Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about people who've never held a job, don't have a family and have never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
Why does everyone think she is being controlled by someone?? They're the ones who are gonna be here after we're gone. The kids in the street have a point. The people making decisions about the world they are going to live in are going to be dead within 20 years. They'll just be entering their mid-30s.
She's being controlled because she's too f'ing young to know what she's talking about. Sorry, but I'd be more willing to listen to a 30 year old than a teenager. I call bullshit...
Like most people I imagine her parents have influenced her, but no-one is controlling her - she is just a very unusual person. Right from the earliest days of her one-girl climate strike she's shown far more ability to focus on a specific set of issues than would be expected of a teenager. There's a possible comparison with the student leaders of the gun reform campaign following the Parkland school shooting. However, Greta has been more focused, for longer, than them and without the impetus of a single terrible incident stimulating her interest.
That same focus is applied to all her activities, whether it's talking to the press, other students, or a UN conference. You could regard that as emotional, but personally I would take a different perspective. I think her autism helps her to concentrate on the facts of what she's doing rather than be sidetracked by just how unusual her experiences have been over the last couple of years.
If you listen to her arguments you will see that she has a very high regard for facts. She would be the first to agree with you that the response to climate change should be driven by the evidence - which is why she is on the side of the scientists producing the evidence. Her frustration relates to the fact that so many politicians pay zero regard to the evidence. I can understand that frustration - the evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, so seeing politicians like Trump not only ignore that evidence, but actively work to subvert it must be hard for her.
In relation to the wider issue, you refer a lot to the costs of taking action, but don't have anything to say about the immensely greater costs of not taking action. Climate change is no longer some distant prospect for future generations - major impacts are already happening now. I've referred before to the IPCC report on the oceans that's about to be published (see this article for a foretaste of that) and will be the latest addition to the mountain of evidence of current problems. Perhaps, like me, you grew up seeing films about the wonders of coral reefs. If so, you must be dismayed by the substantial losses of coral in recent years and the prospect that essentially all coral is likely to be destroyed in our lifetimes, never mind our children's. That will have an economic impact (though not as large as the one associated with more intensive storms and widespread flooding of coastal regions), but the loss of bio-diversity and spectacle associated with coral seems just as important to me.
I mentioned this quite awhile ago on this thread but thought I'd bring it up again. Who is actually answering these supposed polls? I don't know about you'all but I don't answer any phone call that I can't identify. Any phone poll has to be completely biased due to to the fact that most people don't answer unidentified phone calls. I've asked around work so I know I'm not in the minority here. Are random polls reliable anymore? I'm kind of sceptical of any phone poll that doesn't tell you how many people didn't answer (which is approximately 0 of them AFASIK).
It was a YouGov poll I referred to. That doesn't use a random sample of the whole population, but relies on a panel of people who have agreed to take part in this sort of polling. The sample for any given poll is drawn from the panel. Here's an explanation of how this works in the UK - where the panel has over a million people to draw on.
Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about people who've never held a job, don't have a family and have never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
Why does everyone think she is being controlled by someone?? They're the ones who are gonna be here after we're gone. The kids in the street have a point. The people making decisions about the world they are going to live in are going to be dead within 20 years. They'll just be entering their mid-30s.
She's being controlled because she's too f'ing young to know what she's talking about. Sorry, but I'd be more willing to listen to a 30 year old than a teenager. I call bullshit...
Like most people I imagine her parents have influenced her, but no-one is controlling her - she is just a very unusual person. Right from the earliest days of her one-girl climate strike she's shown far more ability to focus on a specific set of issues than would be expected of a teenager. There's a possible comparison with the student leaders of the gun reform campaign following the Parkland school shooting. However, Greta has been more focused, for longer, than them and without the impetus of a single terrible incident stimulating her interest.
That same focus is applied to all her activities, whether it's talking to the press, other students, or a UN conference. You could regard that as emotional, but personally I would take a different perspective. I think her autism helps her to concentrate on the facts of what she's doing rather than be sidetracked by just how unusual her experiences have been over the last couple of years.
If you listen to her arguments you will see that she has a very high regard for facts. She would be the first to agree with you that the response to climate change should be driven by the evidence - which is why she is on the side of the scientists producing the evidence. Her frustration relates to the fact that so many politicians pay zero regard to the evidence. I can understand that frustration - the evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, so seeing politicians like Trump not only ignore that evidence, but actively work to subvert it must be hard for her.
