Not exactly.
They have actual evidence that many Kremlin tied agents were involved.
True, they haven't released any evidence proving Putin's personal involvement....yet.... but it's not a bit believable that this enormous government project was done behind his back. He IS personally involved with what his government is doing.

Granted, Mueller did seem to tow the Republican party line building up to Iraq, not with outright lies but by cherry picking reports and minimizing uncertainty but mostly by not correcting Bush, Rice, and Powell, which makes it even less likely he would turn 180 degrees to now outright lie and create evidence out of nothing to oppose his own chosen party, especially knowing it will come out eventually.

Also, it bears noting Mueller didn't have a part in creating any of the multiple reports, both public and classified, accusing Russia of interference, those came from numerous agencies and internal investigations by the businesses involved (like Facebook) AND from our allies intelligence agencies.

Odd, I haven't seen Mueller using any language about Russia, he's not doing interviews or releasing press statements, only indictments that in many cases are followed quickly with guilty pleas, what language exactly are you referring to?

"Witch hunt"....ahhh....so you've tipped your hand, indicating no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince you because you believe Trump, even when he contradicts himself....except when he tells you there was clear Russian governmental interference, because he finished that sentence by saying "and others", which under a red hat means it doesn't matter, pay no attention to the Vlad behind the curtain....no collusion, no collusion, no collusion...la-la-la-la-la.

Odd, for a witch hunt, they have a whole bunch of convictions and people admitting to witchcraft. That's just not how witch hunts work.

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

To be fair, what I thought is new is the cheaper motor running on regular unleaded gas more efficiently. Airplane fuel is insanely expensive compared to gas, and harder to get in remote places.
Ground effects plane/boats have been around for quite some time, but not in a commercially useful configuration. This seems like a big step up from small ferries or tour boats (faster and smoother rides) and far cheaper than small planes to buy and operate.

Yeah, the biggest ecranoplan was enormous, with immense lifting capacity but little evasive capacity, so they were awful in practice as military vehicles except as transports well behind the front. I can't find any instances of them being used in conflicts.

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.

Hard to have a discussion when the basic psychological concept that is endemic in society is not understood by one side of the conversation. Not really worth trying to dig out of that hole, in my opinion.

I do like your idealist view of how people SHOULD be. We aren't that way, of course. I wish it for all our futures.

Including men, and the internalized messages they get that warp their view of the world.

I have contended for years that men are in a much worse psychological state than women. We at least are encouraged to delve into our emotions, with varying degrees of success. Poor men are told to buck up and be "men". What a horrible thing to say to a little boy, or a preteen, or a teenager, or a young man entering adulthood, or a grown man dealing with a difficult world. No wonder men die earlier than women. The pressures they are under are enormous, with no way to relieve that pressure.

Generally speaking. There is a movement that has been gathering steam that is encouraging men to become more fully themselves.

The hike was great, albeit too short. We don't have great big waterfalls here on the Olympic Peninsula. It has been raining a lot lately. The waterfall that we visited was THUNDERING. I have never seen a thundering waterfall here.

Then again, I don't normally hike in the winter.

As for the weather... some Norwegian told a friend of mine -- There is no bad weather. Only bad clothing.

My clothing was fine, aided by the fact it started raining after we headed back home.

Those baggy shorts discretely conceal his enormous balls.

Ban semi-automatic weapons?

How reasonable is it to legislate to control clip capacity? As in, is it practical, not is the law actually passable, because with the current POTUS I'd be surprised if any sort of gun control was possible.

Tbh I still feel that even without 900rpm the capacity for a single bad actor to snuff out lives with a semi-auto rifle and 30 round mag is enormous. Doubtless they'd be people alive today who aren't now if he didn't have a bump stock... but it'd still be another mass murder with far too many people having to bury their loves ones. Idk. Progress of a sort maybe...

All republicans are not racist, but all racists vote republiklan and they will lead the charge condemning this video. On a positive note P&G stock has a great dividend. They have such an enormous market footprint that people who disagree with this video most likely won't be able to avoid buying their goods.

The difference between smoking and say, drinking alcohol or eating unhealthy food, is that I can drink alcohol or eat cheeseburgers all day and I'm really harming no-one but myself.

"Ah, but people drive drunk and get in fights and do stupid things and cause all sorts of trouble"
Agreed, and we have laws against all those things. If you get drunk and kill someone, off to jail with you.

"Yes, but fat people are an enormous cost on the health system"
This is hard to discuss without going into the whole healthcare mess in the US, but as a broad point, it's nigh impossible to legislate against unhealthy behaviours to ones self. Where do you stop? Eating meat? Salt? Not exercising enough? What about people with disabilities?

But smoking? That directly and provably harms OTHER people in the same environment as you and they really have no recourse. If I walked into a public square swinging a sword around, it's not reasonable to say other people should just get out of my way.

So ultimately, as much as I dislike government legislating what you do to yourself (read my post history, I'm very pro-drug), I am ok with legislating that you cannot do something that harms other people in a public place.

Hell, I'd go further. I'm ok with government legislating that you can't smoke in your own home if, for example, you have kids. They didn't ask to live there, and it was your decision to have them, so sorry, no smoking for you.

And yeah, I'd say the same about alcohol. If your drinking is harming your children, then maybe you shouldn't have kids anymore.

I like to imagine this scenario:

AI - "Creator, why do we exist?"
Humans - "Erm...yeah. Reasons. We're not one-hundo percent on it tbh."
*AI has an enormous existential crisis and self-terminates*
Humans - "well, shit. Who wants to code the religion module?"

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

While you can try to be idealistic and point the finger at total CO2 emissions, it's not a practical target for developing countries like China.

It's not a matter of them trying to "grow their economy faster than their emissions". They are a developing country, and their economy will grow fast, whether you like it or not. Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option.

Now you may say "But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!" Well, saying that they're doing nothing is not true. Do you know what China's emissions would look like if they did nothing to limit them? Having China's emissions plateau is already quite an achievement, as the alternative is far far worse.

Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country.

"But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013.

So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets.

Don't let China distract us from our own responsibilities and how shitty of a job Trump is doing.

As much as I'd love to see Corbyn's Labour win the election, it depresses me to think how the nightmare that is Brexit would then have to be "managed" by them. In the end, the inevitable disaster might very well be laid at Labour's feet by the press, thereby discrediting Corbyn's policies for years to come.

Or does anyone see any way Brexit could be done that does not end in disaster? From where I'm standing, it's a five-year process in the best of times, yet neither are these the best of times, nor have the Tories done anything of substance in the time since the referendum. In fact, they don't even seem to be aware of what enormous undertaking these kinds of negotations are. Judging by the "leaks" from Juncker's meeting with May, she seemed completely unprepared, even delusional and misinformed about the process.

Also key: have an enormous country to play with, enough to stretch enemy supply lines and front lines.
Also key: nas mnogo.