That's one of the bigger reasons why people like myself have left the party for all practical purposes. Separation of powers matters if anything does.

As to the last part, no they didn't. Until the AoI have been delivered to the Senate, they haven't done their part by the Constitution. Assuming the Senate goes forward with what a sham trial, that's on them and they should be required to actually go through with doing that. It's a really bizarre thought process IMO to say we are opposed to Trump-style governance, and the way we're going to show that is by being Trump Lite. No, you draw the line of distinction as clearly as possible. If not, why should people support you over him?

That's without even getting into the fact that I don't think it is of any practical benefit. Instead of giving Trump the 'exonerated' argument, you're gift-wrapping him the 'naked political exercise', 'too cowardly to go through the trial', etc. ones. And worse, those will all be accurate statements if the articles are withheld for any significant length of time. Which all cycles back to the point that if you're going to impeach, you impeach. It's been known since before the process started that the Senate was almost certainly going to acquit. That's not new. If there's too much cowardice to accept that consequence, you don't do it in the first place. Otherwhise you do it, and campaign on the idea that this is who we are, that's who Trump is, and let the public vote on whether they'd prefer a functional government or an autocracy.

And as I've mentioned before, the people have made clear they don't favor Trump's brand every single time they've had a chance to say so since 2016. These kinds of 'halfway' measures should only hurt Democrats.

I do agree the House should send it to the Senate. However, I'm personally okay with some gamesmanship right now ... wait a month or two. The left and right won't change their minds, its only the independents that Pelosi has to watch out for.

So the White House was ordered by a Court to release documents relating to Ukraine-the govt finally did releasing them at the last possible moment-yesterday at midnight-the weekend before Christmas because they having nothing to hide of course:


https://publicintegrity.org/national...-spending-law/


Edit: Check out the live blog link on that page for more info potentially

You'd think those representatives would - you know - actually do their job, stop playing these silly red vs blue games and instead do what's best for their country. If that means throwing an inadequate president under the bus, then that's what you're elected to do.

That would possibly be the case if Mitch McConnell wasn't obsessed with stacking the courts as much as he possibly can.

My lord are the Dems guaranteeing a Trump re-election

In response to Christianity Today calling for removal from office, Franklin Graham claimed that his father voted for Trump. At least two of Franklin's nephews have tweeted about it...

A heavy hearted bravo to CT! Well said on so many levels. I believe my grandfather would have had a similar perspective. Thank you. https://t.co/2aVeovR0Ux

— Boz Tchividjian (@BozT) December 19, 2019




I’ll never forget that day in 2016 when my grandfather, @billygraham, shrugged off the symptoms of Parkinson’s and hydrocephalus, got up out of bed for the first time in a year, drove down to the polling station, and cast his vote. What a glorious memory!

— Aram (@aramtch) December 21, 2019






Reading the latter tweet reminded me of an angle on the whole thing that had completely escaped me: the last time I saw Billy Graham in person was in the fall of 2010. He was clearly in significant cognitive decline, and could not walk. If "he" cast an absentee ballot in 2016, it's highly likely that someone else chose a candidate for him and voted in his name. As such, my strong suspicion is that at *best*, Franklin's comments about his father are intentionally misleading.


Heh. Making Aram's tweet more savage: he hadn't tweeted in over a year when he dropped that snark bomb.

Trump: "I never understood wind, I know windmills very much, I've studied them more than anybody...tremendous fumes, gases are spewing into the atmosphere, you know we have a world, the world is tiny compared to the universe.."pic.twitter.com/wnYHestIXX

— Covie (@roper_93) December 22, 2019

The press seriously needs to start paying attention to these tremors & slurs in Trump’s public appearances. That’s a full-blown neurological event at the 23 second mark w/ the shoulder spasm & speech drop. @NBCNews @CBSNews @ABC @CNN @MSNBC @washingtonpost pic.twitter.com/p01KHKojmb

— Jason Grant (@jase0910) December 23, 2019

I know neither of these... him being dimwitted but carrying on with a sympathetic crowd like he's knowledgeable (actually the most knowledgeable... it's never a small lie)... and potentially battling a basic neurological breakdown... directly translate to important things like legalizing Christmas and getting rid of brown people. So, no harm no foul for supporters.

Is there anyone left who is actually trying to make up their mind about this guy? Anyone?

I was on my way here to post this. The windmill stuff is off the walls.

And it's not just Christmas he's saved. You know they're also trying to change the name of Thanksgiving right?

re: The press seriously needs to start paying attention to these tremors & slurs in Trump’s public appearances.