In relation to the wider issue, you refer a lot to the costs of taking action, but don't have anything to say about the immensely greater costs of not taking action. Climate change is no longer some distant prospect for future generations - major impacts are already happening now. I've referred before to the IPCC report on the oceans that's about to be published (see this article for a foretaste of that) and will be the latest addition to the mountain of evidence of current problems. Perhaps, like me, you grew up seeing films about the wonders of coral reefs. If so, you must be dismayed by the substantial losses of coral in recent years and the prospect that essentially all coral is likely to be destroyed in our lifetimes, never mind our children's. That will have an economic impact (though not as large as the one associated with more intensive storms and widespread flooding of coastal regions), but the loss of bio-diversity and spectacle associated with coral seems just as important to me.
Not taking action is exactly what undeveloped countries will do. Probably rightfully so. Without worldwide commitment this is just a BS penalty on developed nations. Again, just own up to it. If I can smell the bullshit, I'm sure it's fragrant enough for most people...
Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about people who've never held a job, don't have a family and have never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
Why does everyone think she is being controlled by someone?? They're the ones who are gonna be here after we're gone. The kids in the street have a point. The people making decisions about the world they are going to live in are going to be dead within 20 years. They'll just be entering their mid-30s.
She's being controlled because she's too f'ing young to know what she's talking about. Sorry, but I'd be more willing to listen to a 30 year old than a teenager. I call bullshit...
Like most people I imagine her parents have influenced her, but no-one is controlling her - she is just a very unusual person. Right from the earliest days of her one-girl climate strike she's shown far more ability to focus on a specific set of issues than would be expected of a teenager. There's a possible comparison with the student leaders of the gun reform campaign following the Parkland school shooting. However, Greta has been more focused, for longer, than them and without the impetus of a single terrible incident stimulating her interest.
That same focus is applied to all her activities, whether it's talking to the press, other students, or a UN conference. You could regard that as emotional, but personally I would take a different perspective. I think her autism helps her to concentrate on the facts of what she's doing rather than be sidetracked by just how unusual her experiences have been over the last couple of years.
If you listen to her arguments you will see that she has a very high regard for facts. She would be the first to agree with you that the response to climate change should be driven by the evidence - which is why she is on the side of the scientists producing the evidence. Her frustration relates to the fact that so many politicians pay zero regard to the evidence. I can understand that frustration - the evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, so seeing politicians like Trump not only ignore that evidence, but actively work to subvert it must be hard for her.
In relation to the wider issue, you refer a lot to the costs of taking action, but don't have anything to say about the immensely greater costs of not taking action. Climate change is no longer some distant prospect for future generations - major impacts are already happening now. I've referred before to the IPCC report on the oceans that's about to be published (see this article for a foretaste of that) and will be the latest addition to the mountain of evidence of current problems. Perhaps, like me, you grew up seeing films about the wonders of coral reefs. If so, you must be dismayed by the substantial losses of coral in recent years and the prospect that essentially all coral is likely to be destroyed in our lifetimes, never mind our children's. That will have an economic impact (though not as large as the one associated with more intensive storms and widespread flooding of coastal regions), but the loss of bio-diversity and spectacle associated with coral seems just as important to me.
Not taking action is exactly what undeveloped countries will do. Probably rightfully so. Without worldwide commitment this is just a BS penalty on developed nations. Again, just own up to it. If I can smell the bullshit, I'm sure it's fragrant enough for most people...
So you think it's right that developed countries that have boosted their economies for well over a century by burning fossil fuels should only take action if undeveloped countries do so first?
And again, you are only looking at one half of the equation. If no-one takes any action the impact on the human world will be catastrophic. The developed world is in the best position to respond to this - to help themselves as much as to help others. I agree that the solutions ultimately need to involve everyone, but that's exactly why the developed countries need to take a lead (and working within international frameworks, rather than opting out of them would help as well ...). For instance, how can you realistically expect China not to burn coal when Trump is doing everything possible to encourage using that in the US (despite that being an expensive, inefficient and polluting option)?
There are though real economic opportunities, not just costs, for the developed countries. Some renewable technologies (particularly wind, but also solar in many places) are already cheaper to use than fossil fuels. However, a lot more could be done. Technologies like heat pumps and tidal energy could be refined and then exported to developing countries to allow them to bypass the use of fossil fuels.
