You know I won't click on your links since you sent me to that virus hosting site. How about name an instance and I'll investigate myself, I certainly won't trust your sources....especially when it comes from a Trump tweet. Get real, I expect another "professional opinion" like the doctor that supports hydroxy, and alien DNA in medicine, lizard people, and demon sperm as the cause of all gynecologic issues, not facts...he hates facts, they never agree with his uninformed opinion.....but he loves the uneducated, they'll believe his insane bullshit and never check for themselves.

HOLY FUCKING SHEEP SHIT YOU MORON.... I checked first then read it....it doesn't say this was fraud, much less democratic fraud, it makes no mention of political affiliation, but based on recent history chances are great that, if it's fraud, it's Republicans. How long were these few dead people dead before the election? Could they have been alive when the vote was mailed in? Doesn't say. How many cases are considered fraud by the election board? None I could see.

What it did say was many didn't receive their ballot in time to vote, or at all, because Trump and friends hobbled the mail services causing delays that suppressed thousands of votes. It also said most votes that were disqualified had issues with either the signature, something Trump claims isn't being checked, or the section for someone to deliver the ballot for the voter, something else he claimed isn't checked. Kinda blows his claim that fraud is rampant and unchecked when his evidence is the votes that didn't pass the checking they did of them. His solution, suppress tens of millions more votes. Evidence of Republican vote suppression, not democrats vote fraud.
A vote denied is a vote stolen.

This article actually makes the point that any possible vote by mail fraud will be caught, not that it's a problem.

This is Trump and friends interfering in the election by your estimation, Bob. If it's fraud because people didn't get their ballots, or they were delivered too late to count, and they didn't get them because the post office is slowing down at Trump's order, that's Trump and co. committing election fraud.

Not true, mail in ballots are exactly the same as absentee. There's never been a distinction made before this election. There are multiple states that have had universal mail in voting for decades.
There is no difference in the processes, despite what Trump and Fox have told you. They're liars, you know it. The only difference is you don't have to lie about your ability to get to a polling place with universal mail in voting. The article Trump had you link to proves it conclusively....those votes were disqualified because they did check signatures and more.
Trump's entire family votes mail in, even though they have no reason to. They're all registered in multiple states too....from what Trump says, that's proof they're committing vote fraud.

Lest you forget, the CDC stated unequivocally that mail in, not in person voting is the ONLY safe way to hold an election this year.
Lest you forget, Trump has said unequivocally that if every eligible voter voted, Republicans would disappear instantly. The ONLY way for Republicans to win is to disenfranchise millions of voters. That is why, when logic and reason say the post office should be expanding operations to prepare for weeks of high mailings, but instead they are cutting hours, removing 10%+ of their sorting capacity and removing an unknown number of mail collection boxes, already creating massive backlogs in normal mail service of weeks to months, making them incapable of fulfilling huge numbers of contracts they have which will cost them package delivery business they desperately need to survive when they should be ramping up. Only a brain dead slug can't see that's intentional, especially when Trump goes on TV and says it is, intentionally done to suppress the Democratic and independent vote because if they vote, he'll lose.

Trump refuses to fund even normal operation at the USPS because it would make delivering ballots easier.
You know he agreed to fund the post office, including money needed to greenlight universal mail in voting, if Democrats give him tens of billions for tax cuts and pet projects for himself, right? So, he's saying he will allow election fraud for a price? Or is it more likely he's willing to give up a dishonest and failing political ploy for a bribe?
You know this is tax payer money meant to fund civil services, right, not some handout? It seems you think funding essential civil services is a gift in your mind, not an obligation. So you'll stand behind Biden if he halts all funding for police and military until they get their act together, right? (Not that he plans any such thing, I'm making a point about your hypocrisy as a defense for intentional election disruption and massive voter suppression as a campaign strategy.)

The international community disagrees. When only 10% of votes are cast this election, the world will declare the election a fraud, so will 90% of Americans. Talk about dividing the nation for one man's gain. That's why we think you're Russian, Americans care more about the nation than their cult leaders.

