Edit: some of us would prefer the president be up to speed on day one, not as a spectator but as a leader. I get that a leader who's prepared to lead is a new concept, but we need one desperately.

You seem to be under the impression that distribution nation wide doesn't need constant supervision and revision. You are sadly misinformed.
The preparation from the Whitehouse isn't complete, distribution of most vaccines requires deep freeze shipping to facilities with proper sub zero storage, and all the equipment for each shot, and a system in place to offer it to only the most at risk (and to deny the asshole who won't wait), personnel, facilities, policies, and equipment. None of that is completed.

Edit: oddly you seem to think a program set up by the Trump team will be flawless and perfectly functional from day one, unlike every other program they set up. When it turns out they planned to use ice cream trucks for delivery, but they aren't cold enough so 30 million doses spoil on the docks, Biden shouldn't be prepared? When it turns out the vaccine that needs sub zero refrigeration is the only one that really works, he shouldn't have a backup plan ready? Why would you assume it will function adequately totally hands off when nothing works that way, especially the biggest mass vaccine program ever?

If you think the federal government isn't going to be in charge, you're again misinformed badly. Operation warp speed, the distribution policy/agency, is in charge... it's a federal program. It will need constant supervision and retooling. Biden will be directly in charge there and should be informed and prepared, not shooting from the hip.

You left out the federal government and manufacturers and manufacturers of needles etc...The most important players in distribution.


Lol...You act like the white house isn't directly in charge of the distribution, they are.

Biden is just now being told the details of the plan, who's involved, and how it's supposed to work. As the leader of the plan, he should be fully informed before taking charge so he can fix whatever the moron who's sycophants designed it screwed up. Until he knows the plan and where and how we are setting it up and what stage we are at, he cannot possibly make his own plans to improve and facilitate it. Duh, that's the point here. You can't be that dense.

Two months is not enough time to be properly briefed on everything he needs to know, as explained in the 9/11 report.

The army, cia, and other agencies had plans for Osama in spring 2001, but Bush was all but unaware of any issues because he lost a few weeks of briefing time during the transition. This is a MAJOR factor in the success of the attack, as he didn't take any action on a problem he was unaware of.

Same goes here.

I know you disagree, you do little else. Fortunately, people with your mindset won't be running things for long, then we can make progress on this and a multitude of fronts Trump screwed up...is it that you even disagree he screwed up his pandemic response despite America being the worst hit country, and despite Covid not disappearing November 4 like he promised? Edit: do you not think it likely a trump response plan could be improved on?

There's so much to fix, like a looming depression, looming homeless armies about to be evicted, payback of the payroll tax holiday, new war with Iran, revision of our Russian policies, international relationships to mend, internal civil unrest, complete erosion of trust in law enforcement, 4 more years of completely ignoring infrastructure, treaties to rejoin, etc. He needs every second available to be as briefed on everything so he doesn't repeat Trump's ignorance of policy and law leading to more trumpian mistakes of ignorance and bravado, costing more lives.

No Bob. Wrong again. Some were background witnesses that prove the mindset....removing a top diplomat known internationally for her anti corruption successes in the manner he did it was like like photos of Trump dismantling video cameras the night before he robbed his own bank, they don't prove he did it, and he has the right to remove them, but it's still good evidence he was planning the crime. There were also direct witnesses to his actions, and what the Ukrainians were saying.
We get more direct witnesses today, including numerous professionals who were listening in on the phone calls.

Most leaks have come directly from the Whitehouse, and a never ending stream from Giuliani, but he used them. Secondly, what exactly was he so worried might leak about his perfect phone calls that he needed to create a secret non governmental channel to do foreign policy based on ridiculous false claims from criminal Ukrainians who paid him for access, then hide all evidence behind a top secret clearance firewall? Could it be because the State Department had already debunked both theories thoroughly, or because the payments from Russian tied Ukrainians was totally illegal, as is selling American policy to the highest foreign bidders? Next excuse.

Bob, you know the Republicans aren't asking about the facts or offering a defense, but are only using their time to make false statements about Biden and the witnesses, and to whine about the process they themselves designed, right?