I know I've asked the question before many times, but I'm still not clear on why you seem to regard climate change as some sort of hoax or conspiracy. You've said you have a strong regard for the evidence and I've posted links to an enormous amount of peer-reviewed evidence that climate change is real. Can you point to a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence that it's not?
I mean, I don't really have anything to add. Maybe @WarChiefZeke can come in and try to defend Trump's blatant criminal activity like they always do...
I will ever remain the skeptic in the room, poking holes in stories that everyone thinks they have entirely figured out. However, I like to sit on these big stories that have little in the way of proof, and see how they play out. Sooner or later, everything comes to light. Having an opinion before that usually just makes the facts harder to accept, if they will be accepted at all.
I do think the willingness on Trump's part to release all the available documents says that their claims are, at least, overblown. In fact, had he not done anything, I would still hold this position until something indicated otherwise, because i've been burned enough times by media narratives to know better. I also think that doing it with the approval of the Ukrainian government lends it credibility. Trump trying to pressure them to just lie would just get him in hot water again, as assuming any of this is true, he's clearly not very subtle or intelligent.
"Blatant criminal activity" though? That's a bit premature. You don't even know what the contents are, just what you have been told third hand.
I agree with @jjstraka34 that the Democrats had to do this. Whether or not it works in their favor is up to the American people. The Democratic Party pretty much had to shit or get off the pot...
Of course, they had to back up their words at some point. Problem is, only people that really want impeachment are democrats. The majority of independents and republicans oppose it as well as registered voters in general.
People see it as dirty politics. I wonder why. They've just been waiting for an opportunity, any pretext will do. Their constantly hostile attitude is bad for society in the long run, not to mention their own perspective.
This is a month old poll that says nothing about whether Americans support impeaching over the Ukraine issue, which wasn't even in the news yet.
I don't think there's anything to be skeptical about here. Trump said he talked to a foreign government about investigating a US citizen. And is now brazenly lying to the American public about specific, checkable details concerning that criminal case.
Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about people who've never held a job, don't have a family and have never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
Why does everyone think she is being controlled by someone?? They're the ones who are gonna be here after we're gone. The kids in the street have a point. The people making decisions about the world they are going to live in are going to be dead within 20 years. They'll just be entering their mid-30s.
She's being controlled because she's too f'ing young to know what she's talking about. Sorry, but I'd be more willing to listen to a 30 year old than a teenager. I call bullshit...
Like most people I imagine her parents have influenced her, but no-one is controlling her - she is just a very unusual person. Right from the earliest days of her one-girl climate strike she's shown far more ability to focus on a specific set of issues than would be expected of a teenager. There's a possible comparison with the student leaders of the gun reform campaign following the Parkland school shooting. However, Greta has been more focused, for longer, than them and without the impetus of a single terrible incident stimulating her interest.
That same focus is applied to all her activities, whether it's talking to the press, other students, or a UN conference. You could regard that as emotional, but personally I would take a different perspective. I think her autism helps her to concentrate on the facts of what she's doing rather than be sidetracked by just how unusual her experiences have been over the last couple of years.
If you listen to her arguments you will see that she has a very high regard for facts. She would be the first to agree with you that the response to climate change should be driven by the evidence - which is why she is on the side of the scientists producing the evidence. Her frustration relates to the fact that so many politicians pay zero regard to the evidence. I can understand that frustration - the evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, so seeing politicians like Trump not only ignore that evidence, but actively work to subvert it must be hard for her.
In relation to the wider issue, you refer a lot to the costs of taking action, but don't have anything to say about the immensely greater costs of not taking action. Climate change is no longer some distant prospect for future generations - major impacts are already happening now. I've referred before to the IPCC report on the oceans that's about to be published (see this article for a foretaste of that) and will be the latest addition to the mountain of evidence of current problems. Perhaps, like me, you grew up seeing films about the wonders of coral reefs. If so, you must be dismayed by the substantial losses of coral in recent years and the prospect that essentially all coral is likely to be destroyed in our lifetimes, never mind our children's. That will have an economic impact (though not as large as the one associated with more intensive storms and widespread flooding of coastal regions), but the loss of bio-diversity and spectacle associated with coral seems just as important to me.
Not taking action is exactly what undeveloped countries will do. Probably rightfully so. Without worldwide commitment this is just a BS penalty on developed nations. Again, just own up to it. If I can smell the bullshit, I'm sure it's fragrant enough for most people...
