Your video, Trump’s Vast And Ongoing Project To Steal The Election, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

should give pause.

a bearded man in a curious george hat is far more eloquent, concise, and salient than the vast majority of nattily attired well-paid media mercenaries.

get more in 10 than 60 from ben sharpio (for example).

good vid but like this one more...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3muoxysvKiw&feature=emb_rel_end

...and like his commercials too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbdDKuV56_4

Trump has blamed State governors for fires on federal land for 3 1/2 years+ but has done nothing to solve the problems on land he controls.

The failure has been in the making longer than that, try since the industrial revolution. I live in a rain forest starting it's third decade of drought. It's a major climate shift. The science is settled, not in question for decades.

No, he needs to listen to the professional forest managers already there instead of ignoring them because he knows more about everything than anyone. See his recent meeting with California's forest managers for examples of his stupidity, his plan is just like for Covid, do nothing, blame others, deny there's a problem, claim it will just go away, blame others again, pat himself on the back for a job perfectly done.

His idea, rake the forests, is just dumb and impossible. Only a complete moron believes you can rake up 33 million acres of mountainous forests, including removing all forest litter which is necessary habitat for many forest creatures and downed trees like redwoods that are useless as lumber. Only a stupid ignoramus believes that's a solution.

Let's say it costs about $1000 per acre, a vast underestimation, that's an extra $330 billion per year for raking California's forests alone. Is Trump offering to fund that, or is he cutting funding instead? (Hint, he cut funding)

Much of the mismanagement is from fighting fires. For decades the plan was don't let any fire burn, that's left forests with 2-5 times the fuel it would naturally have. The last decade that's been realised and when possible fires are allowed to burn. It's too little too late.

Trump's idea of draining the swamp has been plugging the outlets and pumping millions of gallons of sewage into it. That means removing career civil servants and selling positions to friends and contributors with no experience and massive conflicts of interests. Trump's is the most criminal administration ever, with more convictions than any other including Nixon. Politics are incredibly more swampy than before Trump, and the state of the union is crumbling and poised to dissolve into another civil war.

🤦‍♂️

Producers vastly overestimate most peoples' common sense, but YouTube didn't get it's start until 2005 so perhaps all the evidence wasn't in yet. For giggles I tried putting 'Humans do' into Google thinking stupid shit would be a top contender, but apparently it's "Humans do battle in a ring of jello".

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Did you read it?

Winfrey said the vast majority of the absentee voting precincts in the city were less than three ballots off, plus or minus.
Of 503 absentee voting precincts in the city, there were 131 that were off by plus or minus one ballot without an explanation, according to information presented at the meeting. There were 85 off by two ballots without an explanation, 48 that were off by three, 26 off by four and 73 off by five ballots.

When it came to 503 Election Day voting precincts, 104 tallies were out of balance by at least one ballot, with the majority of them, 74, being off by plus or minus one, according to information presented at the Tuesday meeting.
A record 1.6 million people in Michigan voted by mail for the Aug. 4 primary, 2.5 million total.


So when the vast majority voted no reason absentee/vote by mail but those votes couldn't be counted until election day there were 1/3 as many issues with in person election day voting. Sounds like vote by mail was nearly as good despite it's workers having to work 20 hour days counting vs 8 for in person poll workers. The total number that were either an over or under count were .04%, not great, but not consequential.

President trump is raising concerns, yes, but not doing a thing to solve the problems h he's caused. His and his administration's actions have been blatantly harmful rather than helpful across the board, and he continues to insist he won't sign any funding bills for the election because he needs to suppress the vote as much as possibly among thinking people who believe the CDC is right and in person voting is a recipe for disaster or he's going to lose.

Holy cow, is that for realz? Oh snap!

That seems way too heavy to be practical. Seems it should be made of carbon fiber or something. Who pours the vast sums of money into something that's effectively just really cool cosplay?

