I don’t watch or read MSNBC…if it’s truly 100% about calling out manufactured crises and whining about them, that is awful. I do find it hard to believe that it is, though.

(Edit: I looked, 11 top headlines for “today’s news”, 3 about Trump…of the 21 latest headlines (bottom of page) only one about Trump, none about Hunter or Giuliani.)
I think you’re confusing supplemental articles covered under one topic as “headlines”…I count 7 top of page headlines, 2 about Trump’s legal cases, 1 about Trump’s lawyers talking shit about him, 1 about the failing Hunter investigation. Too much Trump, yes, but plenty of real news too. Their format is gawd awful….tabloid at the top, news at the bottom.

Granted, Trump’s constantly expanding legal issues are the lead story everywhere. That’s hardly a pure distraction when he’s 1) an ex president facing hundreds of felonies for actions he took while in office and 2) he’s the Republican front runner facing hundreds of felonies including sedition and espionage. Giuliani is a part of that same story. I don’t see that as a manufactured story/crisis. (But it does get too much attention by far).
EDIT: That said, the disgraced ex president and rapist was indicted minutes ago on four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election"; conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding; a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted; and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote. That’s insanely big news.


It’s also not a pure distraction to mention Hunter when the entire house is doing nothing more than “investigating” him, and his long touted public legal case just went to court for a failed plea agreement. That’s newsworthy because one party makes it so, but barely.

It is a terrible state if that’s ALL they mention, agreed. There’s lots more going on to address.

Foxconn is what you get when quasi socialist/communist dictatorial countries dabble in capitalism.

Let’s not forget Trump made a huge brilliant deal with them to build a factory in Wisconsin with the biggest corporate handouts in history of $3 billion and infrastructure installed at taxpayer expense while imminent domain was used to toss people off their land and taxpayer money used to clear it in preparation, touting the $10 billion factory and 13000-50000 expected jobs, which in reality is now down to a promise of $672 million and maybe up to 1400 jobs someday…today it’s a storage facility that assembles some servers for select clients (Chinese companies). He and the Righties sure loved ‘Jiner’ then. No problem with communist ‘Jiner’ at all while they’re handing out patents to Ivanka.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin

I applaud the jobs #

But when you say *quality leadership, -- You are Sadly mistaken .

Putting Union back together -- you mean political payback for all the $ spent buying Biden / Democrats that Biden is now paying back the unions in favors?

So you are saying that You are in favor of big business buying our politicians and getting special breaks using American tax dollars.

What Trump damage. Went from a 0.2% GDP growth /yr to 2.5 + Growth. Obama touted that this0.2% was the new norm and Trump claimed BS. Trump said he wold crate jobs and Obama dumbly said how by waving a magic wand.


Trump, for all his BS turned America around and mad all of us better.

A strong work force is the only positive news of this Admin.

Biden and Democrat policies can make policies that help the American pocketbook but wont.


This biggest is the party stance on oil. Americans are getting poorer mostly from this fact alone. The party decided to cut out fossil fuels and go green. This decision is costing families hundreds of dollars extra, that they don't have every month.

Not just from the extra at the pump but also the extra cost to deliver goods and services .



Current media reports that this extra cost is running about 500$/month 6K$/year.

This is you man Joe, and his party's policies?

I just assume to keep Trump , mean tweets and all, and keep the $6 grand / year in my pocket.

Yes, and they used those tax breaks to buy back stock, not create jobs.
<7% went to workers in the form of wages increases or new jobs. Far more went directly into the pockets of a few CEO s. Many of those businesses he touted as being saved and growing thanks to him have closed factories since the tax cut and some left the country.
It would be interesting to find out how much George Soros got from those tax cuts thanks to uncle Donny.

Yeah seriously, how dare he provoke the president by asking questions that Trump doesn't want to answer. CNN should go to North Korea and learn how to properly respect the president - you should only ask positive things about our Great Leader! If Fox News can tout the official party line, why can't every one else?

Them democrats caring about such silly things like a free press - how childish!

McCain was a turncoat to me in 2008. ( well even before 2008) Same for Bush 44.
Deplorable Republicans. I did not vote for McCain in 08.

Bush 44 turn me against ( # walkaway) the Republican party and I then registered independent.


Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally the same .
In public they will "fight " each other for show. Behind the doors they serve their own self interest. They enrich themselves and family. Author Peter Schweizer book (Secret Empires) shines light on this.


Trump comes along, a true outsider, and both sides gang up on Trump, to the likes America has never seen. Media is right along for the ride (ratings). McCain, in my opinion had his hand in the Steele Dossier to destroy Trump.

The Republican kept their anti Trump position for nearly a year, and only then started to back Trump.

If you are a Republican you don't sell out conservative principles.----------------This is where I hang my hat. --


Bottom line DC is a self interest swamp. Every one wants something done. Liberals wanted Bernie. Republicans wanted Bush. America ended up with Trump.
I'm happy it was not Bush
My pocketbook is happy it wasn't Bernie.