This isn't true at all. I wish people would... investigate claims on here before just saying things. Most Latin American countries already generate a majority of their electricity from hydropower, for just one example. Even large oil reserve countries like Venezuela do this (and have been doing it even in their good times). And a number of them are upwardly mobile countries in terms of economy and democratic norms, such as Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama and even Brazil.
In fact a number of poorer countries are arguably doing more than the United States is doing. And frankly I'm sick of seeing folks in the USA continue to use this "whataboutism" on this issue. The United States is both one of the largest gross producers of greenhouse gases and one of the largest per capita producers. You don't get to whatabout anybody from that position.
Moreover, all reductions matter. Even if we hit some apocalyptic levels of warming, it will *still* be better to have reduced CO2. Six degrees of warming and 50% of the population dead is way better than say eight degrees and 90% dead.
These whataboutism are just lazy excuses to do nothing.
This climate challenge is an incredible opportunity to transform the economy with new technology and opportunity.
Yes it will cost money but doing nothing costs money too. Bllions of dollars are wasted in catastrophe cleanup alone. Climate refugees and immigration will be increasing problem all do 'we' can protect fossil fuel companies profits.
Well said. I find it ironic that people who have previously expressed concern over the immigration issue on here aren't taking the climate change issue more seriously. If we do nothing about climate change, there will be more immigrants from the equator to the temperate latitudes.
These whataboutism are just lazy excuses to do nothing.
This climate challenge is an incredible opportunity to transform the economy with new technology and opportunity.
Yes it will cost money but doing nothing costs money too. Bllions of dollars are wasted in catastrophe cleanup alone. Climate refugees and immigration will be increasing problem all do 'we' can protect fossil fuel companies profits.
Greta is right, the status quo is ridiculous.
What, catastrophes are just going to stop after we 'save the planet'? Mother Earth must be very forgiving...
Like I keep saying, there's no current economic, environmental or strategic reason for the US to burn coal in power plants. That hasn't prevented Trump from doing his best to encourage doing more of that - he's just been unsuccessful as potential investors can see what a hopeless case it is. The fact that he is encouraging the use of coal and denying the problems that causes, however, makes it more difficult to persuade other countries not to use it.
These whataboutism are just lazy excuses to do nothing.
This climate challenge is an incredible opportunity to transform the economy with new technology and opportunity.
Yes it will cost money but doing nothing costs money too. Bllions of dollars are wasted in catastrophe cleanup alone. Climate refugees and immigration will be increasing problem all do 'we' can protect fossil fuel companies profits.
Greta is right, the status quo is ridiculous.
What, catastrophes are just going to stop after we 'save the planet'? Mother Earth must be very forgiving...
How about an analogy? If you heat water up enough it starts boiling, cool the water down and it stops boiling. There's no forgiveness involved in that - the water is just reacting to a stimulus.
The same applies to the planet. We're in the process of increasing the energy held in the earth's climate systems, which has lots of implications - for instance both the average and maximum intensity of weather events such as hurricanes will increase. Coupled with rises in sea levels, the damage done by storm surges in future will greatly increase.
That doesn't mean that reversing the progression of climate change would halt catastrophes entirely of course, but it would have a major effect.
I mean, I don't really have anything to add. Maybe @WarChiefZeke can come in and try to defend Trump's blatant criminal activity like they always do...
I will ever remain the skeptic in the room, poking holes in stories that everyone thinks they have entirely figured out. However, I like to sit on these big stories that have little in the way of proof, and see how they play out. Sooner or later, everything comes to light. Having an opinion before that usually just makes the facts harder to accept, if they will be accepted at all.
I do think the willingness on Trump's part to release all the available documents says that their claims are, at least, overblown. In fact, had he not done anything, I would still hold this position until something indicated otherwise, because i've been burned enough times by media narratives to know better. I also think that doing it with the approval of the Ukrainian government lends it credibility. Trump trying to pressure them to just lie would just get him in hot water again, as assuming any of this is true, he's clearly not very subtle or intelligent.
"Blatant criminal activity" though? That's a bit premature. You don't even know what the contents are, just what you have been told third hand.
I agree with @jjstraka34 that the Democrats had to do this. Whether or not it works in their favor is up to the American people. The Democratic Party pretty much had to shit or get off the pot...
