placeholder

That settles it. Prison is too good for him.

In his message to employees, Zuckerberg said he accepted full responsibility for the situation that led to the mas firing. Which is B.S. If he really accepted responsibility for his errors, he should have fired himself.

It's clear you don't have an knowledge of the actual amount of greenhouse gases generated by Africans and Brazilians as opposed to the amount generated by developed and other industrializing nations.

You've even got the topic wrong. For your benefit here it is again: "Climate Change Threatens Things Americans Value Most" So let me try to explain again why your claim that you are not a climate change denialist makes no sense. You claim that human efforts can have no effect on climate. If that's the case then you must believe that the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases generated by human activity have no effect in intensifying climate change. If you don't believe that, but rather accept the greenhouse gases are causing intensified climate change, how does it make sense to say that human activity to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases can have no effect? Clear now?

Err what exactly? https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/

Looks like Musk is pigging out on humble pie: The Six Biggest Takeaways From Musk’s Groveling Call With Twitter Advertisers Amid a mass exodus of advertisers, “Chief Twit” Elon Musk took to his newly purchased social media platform on Wednesday to assure companies that Twitter will remain a safe space for their brands. In an hour-long livestream, known as a “Twitter Space,” Musk cajoled advertisers with promises of robust content moderation and account verification practices. The billionaire faces a formidable challenge: shoring up Twitter’s revenues without alienating the highly vocal band of right-wing users who initially celebrated the acquisition. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-six-biggest-takeaways-from-elon-musks-groveling-call-with-twitter-advertisers Musk fans should note his "promises of robust moderation".

Have you forgotten about trumps tax cuts?

False. If any vote is 50/50 then you will find that she does have a place.

Luckily he already got a lot of very major stuff done. And I'm sure you know that.

Historically speaking, it's a very poor showing. And as the partisans at Fox News confessed, it didn't feel like a win to them. Remember that up until the elections, the right wing was confidently predicting a blowout.

Typically, when the economy is doing poorly, the party in power gets pummeled during midterms. But under Trump, the economy was doing well at the midterms, and still he managed to lead the party to electoral disaster. That was a truly remarkable achievement.

Really? You think the Republicans still have a shot to five more seat in the Senate and 44 more seats in the house?

Lying, huh? Do you actually read what you write? You just asserted that humans can do nothing about climate change. Or maybe you forgot because your comment was posted so long ago? Practically an entire day! If it's impossible to anything about that means you reject the concept of human-caused climate change. Defying expectations, CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel combustion are set to grow in 2022 by only a fraction of last year’s big increase Thanks to record deployment of renewables and EVs, the CO2 intensity of the world’s energy supply is improving again after worsening in 2021 when the economy rebounded sharply https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase

And Republicans chose the right issues despite which they made paltry gains. Does that tell you something?

The key phrase in your response being "never to my knowledge." Here's a link again to the IPCC climate mitigation report. I am confident it will provide you with many happy hours of reading: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

You mean like making crazed claims about stolen elections or conspiracies about members of the deep state drinking children's blood and swearing allegiance to George Soros or the machinations of the World Economic Forum to turn the world into one giant communist state? Got it.

Is that all he promotes? https://www.businessinsider.com/dr-oz-treatments-that-other-doctors-say-are-bogus-2015-4

Oz lost because he was an absurdly bad choice made passible by the poor judgement of Donald Trump. Whatever possessed Trump to think that an a rich out-of-stater was a good choice. The only thing Oz had in his favor vis-a-vis Republicans is that he was an endorser of quack medicines.

But what is really clear is the Oz was a terrible choice and he won the nomination only because of Trump's support. An out of touch out of stater.

This mantra is all you've got. That, and an apparently utter lack of knowledge about neurology.

Typical exaggeration. And you might want to look up "Broca's area". Unless, of course, you want to claim neurology in addition to gerontology as an area of your expertise.

You would think that in the wake of this election, Trump supporters might cease and desist from making predictions. This election ought to have been an educational experience. For some, apparently not.

Really? That's why Oz and others were piling onto him because of his stroke? The unfavorable reports on the his performance in the debate helped him? Kidding yourself much?

I guess that, at the least, they were thinking that Trump's choice was worse. Thank you, Donald Trump.

Well, even if that was a good point, for 4 years he wasn't. And he frequently and publicly abused members of his own cabinet, among many, many others. And I don't think someone who speaks publicly at frequent partisan rallies and is strongly hinting at another run for President is exactly a private citizen. He's a public figure and chooses to continue to be one. It's one thing to speak in private, quite another to speak in public in front of crowds. In fact, the Supreme Court recognized that differences in libel and slander standards when it ruled in the Sullivan case that public figures have a much higher bar to prove slander or libel than does a standard issue private citizen.