I have this friend who has been all over this stuff and sending articles and things about his neurological breakdown. But my response has always been "Who cares?" - it isn't like his supporters are going to abandon him for it. It isn't like his cabinet is invoking the 25th Amendment.

And does anyone who is 'on the fence' (really?) going to be swayed by, hey Trump is going nuts. They'd probably wonder if it was "fake news" or something.

I have to think there is something in Trump's real-estate/business past that had to do with windmills. He seems obsessed with them.

Well, he has studied them more then anyone. It's right up there with his knowledge of bible verses. And health care.

And the military.

There's really no chance he's going to debate, is there? It's one thing speaking like that at a campaign rally no one is paying attention to but if he does that on stage with an opponent it's going to look horrible.

Its great that Congress was able to pass the SECURE Act, some rare bi-partisanship nowadays. The benefits don't apply to me as much but can see a lot of benefits in the bill.

The main complaint that I've read is there wasn't a grandfathering or transition period for the inherited IRA/401k (that pays for everything else). That hurts me specifically but the pros to many others vastly outweighs the con to me (or actually, my kids) so I'm good.

Fuck this part of the SECURE Act:


That's really going to screw me over.

Assume you are the inheritee? All for a good cause.

Fuck that. The economy has not benefited me, I make shit wages (steadily losing several hundred dollars each month even though I’ve cut as much as I can without literally starving myself and because of that the so-called retirement benefit is fucking useless) because no one fucking wants to pay me what I’m actually worth, and now I get fucked over still more? Yeah, no.

I’m going to vote against every asshole who voted for this shitlord legislation even if that means voting Republican.

I wish congress would spend as much time and energy on reforming our Health care crisis as they did in impeaching Trump.

Look at the 400+ Bill's they've passed that the Senate won't even consider. What do you want?

Politicians to actually work for the people and not their own selves.

I guess that is too much to ask.

We can just watch our great country collapse on itself. At least the rich are safe.

They are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, impeachment is not the issue. Otherwise Republicans could have done something while they controlled everything for 2 years.

Not entirely sure on your specific situation, but I read this only applies on inheritances starting in 2020. It does not apply if you have one now.

I know. Its looking after the special interest groups and individuals that dump tons of money their way.

Same shit, different year.

It was a property in Scotland. They where putting a wind farm next to his property, and he helped fund opposition to it.

Ah knew there had to be something that triggered his obsession with them, thanks!

I'll have to find out which is the case. I've read conflicting things. The answer is going to have a major impact on how I handle it. Even if it doesn't apply to me, eliminating stretch IRAs is total BS and is all about the government greedily siphoning money from a lot of people who will be hurt by it because it shoves them into a higher tax bracket and causes them to lose money they can't really afford.

And Murkowski R out saying she's disturbed by McConnell's BS.... stop it. You will do exactly the same as every other member and fall in lockstep. It's all a con.

That's the play, though, right?

"Concerned"

"Disturbed"

"Considering..."

"Want to hear more about..."

And then, in the end, utter fealty, as expected. But the headlines are there to suggest a paper trail of moderation, contemplation, and moral angst. Ahhhh.

Exactly.

Is Trump saying the manufacturing of windmills causes these fumes and gases or the windmills themselves? And who the heck is he trying to convince here?

Does he think the coal industry leaves less of a carbon footprint than windmills?

GE is an US conpamy that produces 4.5% of windmills. They are #6 on the list.

Been a bit since this conversation, but I'm curious here - why? What is on fire? I.e, why does this matter to you? What happens in the next 10 … 20 … 50 years that is a problem for humanity if the United States doesn't do .. *whatever* … to compete with China better than what it's doing right now?

The typical line on this is that the manufacturing of X requires certain inputs and releases pollutants. For a long time solar panels were upside down in this regard due to their dependence to oil based films and other products.

That one popular meme about windmills that says that they will never pay back the amount that goes into making them is one of my favorites. The backstory from Snopes on that particular statement is a prime example of cherry picking lines to suit an agenda.



Do Windmills Consume More Energy to Build Than They Ever Produce?


