placeholder

Can you please share with us a link to your study? Did you publish in The Journal of Because I Said So.?

Definitely. After all, next to Trump, Jesus is probably the most innocent man who ever lived.

You don't understand. He's using Trump based math in which "fewer voters" means a majority. And the fewer you have, the greater the majority. Provided they're Trump voters. When considered that way, that 38% means Trump has a virtual lock on the Presidency come the next elections.

Actually, that was the whole point of the negotiations. Kim would get rid of all those nuclear weapons in return for lots of economic aid and trade.

You should definitely stick to what if propositions. That way, there's no nasty fact-checking to face.

Typical left-wing censorship. If only someone like Elon Musk was in charge at Twitter!

Can you share with us a link to the agreement you claim is embodied in certain papers? I can't find evidence of that. The only signing I know of is the Singapore Agreement which was empty of any concrete significance. And Kim and Trump did sign that.

The Founding Director of the Claremont Institutes's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is, get this, John Eastman. He also pushed the fake elector scheme and advised the President the Mike Pence had the authority to disqualify electors and and delegate choosing electors back to states where it just happened the Republicans had majorities in the legislature. Not even Trump's own White House Counsel thought this could fly. And he also believes that even though the 14 Amendment specifies persons born in the United States as being citizens, he decided that's not really what it means.

Where did I say they should find an alternative? Who's doing the distracting now? I did say they should be doint a lot more to clean up the messes that they are responsible for. And I noticed that you completely ignored that point.

Well, in countries which strongly encourage their citizens to use less energy, the per capita rate is far lower than in countries which don't. Europeans consume far less energy per capita than do Americans. Of course, they have far better public transport systems than does the United States. And there's this: Can nudges help to cut household energy consumption? Closer to home, a 2011 UK-based study by Paul Dolan of the London School of Economics and Robert Metcalfe of the University of Oxford tested how the impact of social norms, with and without information on energy-saving behaviour affected gas usage. The study found that households provided with both the norm and the information reduced consumption by 9%, an effect almost twice as big as when they were given the social norm alone. The reduction in energy usage was also longer lasting among those households that received the norms and information combination. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behaviour-change-energy-consumption

Stop engaging in distraction from the real issues. Devote a lot more money to cleaning up the pollution they're causing. Capping leaking methane gas wells, but those that are abandoned and currently in use would be a great start. And again, more ridiculous extreme statements.

From their point of view, every little bit helps. And as is your usual wont, you indulge in rampant exaggeration.

Because they're distracting from the main issue that the primary goal should be to replace fossil fuels. Instead they focus on using them more efficiently. But as the world economy grows, even if use is merely more efficient, net emissions will be a lot higher than if fossil fuels were replaced.

That's referring to the first decade of the 21st century.

Sure people can do something. But the point is the oil companies are trying to point responsibility away from the fact the burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, both due to pollution and of course climate change. So they talk about their net zero targets which only means that in the production of fossil fuels their aim is not to produce net CO2, methane, etc. But the fuel will still get burnt. And, as satellites have shown us recently, their contribution to adding methane to the atmosphere has been badly underestimated. So their net zero targets are very suspect.

If they've got something to offer. But you don't give someone like Kim an audience with the POTUS in exchange for nothing. That's what subordinates are for. Just another empty, grandiose negotiating failure.

Not if Kim has as little to offer to Biden as he did to Trump. I will say this for Trump though. Unlike in his business history, he only lost a little in the negotiations with Kim.

The reason twitter has so few ads is because Musk doesn't want them?

If by facing the issue head on you mean giving Kim the attention and respect he craved, then yes.

As the latest elections showed, running on a fake elections platform was not exactly a sterling idea. Now you want to yoke together 2 candidates who are obsessive about the Issue? I hope Trump follows your plan.

Climate change: trees grow for extra month as planet warms - study https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65037659

Great choice of fish. Due to global warming, great whites are extending their range northwards. Now if you had chosen to be the kind of fish that inhabits coral reefs...

Propaganda is being set out continuously. Only now it's a lot more subtle. The evidence for climate change caused by emissions became too overwhelming for oil companies to refute. So, now instead, they've refocused their efforts. One way is to shift the responsibility to consumers. Another is to shift emphasis to carbon capture, removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of not burning fossil fuels in the first place. ExxonMobil wants you to feel responsible for climate change so it doesn’t have to To understand why ExxonMobil has been so effective at shaping the US narrative about climate change in the US for some 40 years, look no further than the words of one of the company’s communications strategists, Mobil Vice President of Public Affairs Herbert Schmertz: ”Your objective is to wrap yourself in the good phrases while sticking your opponents with the bad ones,” he wrote in 1986. From the 1970s through the 1990s, most of the company’s PR efforts focused on casting doubt on the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet. But by the mid-2000s, it was taking a more sophisticated, nuanced approach... https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study If you want to see some of this in action just go here https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change#:~:text=Reducing emissions in its operations,engaging on climate-related policy or here https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change/understanding-the-exxonknew-controversy Another way big oil propagandizes is putting its employees in academic or education settings. Exxon in the classroom: how big oil money influences US universities https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia

That was his claim. Elon Musk does not have a great history of being honest. Did you know that even before he offered to purchase he had already seriously questioned their numbers? No, he behaved like an idiot in making that purchase by waiving due diligence and then tried to wriggle his way out of it. If the "fraud" was as serious as he alleged, then he would have had a good at at convincing the Delaware Chancery court to abrogate the deal. But it wasn't, so he had to go ahead and make the purchase.

Your mind-reading act is refuted by the facts. Why did Musk try so hard to extricate himself from the deal? Because it didn't matter to him that he was about to lose a ton of money?