The check and balance comes at registration, and again when the vote is counted....just like absentee votes. Trump is lying when he claims they aren't validated.

Trump disrupting mail service in any way possible to deny voters a chance to vote safely, also closing thousands of polling places (mostly in democratic leaning areas) from lack of staff IS election rigging....he has said specifically on television it is done to sway the election results by suppressing a majority of votes, leaving only the method he polls best with, unsafe in person voting which the CDC said clearly is a recipe for disaster and will kill people. He doesn't care a whit that hundreds more Americans will die and thousands be disabled because he forces them together to fulfill their civic duties, not his problem because he's mailing his vote in (so he has time to go golfing, watch TV, and tweet all day, not because he can't vote in person btw).

Yep, the answer to any problem from you, cut taxes. Military underfunded, cut taxes. Can't afford universal health care, cut taxes. Debt and deficit are bigger than GDP, cut taxes. Infrastructure crumbling, cut taxes. Daddy Trump's businesses are struggling, cut taxes, especially theirs.

How many trillions more do they need? How much of that goes directly into Trump's families pockets? They already took dozens, up to hundreds of millions last round despite being specifically banned from the program.

Democrats want higher taxes because we like America being a sovereign nation, and bankrupting us into third world status could change that. When the final numbers for 2020 come out, I bet you that dinner you still owe me it will be double the deficit of any other year in history or worse, $6 trillion+ in spending and another trillion+ in lost taxes from lost production thanks to not shutting down in March-May....on top of the trillion+ deficit built into the budget.....and we're heading into a global depression with this deep debt, making borrowing money near impossible.

2021 is going to be a disaster too, no matter who's elected. Trump has ensured it. Any company that can afford to leave is leaving already, bud. They took the handouts from Trump and in pure Trump fashion took the cash and ignored what it was for, many using that money for expansions outside America, companies like Harley Davidson.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data is one of the more complete and user friendly sites ive come across regarding climate

and...

Being the fastest growing city isn't directly related to the number of deaths or the temperature in the city. He's the one who made that assumption not bloomburg. I believe that's called a straw-man argument.

As far as deaths from extreme temps are concerned, it's telling that he didnt take the time to isolate extreme temperatures from the natural disasters chart. Here, let me isolate it for you using the same source. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=1936..2018&country=~Extreme%20temperature


Or, again using that same source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-by-type focus on ONLY the extreme temperatures and it's clear that the natural disasters of that type are on an upward trend.

This show is quite hilarious at times. The premise is ridiculous, Python-esque in execution, therein lies its charms. Just what I need to watch when I need to get away from over-reading the horrible news of endless disaster after another.

Am I the only one disturbed and concerned by the underlying cause of the calving than repeatedly yelling "Oh my God woohoo!" like I'm watching a blockbuster disaster CGI movie? It's not "entertaining"...

And reading up Glacier calving on wikipedia, the boats not even at a particularly safe distance?

OMG you moronic liar...how can you make so dishonestly imbecilic a claim? Thought I wouldn't check?

First;
BLM.com = The BLM Transportation Group-Safety & Compliance. The person behind the wheel is the key to on time service. Safeco Driver Services provides our drivers with an extensive orientation including updates on safety and compliance, as well accident ...
(Blm.gov = bureau of land management)
(Blm.org = biglife -SUPPORT DISASTER RELIEF. With people in place across the globe, Biglife is providing hope and resources to those who need it most. Please join our efforts. )

Obviously you didn't go to the site, you're taking someone else's word, cutting and pasting without rubbing two brain cells together and repeating the lie of someone who lies to you constantly.


Second; So obviously the actblue charities bullshit you spouted didn't come from where you cite, and is 100% lies you feculent liar....yep, sho nuff.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/donations-to-black-lives-matter-group-dont-go-to-dnc/

Actblue charities doesn't give money donated to Bernie to Warren, just as it doesn't give the money given to BLM to any other charity, campaign, or person. If it's donated to BLM, it goes to BLM. They are a facilitator for progressive candidates and charities, not a fraudulent charity (like the fake charities Trump ran stealing money from veterans, admitted to, and is why his family is banned from running any charities). What you dishonestly claim is like saying because 10 people on eBay used PayPal, you can attribute every penny spent through PayPal to those sellers, or that if you donate to any gofundme it goes to one of 10 projects they chose in secret, not the project you gave to.

