I think Trump knew he wanted Comey to stop investigating him/Russia/anyone involved. I don't think Trump knows the specific elements of the crime of Obstruction of Justice. But him not knowing the actual wording of the statute doesn't mean he didn't do it. Also, it was shown recently that one of the documents given to the FBI was fake and affected the handling of the Clinton email investigation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.5308d8aa9dc9 Which would explain why he let her off after it was all said and done. But yes, lets keep bringing up Clinton, because its all equal.
Hey I'm just trying to give you an idea of the likely outcome being similar for more than equal animals when it comes. Also, giving up the recent past is something both sides have trouble with.
I guess that settles it? There is no room in the anthropogenic global warming argument for discussion or reflection? You aren't the least bit interested in how the Earth warmed to end an ice age without us here to add CO2 to the atmosphere? I'm not challenging you or your beliefs personally, I am interested in the science and cannot find the answer. This seems like too big of a question not to be asking before we decide CO2 is the end all be all cause and solution to the climate question.
I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about economics. The market cannot bake in the cost of something unless it is borne by a relevant party in the transaction. An externality, by definition ,is borne by someone outside of the transaction, and thus will not be taken into account unless successfully internalized. We are currently making essentially zero effort to internalize the cost of carbon pollution, and as a result the market is ignoring it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ed-first-time-renewable-energy-a7778541.html? This can be done, and at a certain point not doing is willful resistance to progress. I'm keenly interested in how previous epochs changed, and we desperately need to fund geological research to advance our understanding (and paleontological research, because I want to one day ride a T-rex into battle against the lizard people). However, it's not entirely speculative: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6fwzbr/a_100_year_old_paper_article_about_climate_change/ We've had an understanding of the massive scale of our carbon burning and it's insulative effect for 100 years. I trust people smarter than me to run the numbers, but it's not like this was something Al Gore thought up 15 years ago. The point is what else has changed in the last 100-200 years EXCEPT for us burning billions of tons of carbon? We can see evidence of climate shifts based on volcanic eruptions, types of vegetation becoming more/less prevalent, even fauna being able to digest lignin, and meteors. None of that has happened in the last few hundred years. At a certain point, this feels like OJ trying to find the real killer: the world is heating up and it's causing dramatic weather. What's causing it to heat up? Option A: the billions of tons of carbon we've put in the atmosphere, locking in the suns' heat and insulating the globe. We can measure this effect, replicate it in greenhouses, and directly trace it to weather phenomena (like El Nino, for example). Option B: ?? Cycles? Magnets? Science doesn't know yet? So, if we accept the globe is heating up (again, each year is setting a new record for temperature so...it's a decent indicator that the temperature is rising), and we accept that the greatest contributor to that is carbon entering the atmosphere and trapping heat (a la Greenhouse effect), then the solution is to reduce the carbon emitted and begin to re-trap the carbon already there. The solutions designed to achieve that have a number of auxiliary benefits like cheaper energy, less chemical shit spewed into our groundwater, safer to produce, longer term value, and less corruption/energy politics. So, the risk of us reducing the carbon emitted by accident (ie the climate will still change, even if we reduce the carbon down to 1700's levels), is effectively zero and will result in some tangible net benefits.
A couple of thoughts on this, and I'm no scientist so bear with me if I'm an idiot. I think it is a combination of pollution, larger cities that generate heat based on all of the concrete/blacktop/what have you other than trees. The amount of trees that have been cut down cannot be helping and when you add these things to weather cycles that we have some understanding of (I know some are more comfortable saying we fully understand them but I'm a bit more skeptical) and somewhere in there you probably get an explanation for what we are seeing in weather events and the general warming/cooling trends. To say "drop everything and go renewable, costs be damned" isn't going to work because who will foot the bill? The people will and we already have a lot of people around the world living in poverty who can't pay more. Pay them more? Ok, costs just went up for everyone because at the end of the day businesses just pass on cost increases until they can't and then they go out of business and that would be a net loss. Pay higher taxes? Ok, then people can afford less and we're back to a net loss. Increase corporate tax rates? See example one. We need to fully understand the problem, is it simply carbon emissions? What effect will our cutting those emissions be? How much should we cut them to avoid an over correction? How much are we willing to change our lifestyles to make this change (ie, going from middle class to poverty level or other drastic changes)? There are certainly more questions we should be asking and while I'm not saying we should do nothing, I am saying we need to try to understand what doing x,y, or z will really do before we just jump in and spend more money we don't have on projections that could be way off base. We could do some trial and error testing though I'm not sure how long that will take to bear fruit. We're doing a lot more solar and wind power than ever, it's expensive but we're doing it. I did read somewhere that China was one of the few countries that could cheaply (relatively speaking) build solar panels because of some of the chemicals used in production that are much more regulated elsewhere (maybe mercury but my memory is failing me here). I'm not sure where I read that or if it's even true so take that with a huge grain of salt. TDLR: we know the climate is changing but we don't know what effect our attempts to dial it back will have and until we do it's hard to go balls deep on anything. Someone else mentioned planting trees and who knows, maybe that's a great start while we figure out some of the logistics and effects of the sweeping changes being proposed.
