placeholder

You think they're unwelcome to the Kurds?

What do you suggest Biden do? Give in to the hardliners' demands? Do you think this is some kind of board game? Because of Trump, even worse people now have the upper hand in Iran. People who want nuclear weapons. Why should they seriously negotiate with the US? And given that Trump or someone very much like him could be the next president, who would truckle to the Israelis, Saudis, and the UAE, does it even make sense for them to negotiate?

You must live in a some kind of information bubble not to know of the protracted and arduous attempts of the Biden administration to revive the agreement with the Iranians. Instead, all you've got to offer is baseless snark. As I noted above, once the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement and waged economic warfare on the Iranians, it was a huge blessing for the Iranian hardliners who could point to the uselessness of negotiating. They raised their demands far beyond what they got in the original deal.

You clearly have no knowledge of the Iran nuclear deal framework. It was actually an amazing accomplishment of the Obama administration that got China and Russia on board as well as the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework#:~:text=According to details of the,almost 20%2C000 centrifuges it possesses. But then the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the agreement after at the urging of the Israelis and the Saudis and the UAE. And by the Trump administration I mean Jared Kushner. And not only did it decide to withdraw but it also made it virtually impossible for other countries to do business with Iran. So why wouldn't Iran push for nuclear weapons? As the situation in Ukraine has shown, nuclear weapons give a certain degree of security to a threatened nation.

The Iranians upped their demands. Hardliners got the edge once the Trump administration withdrew from the deal. The U.S. was engaged in long and arduous negotiations with the Iranians.

The problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming it's a one-off. But given that earth's orbit limits what can be observed to whatever is observable from its orbit, how do you know that?

Actually, it was Biden's predecessor who abandoned the agreement and set Iran on its present course.

Are you referring to the genuine 15 minute city concept or something else?

My reply was to yellowtail who was following the rules laid down by Connda in his 2nd question which stipulates 15 minutes by auto Of course it's a purposely misleading question since connda chose the subject line to read Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming? Obviously it's an attempt to tie the real 15 minute city program to some dystopian vision. His question also stipulates that residents are forbidden from leaving their district It's B.S. of course, since the actual 15 minute cities program is about 15 minute access by walking or bike ride. And nowhere in the 15 minute city concept is there any reference to forbidding people from leaving their district. Why even mention the 15 minute city concept if your question has nothing to do with it? Obviously it's there to mislead.

As I noted in my previous post this study was published in 2021. October of 2021 to be exact. And where did you come up with the idea that even the original study, published in 2013, was rarely brought up in its time? Got any evidence of that. As expect it did elicit a lot of howls from the denialists. Anyway the new study followed the protocol of the old study. Basically they gathered all the climatological studies they could. In this case that amounted to about 80,000 studies. They used abstracts that had the names of the authors deleted to eliminate personal bias. Then they randomly chose 3000 of those articles and searched for any reference in them, either positive or negative, to the issue of human caused climate change. And the result was that 99.9 percent of the citations were in support of climate change. In fact, only 4 articles were found with negatives. In other words, you've got nothing.

Since when does a fifteen minute driving range mean there's nowhere "nowhere to go"

You forgot "stop burning fossil fuels".

Thank you for your deflection.

And these images were right out there in public for anyone to see. Maybe children in ancient Rome were forced to wear blinders?

Stop making things up. You have offered no proof that the latest survey was biased. The only bias I can see here is yours. And as is usually the case, bias thrives on lack of knowledge. Clearly, you are unacquainted with the actual facts. Here's link to the latest research published in 2021. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

No one is denying what's in the photo. It's clearly a montage. And anybody who saw that photo who is visually able and not benighted can clearly see what's what. You would have to work very hard and against common sense to maintain that headline meant that the photo was taken from life. Obviously the montage was created to juxtapose Trump holding a bat with an image of Bragg. You admitted as much when you suggested the motive was to make a joke. What would be funny about it if it wasn't for the fact that the 2 images were juxtaposed? How would it work as a joke if i the bat wasn't next to Bragg in the montage?

Actually, someone from Slate interviewed the school board chair about the dismissal. It's worth reading. He claims the school is offering a classical education. Apparently, the Renaissance is taboo. Now if he means classical as in ancient Rome, there were public pornographic images everywhere in the Roman empire. At least until it had the misfortune to adopt Christianity. Anwyay, here's the link https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-statue.html Unless you're a member of Slate, you'll have to use incognito or similar mode to access it.

I am sure that you are being willfully disingenuous. Maybe if the photo wasn't in the article you would have a point. But the photo was included in the article. One would have to be either blind or benighted to understand what was meant.

Oh please. I have explained that it's a montage. An obvious too. No attempt is made to fool anyone into thinking it's real. But in the montage the bat is next to Bragg. That's why the image was created. Why does Trump post a montage that shows him holding a bat that in the montage is next to Bragg?

Actually, it's an old figure now and it was 97% of all published climatological research papers that referenced climate change. The updated figure is 99.9%

Some sick joke. But it doesn't explain why Trump reposted it.

Because it is being being reported accurately. Your attempts to portray it as being inaccurate are clearly disingenuous. In the image the bat is next to Bragg. It's one image created from 2 images. It's a montage. And once again, you offer no reason as to why that montage was created. Why would someone post an image of Trump holding a bat juxtaposed with an image of Bragg? And what's more important, why would Trump repost such an image?

It was a photo that he chose to repost.

Do I think his photo of bragg suggests a target? Any rational person would especially when it's coupled to an alleged public outrage over the investigation and his hate speech directed against investigators. The phrase "HUMAN SCUM" comes to mind.

You clearly have no answer for why a montage was created that consists of an image Trump holding a bat and the bat is next to an image of Bragg. You've consistently avoided addressing that issue.