The only balancedl item that you offered in your comment was that an appellate judge panel will decide whether they will accept the case. So what?

Actually, the reason for the rape allegation not being supported but the sexual battery allegation is pretty clear. In her to her friends after the alleged incident, Carroll never said she was raped. Just that she was sexually assaulted. So the jury found that since she didn't tell her friends she was raped, there wasn't a preponderance of evidence to support that charge. "On the stand Tuesday, Birnbach said she recalled she was feeding her young children in her kitchen at the time when Carroll called and walked out of the room to whisper “‘E. Jean he raped you. You should go to the police.’” Carroll described the incident with Trump as a fight, she didn’t want to hear the word “rape,” Birnbach said." https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/e-jean-carroll-trial/index.html And there's this from the NY Post Why did jurors find Trump liable of sexual abuse and not rape? Mixed verdict in Carroll suit explained Jurors in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump found him liable of sexual abuse — and not rape — likely because they expected “Law & Order”-style forensic evidence to prove the more serious claim, legal experts told The Post on Wednesday. The Manhattan federal jury that awarded the “Ask E. Jean” advice columnist $5 million Tuesday decided that Carroll, 79, had proven her claim of sexual abuse in the alleged 1996 attack by Trump, 76, inside a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room. But they let the 45th president off the hook in her rape allegation — even though both claims were part of the same alleged incident. https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/experts-explain-jurors-mixed-verdict-in-e-jean-carroll-case/

This in no way addresses the fact that this assertion of yours is false: "And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the complaint as filed with the Court was for rape." No, not true. It was for "sexual battery".

"raped and groped"

You sure about that? On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery under the Adult Survivors Act (a law passed the previous May which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations).[54][55] Carroll made a renewed claim of defamation, citing Trump's statements on Truth Social from October.[56][57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#:~:text=On November 24%2C 2022%2C Carroll,on Truth Social from October.

But as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it did find that Trump sexually assaulted her which he continues to deny. And since we have way currently of what the jury meant by its decision, this kind of nitpicking is useless.

You can find support for virtually any belief you hold on the internet and accept it thanks to something called confirmation bias. The fact is that, as the simultaneous cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the troposphere shows, the science is settled on this question. And please spare us the cliche that the science is never settled. The example that denialists routinely introduce is Newton's theory of gravitation vs. relativity. The fact is that Newton's theory is accurate enough to steer a spaceship to Pluto. And no one is retreating to pre-Newtonin physics to explain the motion of heavenly bodies.

Please share with me anything on the progressive side that compares with birtherisim, QAnon, and the belief in stolen elections?

Could a random pedestrian recruited from the street have offered that vision? We'll never know. What we do know is that there's in nothing in Farage's history or comments that suggests he has access to any special insight. All we can do is judge someone on the basis of what they know and what they say. No evidence that Farage understands anything much except how to mobilize resentment.