Of course, they had to back up their words at some point. Problem is, only people that really want impeachment are democrats. The majority of independents and republicans oppose it as well as registered voters in general.
People see it as dirty politics. I wonder why. They've just been waiting for an opportunity, any pretext will do. Their constantly hostile attitude is bad for society in the long run, not to mention their own perspective.
This is a month old poll that says nothing about whether Americans support impeaching over the Ukraine issue, which wasn't even in the news yet.
I don't think there's anything to be skeptical about here. Trump said he talked to a foreign government about investigating a US citizen. And is now brazenly lying to the American public about specific, checkable details concerning that criminal case.
You're correct. This poll is a month old.
Luckily for me, there was a new poll out today, done during just this time. A majority of Americans still don't want Trump impeached. During this time, they have moved 2% of voters.
I think there is quite a bit to be skeptical about, but as i've already stated, i'm content to wait and see.
Well, knock me over with a feather. As predicted by myself a mere 10 hours ago, this is NOT a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim blow by blow of a call. As I said, this is some sort of memorandum. And even in this obviously abbreviated and selective form, he STILL asks for the investigation of Biden and that he is sending his henchman Rudy to take care of things. This is the Barr Memo 2.0. Apparently my phone calls at work are more strictly monitored than the ones made in the White House, because, if necessary, I could go back and listen to anything I said and dictate it word for word, along with the person on the other end of the line. That is what a transcript is. This is unmitigated horseshit spin to frame a narrative. And even in that attempt, it confirms impeachable conduct. Moreover, it wasn't just Trump and Rudy. In this version, he is asking them to get in contact with William Barr about the investigation as well.
Anyone who has read even one book about Watergate knows how this game gets played. The next step is getting a Senator with severe hearing loss to listen to and dictate the tapes. As usual, their so-called transparency was nothing but an attempt to get through the news cycle. How many times is Lucy going to pull out this football before people realize these people are lying about EVERYTHING?? If this pathetic attempt is supposed to be exculpatory, I wonder what the actual complaint has in it. Because in this one, he literally asks for them to "do us a favor". What did they imagine they were accomplishing by releasing this?? It isn't a real transcript AND it confirms and ADDS to what we already know. I'm shocked they released it at all, unless these people are that far gone in their belief that they can't be touched. This is open and shut, and we've barely seen anything. This is Christopher Darden asking OJ to try on the glove:
Before this is over, it isn't just Trump who needs to go. Barr and Giuliani should be brought up on charges for their role in this. And it isn't just me. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are gobsmacked that they released this given what it confirms. These are Godfather/Goodfellas-like tactics being used here. The language is coded but undeniable to anyone who has ever seen a mob movie. Actually, he's barely even speaking in code. That gives him too much credit. This is nuts. And the involvement of Barr directly takes this to a whole new level. Moreover, this call lasted a full half-hour. This is only 4.5 pages. That......does not compute on any level. And you will notice there are ellipses immediately after every time Trump makes a request. Those ellipses might as well be black marker.
The anti-science bias on both sides of the political spectrum are not equal in their impact. The impact that the denial of climate change will have on the world is almost beyond our ability to comfortably comprehend(which is why I think people like to ignore it. Literally a million species of plants and animals may go extinct).
Anti-vaxxers are moronic, but the number of people who will die due to a lack of vaccine protections will be infinitesimal next to the number that will die due to our impact on the climate..
Anti-nuclear people are also dumb - and their reticence to use nuclear power to help fight climate change is mind boggling - but at least these people tend not to deny climate science.
Lastly - polling is also a science. A great deal of statistical analysis goes into polling in order to generate useful results. US polling is as accurate as it has ever been. The inaccuracy has been in people's inability to interpret polling.
I don't like nor dislike Greta. It must be nice to be a politically active teenager, and not be slandered by every news media outlet there is, some of which imply violence against you would be a good thing. Instead, if you have the right politics, you are a literal hero to all the same people.
The american right needs to develop a cogent argument about environmental issues, however. They almost never take it seriously. It's something to take serious. Not just climate change, but several issues like protecting and promoting biodiversity and not factory farming.
The reason the right pretends to not believe the science is not for any scientific reason. It's because the entire Republican party is corrupt.
They are literally paid to lie about climate science. Period.
