placeholder

Here's what happened: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_statistics It's actually possible to look this stuff up. It took me less than half a minute to find it.

Not if Congress publishes them in the Congressional Record.

Your use of denotation vs connotation in this instance is incorrect. Connotation has to do with the overtones of a word and how those overtones differ from its synonyms. For example "slender" evokes certain connotations, whereas "skinny" evokes others. But in this case Trump was using the same word, "impeach", to mean the same thing as applied to a Senator as to a President. How does saying a President deserves to be impeached differ in connotation from saying a Senator deserves to be impeached? How do the connotations of impeach in the first case differ from the connotations in the second case? The correct way to understand the connotation of "Impeached" is to compare it to "indicted". 'Impeached has connotations of "high crimes and misdemeanors." whereas "indicted" has connotations of baser criminality. You might be able to get away with claiming Trump meant impeach figuratively as opposed to literally. Though, it would be a very inept figure. However, given Trump's demonstrated history of ignorance, there's no reason to suspect that he meant it any other way than literally. This is the guy, after all, who claimed that because he was impeached twice by the House and acquitted twice by the Senate, he can't tried in a court of law on what he was impeached and tried for for. His misunderstanding of impeachment clearly extends far beyond its connotations.

I think Trump's best defense is to confess to abysmal ignorance. It's not like he doesn't have a record to support that.

It is pretty absurd to posit that Trump would think running for office would shield him from prosecution. That would take the kind of ignorance that would make someone think a Senator can be impeached... Donald Trump is calling for the impeachment of Mitch McConnell. One problem: You cannot impeach a senator. https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/11-3-2022/trump-targets-mcconnell-again/

You seem to believe that we gallery and morality are the same thing. That if something is legal therefore it's also moral.

I think the data on the laptop makes a very good case for impeaching Hunter Biden.

As pointed out above the only reference to any action taken by Joe Biden in regards to hunter Biden's business affairs was a very strong "no" to getting involved in his Chinese business venture.

Trump repeatedly claimed that the reason he wasn't releasing his tax returns was that he couldn't because they were being audited by the IRS. There is nothing in tax law that says tax returns that are being audited can't be released. He was lying. Surprise! Surprise!

I think what SunnyinBangrak is engaged in should be called "Pavlovian Thinking".

On another thread he claimed that Mar a Lago was stormed in the middle of the night. Actually, agents peacefully served a warrant at 9:00 AM.

What he doesn't note is what they are posting about. Ya think maybe it's about what he's doing to Twitter? And how do you know that some of this increase isn't due to bots?

Democrats' election denialism? Really? The judges don't fear the special master. What they fear, as their questioning shows, is the ludicrous and unprecedented special privileges granted by Aileen Cannon to Trump. Even judges appointed by Trump clearly think Cannon's rulings are nuts. The Justice Dept stormed an ex-Presidient's home at night? What kind of D movie script shapes your thinking? Do you mean it was night time in China when the FBI searched the premises. Because it was 9:00 AM in Florida when the FBI executed its search. And the FBI stormed Mar a Lago? Did they knock on the door too loudly? Press the doorbell button too many times? Your post is utterly laughable.

Well considering that there is no law barring the President from continuing to do business of course it's legal. But why did you "think that DT divested the executive leadership of the Trump Organization to his sons before 2016 but that's what I was trying to infer by my question" unless you suspected that he might have behaved honorably?

That you have to resort to extreme and absurd exaggeration in your rebuttal, shows that you've got nothing.

Are these the only venues in need of workers?

Does "many" = "enough"?

Well, it sure beats those who cite alleged personal to cite theirs. Or claim to be politically unaffiliated but support blatant election falsehoods.

Well, the article is behind a paywall so I only got to read a bit of it. The argument I have seen in favor of fox hunting is that fox hunters want to preserve the hedgerows where foxes den. Modern farmers don't like them because they occupy land that could otherwise produce crops. On the other hand there is that saying of Wilde's about foxhunting: "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."

I've always liked Bake & Bite's Thanksgiving Dinner Buffer. The dessert pies aren't great but pretty much everything else is very good and you can eat all you want. Not sure if any places are left, though.

But too many are uninformed.

You dug that hole yourself.

It's funny how they call People of Praise a group when it's actually a cult. Amy Barrett Browning has spent her entire life in that cult. When she went to college she didn't live in the dorms. She lived in the house of of the founder of the cult. Her husband comes from another family of cult members.

Do you believe that University students will be replacing the workers who came from the EU? That their studies are aimed at performing that kind of work?

I was unconvinced by the factual nature of your claim until you invoked the magic word "many".