nauseus

You are perfectly free to attack Trump but I think that it would be very difficult for you (or anyone else ) to demonstrate that Trump has been a proponent of lowering standards of education or culling critical thinking. And sex changes for nine-year old kids? Not a chance.

Much worse. The EU President select is just the result of back room bartering, then given some apparent validity with yet another "vote yes" instruction to the EU Parliament.

war crimes (Trump also did a few) What are you on about there?

I suppose if it had just been a slip of the tongue there might not have been any complaint.

How much?

Annotated by your very own CNN, of course!

Only to be outdone by the Democrat Party.

Yep, over. We're out... and it'll cost far too much to rejoin.

I trust that all here are well used to that!

OK I'll try a couple later and see what survives the night.

Well that's about as non-specific as it gets.

Plenty of news but these sources are not allowed on here I think.

Yes, there are many stories out there. For months and years the most popular theme seems to have been anything which concerns the seemingly relentless political mission to vaporize Trump. The "incitement" word has been used far too frequently and improperly since J6 as far as I can see. Several recent house hearings seem to raise the question of actions of the DOJ and the FBI under the Biden Administration. But there seems very little news about that.

Lobbying is lobbying. Ads are ads. Your link, your post, your 200M.

Because Swalwell says so? OMG.

The graph title says 'promotional spending' - it does not say spending to control the climate change conversation. After 2015, oil prices and revenues dropped like stones, so your 200 million/year after that is just plain guesswork.

An important note attached to but not revealed next to your epa's beautiful pie: Carbon dioxide (CO2): Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. CO2 can also be emitted from direct human-induced impacts on forestry and other land use, such as through deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and degradation of soils. Likewise, land can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.

That I replied to a post mentioning this supposed 4 million years does not mean that I agree with that number. I was not replying to you anyway and your "explicitly referred" line is just more nonsense. Furthermore, while a ship may be able to navigate across previously impassable regions within the polar circles, that does not necessarily mean that the entire polar region will be ice-free.

I didn't say 4 million years ago. Nothing to do with shipping and I was not talking about threats. Why not try and sell gibberish this somewhere else?

It doesn't matter does it? "Unprecedented" means never done/known of before and in this case that is wrong.

This "unprecedented" claim is false. The poles have been ice-free before. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/

Good luck.

You said "Ukraine. Interest on Trump debt". Now you say that Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar, but don't mention Covid, or Biden's total lack of spending restraint at all. Away with you, varlet.

Because you assign all debt to Trump and total Ukraine funding is still less than 100 billion.

You keep making false claims.