So brain numbingly stupid a claim, of course you just bought it the second Inforwars put it out there without a thought.

Again, because I know understanding isn't your strong suit, what you claim is happening when you donate to Black Lives Matter is not happening, but is EXACTLY what Trump did with his charities when he raised money for wounded veterans and pocketed it all, then pleaded guilty and paid $3 million in penalties and was banned from charity work for life. LMFAHS!

Gullible isn't in the dictionary either, Bob. Made you look.
Fuck, you make me so worried for humanity.

Has Beck told you any of these "known" cases of massive democratic voter fraud? I'm still waiting. Why don't you want to tell us about the bad bad liberals, daddy?

14 states having record high numbers of infected and hospitalizations now. Not going away, it's getting worse, and America knows it.

Recent in person elections have been unmitigated disasters...in republican led states before you knee jerk and blame democrats.

Still waiting for these known stories of Democrats cheating. Come on, don't you want to tell us all about those bad bad people? Yeah...thought not.

Republicans have introduced vote by mail in many states, no dems are crying foul. Apology?
Only republicans are crying foul...and only about the democratically led states that want to prepare for a near certain quarantined election since the "open now" crowd has caused a second infection wave already and will likely cause a third and fourth. Republicans want to delay those preparations as much as possible to minimize the vote in those states or even just invalidate them altogether. This is not a secret.

Universal vote by mail has worked fine without any such issues for Washington, Oregon, Utah, Hawaii, and Colorado for decades. Stop folding paper tigers.

Possibly. Right now, it looks like COVID is deadliest to the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions.

So, inner city inhabitants will be more likely to *get* COVID, but most of them will only suffer mild symptoms. Obviously, poorer people with less access to healthcare will suffer more.

It's hard to say what the ultimate effect will be in terms of voter demographics. Disasters can sometimes favor the incumbent, as the country gets behind its leadership, but Trump's handling of this has been a total clusterfuck. OTOH, *everything* Trump has ever done is a total clusterfuck and that doesn't seem to deter his supporters.

I have read NTSB air crash reports for decades...disasters are so rarely the result of just one mistake. And this is the same sort of thing. A series...and then lessons written in blood.

I had a friend who was a trained chemical engineer--he was always upset at BP's budgeting for maintenance and oversight. He felt they had a terrible history of accidents because they were always trying to cut it too close. That you just had to spend a certain amount of money to do chemical process and petrochemicals safely. He was right.

*promote
*quality

Sanders wants to ban nuclear power which would be a disaster for the planet, while Biden supports next gen reactors which are the future and will one day power everything. I like Sanders but is is a stupid and ideologically driven policy.

Your video, Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster Simulation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

All things Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_Disaster

Just pointing out that your stated plan, abandoning all dairy for stuff like almond milk, leads to a water shortage disaster without halting cattle death one whit. It would actually cause exponentially more animal deaths, most by thirst, a far more brutal and painful death than veal get....but you didn't think it through, did you?

There's no question that I enjoy eating meats of many kinds, I've never once hidden or denied that...I would eat long pig if people didn't spoil that meat. That said, I don't eat veal.

....and you say I make everything an argument?! You're style is why people hate vegans. You personally insult them, then whine and get pissy if they contradict your falsehoods and poorly thought out "solutions".

Besides...I thought you quit me. What gives? Enthralled by my swinging cod? Sorry, it's spoken for, and it's too beefy for your taste. ;-)

Edit : btw, the meat industry "hiding" it's methods isn't about the horrific violence at all, it's about hiding the violations of regulations that delineate how they are to be raised, killed, and which can't be used at all. Many smaller producers don't agree with that, they want to be seen doing it right, it's industrial meat production you're complaining about, not all production as you want to claim.

@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.

@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.