placeholder

Entirely appropriate when applied to comments like this: "The IMF, that's hilarious. More Koolaid anyone?"

You got me there. And it makes ridiculous any claims that China somehow bought Joe Biden via Hunter Biden's business dealings with a Chinese company.

Comments like yours about the IMF are what I call examples of the Law of the Preservation of Ignorance. There is a ton of evidence about the deleterious effect on health of ICE vehicles exhaust. One has to be willfully ignorant not to know that. Congratulations on the triumph of your will. And what is the relevance of who receives the subsidies? The fact is as subsidies sharply declined in China purchases massively increased. And I'm not sure what your point is about government payment for fuel or payroll deductions. Is it your contention that they constitute most of fossil fuel subsidies? Why the mandates? I've already touched on that. It's a little thing called externalities. The same reason that governments regulate pollution. The industries that cause harm should be the ones to pay for the harm caused.

It should be noted that the loser was strongly against the Czech Republic giving aid to Ukraine. He had also said that if Poland was attacked by the Russians, he wouldn't send Czech troops to fight .

Really? Ukraine is fighting for survival and you're shocked?

He lost both times on the cases he and his team developed. Most legal experts thought both cases were astonishingly weak. And his own deputy quit on him because of the weakness of a case. (The only 2 prominent experts I can recall who thought Durham had a good case were Turley and Dershowitz. And those two also supported judge Aileen Cannon's call for a special master. That one got laughed out of court by right wing justices.) And what you utterly ignore is that both Barr and Durham started out to prove that corruption in the justice dept was behind the Russian investigation. That members of the FBI had conspired to get Trump. They even publicly disputed the Inspector General's report which concluded that wasn't the case. Which was bizarre. Barr and Durham even traveled several times to Europe to put pressure in the Italian and British intelligence service to come clean about how that has passed along false intel in order to damage Trump. Those service pretty much told them to f*** off. What Durham ended up trying to prove and evan failing at that was that the two defendants had deceived the FBI. Which was exactly opposite to what he had sought to prove when he started out. Barr ultimately conceded that the Durham investigation had failed in its original goal. Doubtless Durham will write a report that will attempt to justify his investigation. An investigation which lasted longer than Mueller's and resulted in only one minor conviction based on evidence that the Inspector General, you know, the guy whose report was dissed by Durham, provided.

And some of us prefer actual data over bloviating.,

You probably need to delete the cookie or cookies on your browser for that website.

What's truly remarkable about those who doubt the reality of hunger in the UK is their apparent complete ignorance of how inflation has inflicted particularly sharp damage on those with lower incomes. The less income one has, the greater proportion of that income has to go to the absolute necessities of food and electricity. The price of both of these has skyrocketed, far outpacing average inflation. So unless you believe that those on the lower income scale had lots of spare cash, how is it not likely that many don't have enough to spend on food. A few pounds may not some like much to those who money to spare, but for those who don't, it simply may not exist.

Here's a fuller version of the nytimes article. What is in there is verbatim but not quite complete, though. It left off some stuff at the end https://www.yahoo.com/news/barr-pressed-durham-flaws-russia-213717986.html

I'm sure you'll agree that it's about time an American President stood up to Russia and China!

Nothing required those loons to keep crediting those disavowed reports.

How has reality treated your "perfectly logical and legitimate points"?

But it is beyond bizarre to think that so public a case could somehow be buried.

A huge portion of Trump's supporters are evangelicals who overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution. Given your way of judging evidence, I guess we can call the theory of evolution "highly suspect" as well.

You're correct. Which still proves what? That he couldn't have tugged on the door and moved back swiftly to get his hand on the hammer? Is there any evidence of a sighting of another person? Did the closed circuit cameras catch sight of anyone else? Any indication that his legal team has plans to mention another party? You're the person who predicted that this whole affair would be stifled. Now that that hasn't happened, does that argue against your case at all?

I think someone ran your comment through a blender.

The Ukrainian govt is way ahead of you: https://news.yahoo.com/ukraines-zelenskyy-fires-top-level-132916840.html

Why does Trump need Twitter or Facebook? He's got Truth Social.

I think the "Same old" part is that you didn't actually read the article. You certainly give no evidence of it. And I wasn't aware that it had been reported earlier that Italian intelligence had supplied info that could connect Trump to criminal activity. Nor that Barr had authorized Durham to undertake a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with his investigation into the Russian affair. Can you share with us where you had learned about that?

Billions of dollars are going to finance vacations for Ukrainian politicians? Care to share a link with us?

Next time, you should spend a little extra money and buy yourself a high quality crystal ball.

You are every third rate magician's idea of an ideal audience. What we see is that video captures the door when it was already part way open. And to your way of thinking, it's likely that the police who entered managed either not to see who it really was who opened the door or did see and aren't telling.

Thank you for confirming my prediction. I didn't expect it to happen so quickly. At any rate, it's obvious: NANCY PELOSI opened the door! Or, and this is probably impossible, Paul Pelosi opened the door with his right hand and then quickly went back to holding on to the hammer. I realize that this explanation is utterly unsatisfying to some and therefore, should be disregarded.

If, as you believe, subsidies are crucial to fueling demand, then, as subsidies decline, so should demand. In China subsidies went from 35% in 2020, to 25% in 2021, to 15% in 2022. It will be 5% in 2023. Yet sales of EV's in China increased by 114% in 2022. In addition what your analysis doesn't capture is the cost of externalities. The IMF estimates that subsidies to fossil fuel industries cost about 6% of world GDP. Most of that cost is indirect subsidies due to medical costs incurred from air pollution. Particularly in the big cities, air pollution from ICE vehicles is a major threat to health. So while the governments may be paying out subsidies, both they and private citizens should also be realizing savings from the reduced deleterious effect of fossil fuels.