They know it's true, they just don't care because they are paid to not care. There's no legitimate argument otherwise.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are totally dishonest about what their policies will really cost the everyday person. I don't really blame them for lying since ultimately they have to win elections, but that doesn't change the fact that they're lying.
You wanna provide some evidence of this? You keep making this comment, and have been asked multiple times for sources, but you have never responded.
These whataboutism are just lazy excuses to do nothing.
This climate challenge is an incredible opportunity to transform the economy with new technology and opportunity.
Yes it will cost money but doing nothing costs money too. Bllions of dollars are wasted in catastrophe cleanup alone. Climate refugees and immigration will be increasing problem all do 'we' can protect fossil fuel companies profits.
Greta is right, the status quo is ridiculous.
What, catastrophes are just going to stop after we 'save the planet'? Mother Earth must be very forgiving...
How about an analogy? If you heat water up enough it starts boiling, cool the water down and it stops boiling. There's no forgiveness involved in that - the water is just reacting to a stimulus.
The same applies to the planet. We're in the process of increasing the energy held in the earth's climate systems, which has lots of implications - for instance both the average and maximum intensity of weather events such as hurricanes will increase. Coupled with rises in sea levels, the damage done by storm surges in future will greatly increase.
That doesn't mean that reversing the progression of climate change would halt catastrophes entirely of course, but it would have a major effect.
As far as I know it can't be reversed anyway. At best we could stop it from getting worse, maybe. Whether even that is possible is anybody's guess. That's the main reason I think science is the best chance we've got. I'd be much happier if folks were more concentrated on spending money on a scientific solution rather than worrying about cow farts. Good luck to any party trying to hold power while forcing people to pay more taxes and more for their energy. Democracy goes both ways. It's easy to be all for clean energy and getting rid of plastic and pesticides and GMO until the price has to be paid...
As far as I know it can't be reversed anyway. At best we could stop it from getting worse, maybe. Whether even that is possible is anybody's guess. That's the main reason I think science is the best chance we've got. I'd be much happier if folks were more concentrated on spending money on a scientific solution rather than worrying about cow farts. Good luck to any party trying to hold power while forcing people to pay more taxes and more for their energy. Democracy goes both ways. It's easy to be all for clean energy and getting rid of plastic and pesticides and GMO until the price has to be paid...
While I don't think anyone disagrees that we should look to scientific breakthroughs to help control the damage from climate change - it seems like an obvious mistake to simply sit on our hands and *hope* we discover a solution that doesn't inconvenience anyone.
That's a really really bad plan. It's like knowing you're living outside your means and buying lottery tickets rather than tightening your belt and budgeting.
We have the capacity to diminish the effects of climate change. We don't need some breakthrough to start doing it right *now*
Well, knock me over with a feather. As predicted by myself a mere 10 hours ago, this is NOT a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim blow by blow of a call. As I said, this is some sort of memorandum. And even in this obviously abbreviated and selective form, he STILL asks for the investigation of Biden and that he is sending his henchman Rudy to take care of things. This is the Barr Memo 2.0. Apparently my phone calls at work are more strictly monitored than the ones made in the White House, because, if necessary, I could go back and listen to anything I said and dictate it word for word, along with the person on the other end of the line. That is what a transcript is. This is unmitigated horseshit spin to frame a narrative. And even in that attempt, it confirms impeachable conduct. Moreover, it wasn't just Trump and Rudy. In this version, he is asking them to get in contact with William Barr about the investigation as well.
Anyone who has read even one book about Watergate knows how this game gets played. The next step is getting a Senator with severe hearing loss to listen to and dictate the tapes. As usual, their so-called transparency was nothing but an attempt to get through the news cycle. How many times is Lucy going to pull out this football before people realize these people are lying about EVERYTHING?? If this pathetic attempt is supposed to be exculpatory, I wonder what the actual complaint has in it. Because in this one, he literally asks for them to "do us a favor". What did they imagine they were accomplishing by releasing this?? It isn't a real transcript AND it confirms and ADDS to what we already know. I'm shocked they released it at all, unless these people are that far gone in their belief that they can't be touched. This is open and shut, and we've barely seen anything. This is Christopher Darden asking OJ to try on the glove:
Before this is over, it isn't just Trump who needs to go. Barr and Giuliani should be brought up on charges for their role in this. And it isn't just me. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are gobsmacked that they released this given what it confirms. These are Godfather/Goodfellas-like tactics being used here. The language is coded but undeniable to anyone who has ever seen a mob movie. Actually, he's barely even speaking in code. That gives him too much credit. This is nuts. And the involvement of Barr directly takes this to a whole new level. Moreover, this call lasted a full half-hour. This is only 4.5 pages. That......does not compute on any level. And you will notice there are ellipses immediately after every time Trump makes a request. Those ellipses might as well be black marker.