...and you add a video from rabid nutbag Jordan why? His animated blatherings were only designed to confuse and obfuscate, and had no logical bearing on the procedure. His rapid fire naming players only works on morons who can't follow along, anyone with an iq above 80 understands Songland was revising his testimony because others testified he was lying. Taylor recalled having been told by Songland's staff, Mr Morrison, about Songlands conversations with Mr Yarmack, a Ukrainian official, about meetings with Zelensky and Pence (and what he told Yarmack was the meeting was conditional on an investigation announcement over Biden, not Burisma or corruption, and it was cancelled because there was no such public announcement). Mr Morrison would testify the same, so Songland had to admit the conversation happened. Hilariously, until that admission, Songland was your guy, now you guys pretend you can't follow one sentence if it has 5 names in it. This from the guy who brought you Benghazi, numerous closed door secret investigations over nonsense with zero evidence or corroboration. *facepalm

Btw, Zelensky had a scheduled interview to announce his Biden investigation in a quid pro quo for the funding release, but the illegal funding hold and related extortion was discovered publicly first and the scheme fell apart days before he gave the interview, which he cancelled as soon as the funds were released and the extortion plot ruined. If he wasn't being extorted, he would have had that interview anyway.

Funny how they repeatedly use their time to complain about not being allowed to ask questions (a total lie btw) in closed door sessions or to make false accusations against others like Biden or Schiff instead of asking questions about this case....even the Republican lawyer. It's like they have no defense....oh, wait.

Keep laughing. I know Jordan being the best you've got gives me a chuckle. Rational people see him as the total nutjob he is.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

Can be misleading, or can be apt. In this case, this is just one of many times Israel intentionally attacked Americans, so it's not misleading.
Also, there was only one combatant here. *facepalm

This is about how someone we call allies have acted undeniably criminally by committing multiple war crimes against us that we conspired to hide for decades, not how we treated actively aggressive enemies that attacked us and our allies first. Also, we're talking about crimes delineated in the 1949 revision and ratification of the Geneva Convention, so WW2 isn't covered. Duh.

Facts, like multiple undeniable war crimes against America, crimes that directly led to American murders, you mean?
If I find you on my street and cover you with a tarp before I beat you to death to footloose at 120 db so you can't protest, "I thought it was a known terrorist....i didn't see or hear anything to indicate it wasn't besides my friends who told me it wasn't." isn't going to work as an excuse. That's basically what we have here.

Your"illustration" is not a bit on topic, and seems like floundering excuses for the indefensible war crimes of Israel.

Bob, you admit he lies 16 times a day.

4.1% growth in one single quarter is worse than 4 of Obama's quarters under a Republican recession, and is likely highly exaggerated, this is a preliminary estimate, corrected/revised numbers are almost always much lower.
He hasn't broken 3% yearly GDP growth yet.

He is a bought politician, he's just not bought by Americans. It's pretty clear who he's beholding to.
No wonder no rational person believes a word he says anymore.

Fake president

Good point, and of course, you know, the whole cold war thing that went on with Russia for some 60 years...sure they didn't actually fight, but that's only because it would have had catastrophic results, but they nearly did, which is why everything was designed to fight a soviet military.

Typical regressive leftist history revision to suit their own virtual signaling. "if we don't count any of the white people wars, then we're only fighting brown people" lol

To add to @eric3579's comment, the work was fairly carefully planned to occur over Summer, and after the water level had been reduced, to minimise the chances that they would get caught out like that. The hydro plant should be able to release more water than required for the duration of the second phase of works.

Their first phase was designed to leave the main spillway usable over winter, so this second phase could commence afterwards. The emergency spillway was designed never to be used, it was more like a fuse to allow evacuation if the dam fails. The revised design, taking into account the fact that the emergency spillway was required, appears to have strengthened it enough to be used as a backup instead.

The repairs would have been a heck of a lot cheaper if they had been conducted a decade ago, although I do wonder if all the flaws would have been obvious at the time.