In August 2015, a meme posted to the Google+ group “The Secret Society of Anti-AGW-ACC Cultism,” an organization that claims climate change is a hoax, reproduced the words allegedly written by Thomas Homer-Dixon, the Associate Director of the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation, on the subject of windmills. As his statements were presented in that meme, Homer-Dixon appeared to have asserted that windmills never produce as much energy as is expended in building them:
The quotations selectively employed in the meme were taken from Homer-Dixon’s 2009 book Carbon Shift: How Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis Will Change Canada (and Our Lives). However, this quotation, which comes from an essay written by earth scientist David Hughes, was cherry-picked and presented out of context to create a deliberately misleading version of what the author actually said.
Hughes did write that some windmills might not recoup their energy-construction costs, but he didn’t assert, as the meme implied, that no windmills will ever generate as much energy as was invested in building them. In fact, he allowed that a windmill situated at a good location could pay back the energy costs of creating it in under three years, but that aspect was omitted from the memed version of his quote:

The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

As Hughes observed, his point was that “the concept of net energy is crucial if we want to find a policy that will see us through the Energy Sustainability Dilemma,” not that windmills should be eschewed for using up more energy than they ever create.
Homer-Dixon did not write this viral quote, but he did comment on it in a May 2018 blog post entitled: “No . . . I did not say wind energy is ‘Idiot Power.’”

This text is selectively excerpted from a chapter written by David Hughes in Carbon Shift (2009), a book I co-edited.
[…]
It’s worth noting that it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations, and it’s trivial, or meaningless, to say that a turbine would never pay back its embedded energy in a poor location.
So, 1) I didn’t write the text, 2) the text itself is selectively quoted, and 3) the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Three strikes.

The Christmas Eve Confessions of Chuck Todd - PressThink

Interesting article that focuses on some of Chuck Todd's recent comments and comes down hard on Meet the Press, but a lot of what's discussed applies to media as a whole during the Trump era of politics.

Let me preface by saying ... although this is not a zero sum where if China takes 10% of a pie, the US will lose 10% of that pie. Instead, it is where China takes 10% of the growing pie, and the US will take 5-7% of the pie. With that said ...

We are currently in an economic and technology "war" with China. Economic includes global trade, the use of the dollar as world currency etc. Technology includes AI, 5G, space, and overlaps military etc. Unless we actively and effectively combat this, China will overtake the US (not just in GDP which seems to be the most publicized measure right now). Why does this matter?

Economic/trade influence and favorable terms will decline, arguably the US will not grow as much as its growing now. Military and political influence will decline, allied countries will move closer to China and away from the US. The US as the country of choice by immigrants will reduce. Yuan will become the dominant currency, arguably the US will not be able to borrow as much.

Bottom line - the US will face many more challenges in its growth if its not the dominant economic and technology power.

The question I would toss to you ... what advantageous do you see as China being the dominant economic and technology power? or why shouldn't the US "fight" back to retain its advantage?

There's been a lot of anecdotal evidence about how tariffs are behind the manufacturing slump. Now the Federal Reserve proves it, finding that the trade war is hurting the sector it was ostensibly supposed to help: https://t.co/JdpbFtEAwO pic.twitter.com/HEKg7C82cw

— Lydia DePillis (@lydiadepillis) December 27, 2019

Its hard to compete when factory workers here make an average of $23.32 an hour and Chinese factory workers make an average of $1.36 an hour.

Not promoting anything here. Just pointing out a fact.

Got the info here.

Average Cost Of A Factory Worker In The U.S., China And Germany [INFOGRAPHIC] | HuffPost

I'm not sure there's ever been anything as stupid as the conservative outrage about cuts to a Canadian showing of Home Alone 2 before Trump was even nominated.

It's the same argument that has been made when any business is trying to compete against a government subsidized 'business' in the private sector. Governments can prop up a losing business, grab enough market share, and shut down said business. That's neither an argument for State Capitalism, nor against it, unless it's against my industry, than fuck those guys. It's not exactly a 'fair' market to compete in.

I can see why this would be seen as bad for the USA and good for China. I don't see though where it answers the posed question; why would this be bad for humanity?


I didn't and don't say that. What I do say is that having such considerations as primary policy goals in our age is like the scene in Gangs of New York where the two rival fire departments fight each other in the street, ignoring the neighborhood burning to the ground around them. The challenges we face are global in nature and require global cooperation whether we like it or not. Any policy approach that doesn't put that reality front and center above nationalistic rivalries is IMO myopic at best.

You know what the outrage is about really doesn't matter.

My argument is definitely not that "US or China is better for humanity". It is from a US-centric point of view, it is "why its better for US". However, the discussion of whether US or China as the dominant economic and technological power would be better for humanity would be interesting. I'll start another post on that.


Yes, good analogy on Gangs of New York but I don't agree with ignoring the neighborhood burning around them.

What do you view as the big "global challenges" that require cooperation between the US and China that supercede (e.g. more important than) the "nationalistic rivalries"?