The document does read like a transcript to me, though I imagine that the wording has been cleaned up a bit to omit all the ums and ahs. I understand the point you make about the length of the call though, so it will be interesting to see whether other information (such as the whistleblower complaint) suggests anything is missing.
I don't see this transcript in itself as being some sort of smoking gun, though it's of course possible that more details (for instance conversations with Giuliani) will provide that. In this phone call Trump is obviously asking for another country to do him a personal favor, but that's no more than was already public knowledge from the Mueller Report. I imagine Trump will just use the same rationale (no big deal, everyone does it) and I don't see many minds being changed about him on the basis of this. If further details come out showing a clear link between financial aid and an investigation targeted at Biden's son, that would have a bit more effect.
Well, knock me over with a feather. As predicted by myself a mere 10 hours ago, this is NOT a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim blow by blow of a call. As I said, this is some sort of memorandum. And even in this obviously abbreviated and selective form, he STILL asks for the investigation of Biden and that he is sending his henchman Rudy to take care of things. This is the Barr Memo 2.0. Apparently my phone calls at work are more strictly monitored than the ones made in the White House, because, if necessary, I could go back and listen to anything I said and dictate it word for word, along with the person on the other end of the line. That is what a transcript is. This is unmitigated horseshit spin to frame a narrative. And even in that attempt, it confirms impeachable conduct. Moreover, it wasn't just Trump and Rudy. In this version, he is asking them to get in contact with William Barr about the investigation as well.
Anyone who has read even one book about Watergate knows how this game gets played. The next step is getting a Senator with severe hearing loss to listen to and dictate the tapes. As usual, their so-called transparency was nothing but an attempt to get through the news cycle. How many times is Lucy going to pull out this football before people realize these people are lying about EVERYTHING?? If this pathetic attempt is supposed to be exculpatory, I wonder what the actual complaint has in it. Because in this one, he literally asks for them to "do us a favor". What did they imagine they were accomplishing by releasing this?? It isn't a real transcript AND it confirms and ADDS to what we already know. I'm shocked they released it at all, unless these people are that far gone in their belief that they can't be touched. This is open and shut, and we've barely seen anything. This is Christopher Darden asking OJ to try on the glove:
Before this is over, it isn't just Trump who needs to go. Barr and Giuliani should be brought up on charges for their role in this. And it isn't just me. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are gobsmacked that they released this given what it confirms. These are Godfather/Goodfellas-like tactics being used here. The language is coded but undeniable to anyone who has ever seen a mob movie. Actually, he's barely even speaking in code. That gives him too much credit. This is nuts. And the involvement of Barr directly takes this to a whole new level.
I'm not quite sure from what you say if you're referring to the same document I've read. That does read like a transcript to me, though I imagine that the wording has been cleaned up a bit to omit all the ums and ahs.
I don't see this transcript as being some sort of smoking gun, though it's of course possible that more details (for instance conversations with Giuliani) will provide that. In this phone call Trump is obviously asking for another country to do him a personal favor, but that's no more than was already public knowledge from the Mueller Report. I imagine Trump will just use the same rationale (no big deal, everyone does it) and I don't see many minds being changed about him on the basis of this. If further details come out showing a clear link between financial aid and an investigation targeted at Biden's son, that would have a bit more effect.
You mean like the part where the Ukrainian President talks about buying missiles and then Trump immediately says "we need you to do us a favor though" and then proceeds to talk about the 2016 DNC server and the Bidens?? That part?? "Someday, and that day may never come, I may call upon you to do a service for me" sound familiar to anyone?? Want more:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that," Trump told Ukraine's president on the call.
"So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."
He is not only asking them to start their own investigation, he is asking them to funnel the info to Bill Barr as well. I seriously don't know if we're reading the same document. A document, by the way, that has a disclaimer on it that it IS a memorandum and not a verbatim blow by blow. I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. How is it not a smoking gun unless words mean absolutely nothing?? And there has been TONS left out of this call, and I'd bet everything I own on that being the case.