Not so much if you actually read (and comprehend) it, or listened to the authors.
They've said clearly that even using their revised estimates of CO2's effects that to meet a 1.5 degree rise (the tipping point where we loose all ability to mitigate the run away greenhouse effect and start the irreversible march towards mirroring Venus) we have to start decreasing CO2 emissions today and be at zero by 2040. They've also said clearly that anyone misusing their paper to imply climate change is a myth is a liar, a moron, or both, because it says and implies no such thing.

What we are doing is raising the amount we emit while people like you who clearly don't grasp the science argue, ignoring that the effects of warming are already being seen far earlier than predicted....effects like melting methane hydrates that make up the difference in CO2 effects and then some, effects like 3-500 year floods in under 2 years in places, effects like reefs bleaching worldwide.
So much for the climate science denier BS.

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.

In this Ghost in the shell movie, cybernetics are just exploding. The guy on the right is pitching his major cybernetics company and he was showing the forign president on the left that their cyberbrain enhancements allowed a 4 year old to learn how to speak french AS she was singing a french lullaby. Normally this would be nothing in the GitS universe, but in the movie this is cutting edge tech. I actually disliked the lit up wire node going to his brain because cyberbrains were never a "visual" thing, but this movie may be before cyberbrains became so advanced. Infact the black president may not even have a cyberbrain, and this is simply an audio/visual transmitter implant.

The only thing I don't like is this is "too" origin. GitS was awesome because it started you in the future utopia, and then used half of its season of episodes to explain indirectly new technologies and how sociologies have changed. Cyberbrains were very commonplace and full cybernetic bodies were available to anyone who had the money, like rich people and the military. Saddly that means alot of things the tv series would have will not be in the movies because the technologies has not come yet.

however as redsky mentioned, they do seem to be latching on to the source material a lot (and aside from the revised thermocamoflauge suit.. oh and Batou's eye implants are just normal eyes and apparently his iconic lenses are just for show) so I am still hopeful. Oh, ok, one other nitpick. Somehow Kusanagi managed to spend like 10 seconds outside the windows shooting in through multiple windows before crashing through. She has no gear or technique to "stop" from her free fall, the only thing she can do is dive through the window.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oopsie ... must have been the Gorilla Glue! Egads ... too late to revise it now.

(_8(I) d'oh

@newtboy: Trumps appeal to the LCD is successful mostly because the LCD has been allowed to grow so much in our post-Regan society. With inequality on the rise and decades of trickle-down government-by-the-wealthy-for-the-wealthy, those "left behind" have been growing faster and faster every year.

It Trump fails to win this go around then the pendulum may keep swinging further. My concern is that the next 'protest' candidate will be even worse than he.

@ChaosEngine:

We'll have to agree to disagree about some things. For me, as bad as Trump is, I'm not convinced that he is worse than what Hillary was revealted to be by the DNC Leaks...

...but perhaps instead of arguing about which shit sandwich is worse, it is more productive to work together to find out why there are only shit sandwiches on the menu?

On this:

"But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days."

I am in complete agreement.

When I first heard of the Brexit vote, I thought it was some nasty xenophobic/racist group that had somehow managed to capture 51% of a nation. But could Britian really be that full of xenophobes? It was in a bit of casual research on the subject when I discovered that J. Pie video I referenced in my earlier comment. I had to revise my first assumption about the group that voted to leave the E.U.. While there may have been an element of xenophobia involved, it was economic factors that was the driving force behind the Brexit vote.

People who have been screwed over by years of government for corporations which has only worsened since Glass–Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton. The hold the wealthy have on government was tightened after Citizen's United.

Much of the support Trump has been able to marshal is a reaction to years of governance-for-the-wealthy-by-the-wealthy.

Lawrence Lessig's does a better job unpacking this quagmire in his talk: "We The People: the Republic We Must Reclaim" which has far too few views on YT or votes on the sift, IMO. For anyone who's ever been unhappy with the political system in the past number of years, I consider it a must-watch.


Link here:

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

And I need to make myself clearer. I revised my post.