The one that comes to mind is climate change? If so, important as it is, I think its tangential to the economic and technology "war" that I believe is going on between the US & China.

Per an earlier post from Brian, the discussion topic would China or US, being the dominant economic and technological power, be better for humanity.

Its not whether China good or is US good. It is, if you had to pick between the 2, is China better for the world than US or vice-versa.

So first question I think we need to answer is how do we define or measure "better". Here are my thoughts, don't claim they are complete and welcome additional criteria. I propose the question:

Does US or China provide, promote, allow, protect, encourage, invest etc. more countries & people of the world regarding:

1) Personal freedoms
2) Religious freedom
3) Economic growth
4) Political representation
5) Freedom of press & internet
6) Growth opportunities
7) Care of family
8) Care of less fortunate
9) Healthcare for world
10) Environmental stewardship
11) Protection of others unable to protect themselves
12) Societal progress (e.g. reduction in racism, other bigotry)
13) Promotion of Arts

Any additional criteria to add or remove?

Why is it tangential? This really goes back to my initial question about how it impacts humanity - what are the negatives that compare to the negative consequences we are already seeing, and will continue to see in greater and greater magnitude well beyond our lifetimes from actions we are taking now, from climate change?

That's far from the only one by the way. AI is another. The sheer scale and expense of scientific endeavors (see: Large Hadron Collider, space station, ITER, etc. with future requirements likely to rise exponentially) require it as well. The related matter of fossil fuel depletion. Space exploration and development in general, as well as more specific matters like dealing with space junk. The irreversible interconnectedness of the global economy. The fundamentals in all of these are that humanity has reached, and passed decades ago in many areas, the point at which we significantly affect the entire planet and many of its systems, not merely the localized stuff you see when you looking out your window. An inevitable consequence of that is viewing the world through the prism of nation-states is counterproductive and wholly inadequate.

The USA vs. China thing is interesting, but ultimately it's not a rabbit hole I'm personally going to go down because it frankly just misses the point.

It tangential to the debate because the US view & actions on climate change will not change because of China. China is not going to pull economic and technology levers to make the US government or population to do more here (or vice-versa). The US needs to continue to build awareness, concern, elect the right people etc. It is somewhat related (hence tangential) because I can see the US trying to catchup to China on some of its more green technologies but China has a bunch of green problems of its own.


View world through prism of nation-states is a true, that is definitely what is happening. I don't see a realistic alternative to this short of the world working together to fight off aliens, a ELE event, saving Matt Damon etc. there is no way China or US are going to work together to develop AI and then share the rewards. Right or wrong, there is just too much strategic and national security interests here.

Here's the thing though; my argument is that those strategic interests should be pointing the perspective the other way. We have far too much interest in the outcome NOT to cooperate in a completely different way. Take for example what may well be the next domino to fall: Peak Oil. Many industry experts are predicting shortages to begin within a decade. Others think it will be about 25 years from now. It's hard to know exactly when for many reasons including OPEC not being honest about their internal numbers, but we are consistently only finding 10% of the oil we are using and all of the cheap, easily-accessible deposits were tapped a long time ago. Personally I'm in the middle of those estimates, expecting the first effects to hit in 12-15 years.

This is not some far-off catastrophe we're talking about. It will happen in our lifetimes most likely and will certainly greatly impact the lives of our children & grandchildren. And we're nowhere near where we need to be in order to prepare for it. Driven by developing countries to a significant degree, demand is continuing to rise not decline. With the globalization of the economy, it doesn't even matter who runs out first all that much. The USA is in better shape than almost any other country in the world when you look at the untapped resources due to environmental concerns - concerns that will fall by the wayside when things really hit the fan. That won't save us though. When countries that buy the stuff we make starting going into recessions or worse because there isn't affordable oil on the world market and prices start to rise, that hurts everyone. Them more than us, but make no mistake it'll drag us down with them. No country is an island anymore. And of course eventually even what we have will run out, but the catastrophe will happen long before then as the price rises to the point of being obscenely unaffordable due to the shortages.

No country in the world AFAIK is ready for this. None are even close. The only way to get there would be a concentrated, focused worldwide emphasis on infrastructure, sharing research, etc. To be properly prepared, that would need to have started at least 10 years ago. And the point is, in this and so many other areas, what is in our 'national interest' is that which is in the interest of humanity. There's no way to divide or sever the two. The basic nature of the modern global economy makes that an impossibility - we either prosper together or we suffer together, there is no third direction.

There may not be any corruption left for future presidents.