There's a huge difference between doing essentially nothing, putting our heads in the sand and saying it's a liberal hoax, and figuring out to what extent we reduce carbon emissions. Right now, the costs of oil extraction, production and sale do not account for the costs of removing the carbon generated by oil consumption from their air. If they did, it would make renewable WAY more attractive. That's the core problem: how long does an externality continue to be unaccounted for? And for 200 years, we've burned billions if not trillions of tons of oil, coal, etc. To be concerned about an over-correction at this stage isn't a valid concern. It's like being 450 lbs. and worrying if you lose 300 of it overnight because you skipped dinner, what will you wear to work. The cost issue is a big one: we've never fully accounted for this cost yet, and to suddenly do it is a big shift. However, every 1st grader knows the difference between renewable and non-renewable, and we know the carbon-emitting energy sources are non-renewable. We know we will eventually have to pivot to renewables, because there's not an infinite supply of this stuff. We didn't account for the fact that before we run out, we might cook ourselves to death. Remember, the best resource before oil was whale oil, and we don't have whale oil lamps any more do we? We're relying a lot on technology to make up the gap and make renewable much cheaper (faster), and more reliable. We'll likely rely on technology to reduce or "grab" some of the carbon from the atmosphere in severely afflicted places (anyone think Dubai will continue to exist if it gets 10-15 degrees hotter there?). So, a solid first step isn't "drop everything and go renewable", that's simply never going to happen. A solid first step is showing developing countries how to build infrastructure that's carbon neutral, instead of the dirty stuff they are currently using. Another solid step is to fund research into this technology a lot better. There will always be oil in use in industry, at least for our lifetimes. But it powering so much of our energy and transportation can be changed. We're not dialing it from 100 to 0, we're trying to dial it from 60 to 40, and that's entirely feasible.
Like any hearing, it was kind of watered down, Comey was very careful in his words especially when commenting on obstruction of justice or Trump threatening him. Comey did say he was concerned that Trump would lie about their conversations so he wrote down memos about their conversations. The Republicans spent time picking apart his sentences, trying to distract and remove content from his statements. They were nitpicking his word choices and his actions, kind of distracting from what he said. The Dems tried to get him to say that Trump is influenced by the Russians, that there was obstruction of justice, and threats made. The worst exchange was between McCain and Comey. McCain tried to get Comey to say that Comey wasn't investigating Clinton's involvement with the Russians because of political bias. Overall Comey kind of said Trump was under the influence of the Russians and any such concerns need to be investigated and that this involvement is a fundamental threat to the country and this concern goes beyond party lines.
Wait, what? At what part did you draw that conclusion? I watched the whole thing and he didnt even come close to saying that.
You're probably right, I tend to lose focus during hearings because there are so many side topics going on between different Senators. There was one comment, early on in the hearing, I forgot who the speaker was, maybe in general the impression I got was that the Russians were working to get the Russian probe buried. The amount of side topics in a 2.5 hour hearing is immense. To get a good feel for the hearing I think the transcript has to be studied bit by bit. Its a lot to take in an summarize on the fly. Once the hearing gets summarized, even then, opinion comes out because a lot of the hearing centered around Comey's opinions and thoughts, and different Senators interpretations of his opinions and actions. And now the pundits will try to break down 2.5 hours of testimony into easy talking points that get ratings.
I don't think we watched the same thing. A lot of the questions were asked and answered pretty concisely. The only ones that weren't explicitly answered was when he was asked about someone's motivations, which he couldn't know anyway.
Ok these are the questions I heard, and I'll admit I was a bit overwhelmed watching because I haven't kept up with this story like others have. Remember these are the questions I heard and if someone cares to answer them for everyone's better understanding please feel free to do so, however these are just statements I'm making to show what I heard during the hearing. 1. Did Trump threaten Comey if he didn't drop the Russia investigation? 1a. Was Trumps threat direct or implied? Did Comey fear for his position if he didn't comply with the perceived threat. 2. Trump asked for loyalty. What does loyalty mean? What does loyalty mean in reference to Comey and the FBI. What is the FBI's role as an independent organization? Was Trump singularly ever under investigation? Did Comey lie to him? 3. The AG mess, I had phone interview going on then and didn't catch that part. 4. If Comey felt threatened why didn't he speak up to Trump? 5. What is normal presidential communicaton between the FBI Director and the President? Did the President act unprofessionally or unusually with his contact with Comey? What would this mean in terms of the communication both implied and directly stated mean in terms of any investigation? 6. Is the President a liar? Why did Comey feel compelled to create memo's after their meetings? Does Comey believe the President to be truthful? 7. If some of Trumps appointees are under investigation for collusion, and the collusion was widespread during the election, why wasn't Hilary's campaign under investigation as well? 8. Did Trump engage in any behaviors that could be construed as obstructing justice? What were Trumps motivations for firing Comey? Comey stated that Trump told him multiple times he was doing a good job, then Comey finds out through the news, in a dramatic 180, that he was fired despite these positive comments? 9. What was Russia's role in the election? How were they involved? What was their agenda? Did Trump benefit from their actions? (he declined to answer because the information is currently classified). He did say definitively that Russia did engage in election tampering but didn't specify how or who it benefitted.
I'll tell you one thing, McCain's time at the mic was the best possible argument in favor of term limits. The man is old, and judging by this I'd say straight senile. Seriously, is he under the impression that Trump AND Clinton are under investigation for Russian collusion? He kept harping on her being cleared of it while Trump hasn't been. A bit disturbing.
I never did understand how he kept getting re-elected despite being one of the bigger tools in the Senate....I just assumed it was some form of gerrymandering.