placeholder

Are you claiming that "very fine people" comment wasn't immediately challenged?

No explanation but see me emandation of my post on the matter. The Republican name for the bill says enough, I think.

It took 2 days for him to make that statement after his "very fine people" comment.

Well, it's a lot harder for them now. A bank like Silicon Valley Bank is no longer subject to the same stress test rules as are the bigger banks. The Trump administration revoked regulations that authorized the FDC to perform those tests on banks the size of SVB. ":Some banking experts on Friday pointed out that a bank as large as Silicon Valley Bank might have managed its interest rate risks better had parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory package, put in place after the 2008 crisis, not been rolled back under President Trump. In 2018, Mr. Trump signed a bill that lessened regulatory scrutiny for many regional banks. Silicon Valley Bank’s chief executive, Greg Becker, was a strong supporter of the change, which removed the requirement that banks with assets under $250 billion submit to stress testing by the Fed, and changed requirements for the amount of cash they had to keep on their balance sheets to protect against shocks." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/business/silicon-valley-bank-stock.html Edit: Correction. Actually, it wasn't a regulatory action. It was done under a bill voted on by Congress with virtually unanimous Republican support and signed into law by Trump. And get this. Here's its name: "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act"

Biden has by far done the most to penalize China for its transgressions. Far, far more than his predecessor.

The march was organized by white nationalists. So who were the good people marching with them?

So you repeat yourself as a way of explanation? You've got nothing.

I don't think Facebook would have undertaken this were it not for the fact that Twitter appears to be vulnerable.

Why aren't these refugees seeking asylum in France?

In other words, an empty one.

I wasn't criticizing your comment.

I don't think any country currently has a defense against hypersonic missiles.

Is "Goebblesesque" a legitimate adjective?

You're repeating yourself. You've got nothing.

When was the last time there was a more sudden change in global temperature than in the recent past? Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years The climate is changing at a pace that's far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says. The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/ Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions6,7 our results show that global mean temperature has slightly but steadily warmed, by ~0.5 °C, since the early Holocene (around 9 thousand years ago). When compared with recent temperature changes11, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

I think vincentrj is confused. I'm guessing he believes that absent 100% homogeneity, overall warming doesn't count.

What do you mean there's no sound or reliable evidence. for globally coherent global warming? Average temperature of the troposphere and oceans has been on a sharp upward trend. Are you positing some mass conspiracy among the world's climatologists? Or do you believe that globally coherent means 100% homogeneity? I guess you must because you believe exceptions like a few glaciers somehow disprove....honestly, I don't even know how you exactly think they disprove anthropogenic global warmng. Every year record high and record low temperatures are set. The question is do the highs outnumber the lows or the lows the highs. You think because some place report record lows that proves that there's no trend? And no, Antarctica doesn't have a significant trend of increasing sea ice. In fact, for this year it has hit a record low. Climatologists aren't sure why. They don't think that it necessarily due to global warming. Antarctic Sea Ice Hits a Record Low, but Role of Warming Is Unclear Then, around the year 2014, the Antarctic trend abruptly reversed itself and the sea ice began rapidly declining. It hit a record-low minimum in 2017 and 2018, then rebounded slightly before hitting new records in 2022 and 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-a-record-low-but-role-of-warming-is-unclear/ And in the eos article you linked to, to justify their claim that antarctic sea is is increasing the authors linked to this article: Understanding climate: Antarctic sea ice extent "The satellite record spans over four decades, and although the ice has shown increasing and decreasing trends over portions of that record, few of those trends have been statistically significant. Year-to-year variability has dominated, especially over the last decade. Since the year 2013, Antarctic sea ice has exhibited its highest and lowest extents on record—highest-ever winter maximum in September 2014, and lowest-ever summer minimum in February 2022. But the overall trend, as of early 2022, is nearly zero." https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent In short, it's trends that count. Isolated counterexamples are not proof of anything.

If the funding from this tax rise is adequate to protect Medicare, why does it require naivete to believe it?

Well, since the sentence is correctly punctuated, technically not. "I'm only asking why it needs more funding if it's already successful, if you don't know, just say you don't know. " But even so, how does that change the irrelevance of 'if it's already successful."

Not clear that constitutionally he can create a militia independent of Federal authority: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." — US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1[26]

If you agree that your comment wasn't sensible, then yes.

I've come to realiize that it's best not tot feed this troll. All he does is post cheerleader like comments in order to draw in serious people like yourself. Starve him.

because of what you said: "I'm only asking why it needs more funding if it's already successful" Why is being successful relevant? Now if you had written "I'm only asking why it needs more funding" that would be sensible.

Apparently, you believe that "successful" or even "most successful" are the same as "perfect"?

Well, London actually has an extensive and expensive barrier system to keep it from flooding. And they seem to be on top of the potential threat https://tyndall.ac.uk/news/will-london-soon-be-underwater/