No Biden corruption...only Trump collusion.

There was no prosecution or investigation at the time Joe Biden, with full American, international, and Ukrainian backing, pushed to have them remove a corrupt prosecutor who refused to prosecute corruption. The investigation of the company his son had worked for was closed, finding zero wrongdoing, long before Joe pushed them to remove an internationally recognized corrupt prosecutor. Every part of the story Trump told you, besides the location, is demonstrably, obviously, factually wrong. It's a pure Trump lie.
Most of the republicans repeating his lies know that for a fact, having been witness to what actually happened, the rest are willfully ignorant, refusing to look into it because they KNOW Trump is lying to them but don't want to admit it to themselves or you.

Trump's administration is by far the most corrupt in modern history, with more convictions, more forced out of office for malfeasance, more dishonesty and outright lies to the press, the American people, congress, the supreme court, international leaders, etc. There's no one they haven't lied to, and they go on tv and say they're justified lying to everyone, they have no obligation to tell the truth unless they're under oath, but even then they lie constantly....and get caught because they're stupid and dumb.

Really?! What evidence can you point to that isn't Trump's flapping gums? None. This conspiracy theory was also investigated and found to be as truthful as the pizza pedophile ring Clinton led from a pizza place's basement that didn't exist.

That's exactly what Trump says, the president can't be prosecuted or investigated, and anyone who does investigate him is a traitor who should face a firing squad, not Democrats or independents.
That's why more than 1/2 of registered voters think we know enough already to remove him, and 20-30% more think he should be removed if the charges are true, and the white house admitted they are true and offered written proof themselves, so dumb they thought it would exonerate him. *facepalm.
We're saying if you are so demented you make up insane self serving stories in your head like Biden stopped a prosecution, then you act as if they're factual, you should be removed from office for dementia, as should anyone who repeats your lies.

Now, if we're worried an administration may have abused their power to enrich their family, we should look at the king of nepotism, the Trumps, who do private business with countries we aren't aligned with and OBVIOUSLY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY get special favors and do nothing jobs that pay millions....Ivanka's trademarks in China for instance, bought with state promises by the president.

If Obama had had his personal attorneys skip around the globe pressuring foreign leaders to hurt his political opponents, withholding approved aid until they agree to help him personally, you would have lost your shit so thoroughly you could replace your home toilet with a urinal. There's zero question Trump has done this, he and Giuliani both have admitted it and there's evidence that, for once, they're telling the truth, too dumb to know collusion is wrong, too dumb to know admitting to extortion makes them suspects.

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

The modern definition of regulated is not the same as the definition used when writing the document.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, regulated means "trained" or "disciplined".

This has been researched and documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

Way too mush positive enthusiasm for a machine that is purely made to kill people. These human killing machines are brutal in their efficiency. I almost feel like the music should be a sound of dred with a somber tone explanation. Discussing them as entertainment seems wrong to me. Not only that, but this is the decommissioned ship, they didn't even get to the more modern ships which can kill way more people, more accurately, and at greater distances.

Of course, this is all to promote a video game, and they want you excited to buy and play their game, and pump them full of micro-payments. I also know their are people that thrive on guns and killing, but as a human being, to me, this seems very uncomfortable.

No, I'm not anti-video game, just anti-realism in video games and killing people. Give me Aliens and sci-fi, or demons and monsters any day

Thats rich coming from someone who blindly supports the most feeble minded POTUS we've had in modern history... But not a surprising coming from a Trumpanzee.

1)

The blacksmith and the artist
Reflect it in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the heart
Yes closer to the heart

Philosophers and plowmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the heart
Yes closer to the heart, yeah, oh -Rush

2)

All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah your honesty

One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity, yeah -Rush

You are as selfish with your love as Trump is with his money.
The difference is, you create love on demand. Trump can only lie, cheat and steal for his money. Trump doesn't love his followers. He loves their vote. Imagine how many votes he could get if he just changed his mind. His heart.

3)

What we don’t understand, we fear. What we fear, we judge as evil. What we judge as evil, we attempt to control. And what we cannot control…we attack. -source is proving elusive.

The bleeding hearts and artists make their stand. -Pink Floyd

EPILOGUE: Trump is outnumbered. We have his Trump card and he's pissed.


The Spirit Of Radio

Can you back that up with facts and logic?

Tom Sawyer

A modern day warrior
Mean, mean stride
Today's Tom Sawyer
Mean, mean pride
Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant
He reserves the quiet defense
Riding out the day's events
The river
What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the mist, catch the myth
Catch the mystery, catch the drift
The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his skies are wide
Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets by on you
And the space he invades
He gets by on you
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government
Always hopeful yet discontent
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is
What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the witness, catch the wit
Catch the spirit, catch the spit
The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his eyes are wide
Exit the warrior
Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets by on you
And the energy you trade
He gets right on to the friction of the day -RUSH

How is that raunchy? Seemed like typical modern dance, and they weren't bad.

The reason why we still have human pilots in fighters is because you can't jam or hijack a pilots brain. Any machine that is remotely controlled can be jammed at the very least. Leaving it unresponsive to commands. The exception here is that it could be pre programmed to perform a specific bunch of tasks, perhaps even something as advanced as air to air combat but, it loses a lot of flexibility. And it can be easily exploited.

E. G. you know a robot fighter jet is on it's way. Jam it so it cannot be called to cancel it's mission. Put some children into the target area.... That can happen and does with real pilots too, but they are able check and recheck as many times as they feel necessary either their JTACs or the amazing optics on modern jets giving a clear picture from over 10 miles away.

And that if course is with the ethical concerns of having an automatic killing machine fly around, which people like Stephen hawking warn us about. Perhaps in the immediate future the danger is quite low with only collateral incidents, but can you imagine say Trump with this kind of power. A trained soldier regardless of being broken in during training and even with all of the testosterone and adrenaline flowing through his body is still a compassionate and thinking human being. The likelihood of ordering a military wide atrocity is very low compared to an army of machineswhich will carry out any tasks no matter how gruesome. Can you imagine what Trump would do if people were no longer in the loop to share the responsibilities and burden of war? And by extention, that technology would likely be used to control the populace. You think the police in the US have there fair share of power tripping jackasses slipping into the service, well imagine if every officer was basically a silicon version of Trump. That's the worst ki d of robocop movie ever lol

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 4% of their calories is from animal products.
https://www.superfoodly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pie-chart.png

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.