Btw, false advertising! Walk testing, not so much. More like lifting a leg to pee testing. Still this is exciting, but I'll be more excited when it really is walking.

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

Way too long, didn't watch, but I must disagree with the description.
Population control is hardly removed from the debate. IMO it's just ignored when it's brought up because the vast majority of people won't even consider not having children to the point where when China tried to take action and limit couples to one child the world called them draconian monsters instead of intelligent.
I personally often say I think every problem facing humanity and the planet is a function of overpopulation, and I'm not alone. I admit, I'm rare in that I put my money where my mouth is and had a vasectomy in my twenties before having children. I'm of the belief that no other action could possibly have the positive effect that not adding to the population does, but I also bought a full solar system over a decade back and try to grow most of my own food, and I drive well under 5000 miles a year.
There's no reason to abandon population control in favor of technological fixes or vice versa, indeed I believe maximising both won't fully solve our issues that have taken over a century to create, but I also believe not acting in every way possible to mitigate our damages leads to certain doom for most species.
I also think none of this will make a whit of difference in the grand scheme because way too many people have decided making any lifestyle sacrifices or not wastefully living above their means is intolerable even if it means their children suffer for it.

Bullshit you liar.
Trump blocked relevant witnesses, not the house. He had no credible witnesses on his behalf because none exist. The witnesses he wasn't allowed were the Bidens, because even if every baseless accusation he made against them was true (spoiler, not one is) it's 100% irrelevant. What HE did is the issue.

Bob, you and Trump's position on anyone not kowtowing sufficiently and loudly exclaiming how amazing his (non existent) clothes are is "fuck them". Always has been. Hardly possible to represent America when you say 2/3 are America haters that should be hanged for treason.

The democrats wanted more evidence from day one, and the Whitehouse used every possible excuse to deny them ANY. I can't wait for 2021 when republican control is lost, barring more massive Republican voter fraud (which has been perpetrated by a republican in every intentional case found this century- including all actual examples Trump's investigation found from 2016; Terri Lynn Rote, Phillip Cook, Audrey Cook, Gladys Coego, and worst ever-Leslie McCrae Dowless who collected hundreds of absentee ballots and filled them out for Republican candidates, forging the signatures of hundreds of voters in her position as paid political operative for the Trump supported Republican candidate Mark Harris). When the house, Senate, and executive are all democratic and republicans are silenced with their sycophantic and cowardly abdication of duty, civility, and sanity to someone who doesn't comprehend one of those concepts a whit, I'm sure you'll finally understand how bad that is.

The Senate didn't listen to shit. Republicans, save one, were prepared to acquit without any evidence or testimony. Liar.

The theatrics are from Republicans....all non cult members see that clearly, that's why 2/3 of Americans supported his removal, and the other 1/3 wouldn't convict him of murder if he shot Romney in cold blood during the state of the union. The president being an unimpeachable king is what the constitution was designed to prevent, and the precedent the Republicans set here will end our country if it's the new norm. Start learning Mandarin....oh sorry, forgot that the "L" word is a swear word to your ilk.

It's the entire US that lost, something you'll understand when the next president breaks the law and Republicans are ignored when they complain. The state of the union is "crumbling into dust". The divider in chief has seen to that. "Winning!". *facepalm

BTW, you're also wrong about the dumbasses (again, one word not two). Trumpsters are the uneducated by and large, and a vast majority of them (59%bad/33%good) believe higher education is a bad thing.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education/ It's likely that statistic is due to the fact that most of today's Republicans couldn't get into college because most of you are too dumb to meet the requirements, and those who aren't, like my family, have left the party in disgust.

Republicans are the moronic anti American anti education anti fact anti science anti fiscal responsibility anti choice bigots too stupid and gleefully ignorant to know they're stupid ignorant morons. There's absolutely no question or doubt among those who aren't willfully ignorant, who believe in fact, or who believe in education.
Sad.

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.