I'm pale... and while I wouldn't ever do anything like this guy, I can't blame other humans with different pigmentation levels to blame all of us for this mans actions since others of my shade have been doing that for centuries.

Your guy and his cronies literally quote Nazi propaganda, openly support Nazis, openly support and laud dictators while denigrating democracies and democratic process both within the US and in other countries. At the same time a concerted effort has been in effect the past years to stack the courts and public service so heavily with blindly subservient ideologues to the point where laws and the constitution often have no bearing on judicial decisions any more if they impact the president or his allies.

In short, Trump has been engaging in one of the most transparently dictatorial power grabs of the twentieth and twenty-first century.

And you're worried about a report from a news agency known for inaccurate and biased reporting that maybe his opponent might have been involved in something shady (but without any actual evidence to back up their claims)? I mean it's not like Biden personally sees that money. China gives a shitload of money to US universities in general. If you want to connect the dots there, go look at Harvard, they receive a billion dollars a year from China, and yet you'd rather trace a few million because they happened to go to a school with Biden's name on it. Great detective work, Mr. Magoo!

If Trump came out in public tomorrow with a toothbrush mustache and a Nazi armband you'd still support him, wouldn't you?

If it walks like a Nazi, quacks like a Nazi, and supports Nazis, it is a Nazi.

I hope you can fill in the blanks, @bobknight33

I hope it's just that you just don't realize what you've become and you still somehow believe you're doing "the right thing", but honestly your lack of any semblance of integrity strains that perception. The alternatives, that you're intelligent and fully aware of what you're doing, or you're a propagandist for a foreign power who is merely acting in support of his own nation's goals are the less kind (but sadly more likely) interpretations.

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.

Yes, and marriage meant "man selling his daughter to another bloke" and decimate meant "to kill 10% of a roman century (which meant unit of 100 soldiers as opposed to unit of time)".

Definitions change, language evolves .... move on.

Organizing healthcare better would save you money, not cost you. Nationalism is self-blinding. Nothing against local-patriotism, but this flag waving schtick is so.. nineteenth century. "I love my country and believe in god therefore im right" got us all into two world wars. If you love your country take care of the people that live in it and dont be a nuisance to others.

The question is, would what Bernie wants really be better? Are Bernies supporters less blind than Trumps? Who knows?

Sorry if I'm not willing to take dieting advice from someone who's obese and, like a nutjob, has been carrying a hamburger in their purse for 4 years to make some nonsensical point about hamburgers. If you're so knowledgeable about proper eating habits, why are you still obese?

Sorry if I'm not going to take science advice from someone who doesn't know desiccation is one of the oldest methods of preserving food, and takes no chemicals. Incan mummies don't have shower mold either, and they've been exposed to air for centuries without the need for any preservatives. Derp.

While I agree, fast food is almost always bad for you, I haven't had a fast food burger in over 32 years, what these morons are saying is just ignorant stupidity of the highest order.

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

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.

It was less than a century between that and Star Wars.

They poured more concrete in two years than US did in the 20th century. IN TWO YEARS! That's a factual statement. (Shows article and chart showing it took 3 years. Apparently they don't understand that 2011-2013 is 3 years, even when it's in the title.)

Also mentions the new Chinese city with 550 square feet of office space with 95% not occupant. *facepalm

China dipped into our retirement funds to pay tariffs? No, they didn't. That's simply asinine in numerous ways.

They harvest most of the world's frozen fish? No, they freeze most of the world's frozen fish. No one harvests frozen fish.

These people are morons. Typically, they are fast and loose with facts and definitions, maybe just to avoid being truthful, something the right now finds distasteful.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

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.