As far as Trump Tax cuts They touted that average family of 4 making 70K would see something like 140$month
I see about 80$.. Not what they said but definitely noticed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network


The formation of the organization was announced on March 14, 2013 by Herring Networks, Inc., an independent and family-owned national video programming company owns and operates OAN and sister channel AWE (formerly WealthTV; the initialism being an acronym for "A Wealth of Entertainment"). When the network began in 2013 it had a limited partnership with The Washington Times.[1]

The network launched with the intention of targeting a conservative-leaning audience with OAN President Charles Herring telling CPAC that, “Fox News has done a great job serving the center-right and independent audiences...But those who consider themselves liberal have a half dozen or more choices on TV each day from which to get their news.”[8] Herring also stressed the network's separation of news and opinion content, with straight news reporting throughout the day and limited opinion commentary from evening talk shows, including The Daily Ledger hosted by Graham Ledger and The Tipping Point hosted by Liz Wheeler. Early advertisements for the channel touted the network's lack of commentary and focus on straight news reporting.[9] The channel was formally launched on July 4, 2013.

As of August 2017, One America News Network reached 35 million homes and had nationwide distribution from DirecTV, DirecTV Now, Verizon FiOS TV, AT&T U-verse, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, and numerous regional video distributors.[10]

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

No, it makes them like the Democratic Party who don't have any problem simultaneously touting their position on women's rights and supporting Bill Clinton who was a serial groper and philanderer... in the same way that they condemn Trump for a lack of respect for the rule of law while they worshiped Barrack Obama who didn't feel it was necessary to enforce (or even recognize) immigration law or drug laws.

I don't really think either party has a monopoly on hypocrisy...

Thanks

I wasn't sure how to translate "est avant tout Joueur" from his description, since Player has connotations in English that I don't think it has in French. Participant? Or just say "he plays"? It was at that point I gave up and omitted it.

NOW can we finally stop touting the "17/13 agencies" thing everyone loves to quote.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/

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.

@bobknight33
unsure if you are gloating that you uncovered some deep,dark secret,and are exposing some political conspiracy.

or are just re-iterating what i already posted.

for years i have seen you promote and tout the validity and necessity of the tea party for those who may be disgruntled with the mainstream republican party.

a party that started with modest means,but is now funded by some of the most wealthy and influential political players in our country:the koch bothers.

they even changed their name to the freedom caucus.
and they nominate candidates,and come out to support them.

so how is the tea party,which broke away from the establishment republicans to promote a politics that is more in line with the constitution,ANY different from the people who are sick and tired of corporate,establishment democrats? who ALSO have decided that enough is enough and have banded together to nominate their own candidates,and support those candidates to represent THEIR politics and ideological philosophies.

how,exactly,is that different?

because while you may disagree with justice democrats politically,and i suspect you do,you should also be proud that they are taking a stand and sticking up for their beliefs.

are you SO unaware of your own bias,prejudice and hyper-partisanship as to not recognize when a group of people are doing the EXACT same thing as your tea party did?

be careful bob,your bias and hypocrisy are showing.
and you are becoming a partisan hack,attacking any and everything that is contrary to your own politics,even when in reality it is performing the very same thing that you state to admire.

so what is more important to you?
honesty,integrity and sticking to your moral values?
or political affilliations?

because i can disagree with someones politics,and still admire and respect them standing up for their values.(that includes you bob).

i gather this is something you are incapable of doing,because in bob's world"politics trumps everything else,end of discussion.

if you want to sully your eyes a bit,check out what the justice democrats are seeking to do,and what their base philosophy is:
https://justicedemocrats.com/platform

*promote
*quality

There are far more 'common threads' between Daesh and the Bakers than there are with Daesh and the left.

Did that guy just say the Soviet Union funded nuclear protests world wide in the 80's? When they were dead broke, starving, and the union was dissolving? I'm pretty certain that would be news to my aunt and uncle who have run an anti-nuclear protest group since the early 70's.

John Guanadolo?!? Really? "Foremost terrorism expert"?!? Don't they mean "disgraced and fired ex FBI agent caught having numerous affairs, including with witnesses he was protecting, among numerous other complaints, most notably his rabid anti Muslim stances and actions but including coercion and extortion"?

Not really a surprise from people who believe in talking snakes, tout incestuous communities (Adam, Eve, and their progeny), and who worship a zombie, but still disappointing.

I dunno if it is right to blame liberals when a campaign uses fear and hate to the degree Trump did. The Dems failed to address it, but it was not they alone that set the fires, and it certainly wasn't the left fanning them. How do you address bigotry? Must we forever defend the foundations of equality from this...rot?

Trump demonstrated a complete disdain for the truth. The media failed to call him on it - fucking fallacy of the middle-ground bullshit. But then idk if that would have made a difference. Sad that really.

Two party system doesn't help. I think this increasing polarisation is partly due to that, partly due, ironically, to the internet. It was meant to connect us to everybody! In reality it only really connects us to the people we agree with. I also think it is interesting how different cities and the country votes. Its the same deal here in the UK. London is like a different country, culturally and politically, to the rest of England. I imagine the big cities in America have a similar disconnect from the country around them.

I hope this will be a lesson. But I already begin to doubt it. Clinton blaming her loss on the email revelations. Lady, maybe don't have so many skeletons hiding away eh? I know you didn't do anything illegal, but nor did your Husband and he still lost the White House because of it.

/rant

I think I'd like to change my vote to "no one - the election was fair". Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.