And you know how you know it's a quid pro quo?? Because he is using the word "though" as an adverb after "we need you to do us a favor". The definition is easy to find:
however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
Again, either words mean something or they don't. I realize this entire Administration has been focused on obliterating truth, but this is BASIC grammar.
Well, knock me over with a feather. As predicted by myself a mere 10 hours ago, this is NOT a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim blow by blow of a call. As I said, this is some sort of memorandum. And even in this obviously abbreviated and selective form, he STILL asks for the investigation of Biden and that he is sending his henchman Rudy to take care of things. This is the Barr Memo 2.0. Apparently my phone calls at work are more strictly monitored than the ones made in the White House, because, if necessary, I could go back and listen to anything I said and dictate it word for word, along with the person on the other end of the line. That is what a transcript is. This is unmitigated horseshit spin to frame a narrative. And even in that attempt, it confirms impeachable conduct. Moreover, it wasn't just Trump and Rudy. In this version, he is asking them to get in contact with William Barr about the investigation as well.
Anyone who has read even one book about Watergate knows how this game gets played. The next step is getting a Senator with severe hearing loss to listen to and dictate the tapes. As usual, their so-called transparency was nothing but an attempt to get through the news cycle. How many times is Lucy going to pull out this football before people realize these people are lying about EVERYTHING?? If this pathetic attempt is supposed to be exculpatory, I wonder what the actual complaint has in it. Because in this one, he literally asks for them to "do us a favor". What did they imagine they were accomplishing by releasing this?? It isn't a real transcript AND it confirms and ADDS to what we already know. I'm shocked they released it at all, unless these people are that far gone in their belief that they can't be touched. This is open and shut, and we've barely seen anything. This is Christopher Darden asking OJ to try on the glove:
Before this is over, it isn't just Trump who needs to go. Barr and Giuliani should be brought up on charges for their role in this. And it isn't just me. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are gobsmacked that they released this given what it confirms. These are Godfather/Goodfellas-like tactics being used here. The language is coded but undeniable to anyone who has ever seen a mob movie. Actually, he's barely even speaking in code. That gives him too much credit. This is nuts. And the involvement of Barr directly takes this to a whole new level.
I'm not quite sure from what you say if you're referring to the same document I've read. That does read like a transcript to me, though I imagine that the wording has been cleaned up a bit to omit all the ums and ahs.
I don't see this transcript as being some sort of smoking gun, though it's of course possible that more details (for instance conversations with Giuliani) will provide that. In this phone call Trump is obviously asking for another country to do him a personal favor, but that's no more than was already public knowledge from the Mueller Report. I imagine Trump will just use the same rationale (no big deal, everyone does it) and I don't see many minds being changed about him on the basis of this. If further details come out showing a clear link between financial aid and an investigation targeted at Biden's son, that would have a bit more effect.
You mean like the part where the Ukrainian President talks about buying missiles and then Trump immediately says "we need you to do us a favor though" and then proceeds to talk about the 2016 DNC server and the Bidens?? That part?? "Someday, and that day may never come, I may call upon you to do a service for me" sound familiar to anyone?? Want more:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that," Trump told Ukraine's president on the call.
"So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."
He is not only asking them to start their own investigation, he is asking them to funnel the info to Bill Barr as well. I seriously don't know if we're reading the same document. A document, by the way, that has a disclaimer on it that it IS a memorandum and not a verbatim blow by blow. I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. How is it not a smoking gun unless words mean absolutely nothing?? And there has been TONS left out of this call, and I'd bet everything I own on that being the case.
And you know how you know it's a quid pro quo?? Because he is using the word "though" as an adverb after "we need you to do us a favor". The definition is easy to find:
however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
Again, either words mean something or they don't. I realize this entire Administration has been focused on obliterating truth, but this is BASIC grammar.
The point I was making is the document is written as an actual conversation rather than a summary of the conversation - that's entirely different from the Barr 'summary' of the Mueller report. It's possible that bits of the conversation have been missed out from this version, but personally I doubt that's happened. That would require a conspiracy involving a number of people and would be a high-risk strategy by Trump.
I'm not saying that the conversation represents acceptable behavior - far from it. However, it's always been obvious that Trump pays no regard to conflict of interests. If this type of conversation had been about an issue of interest to the US as a whole (something like you support NATO and we'll give you military aid) that would have been uncontroversial. The reason it's a problem is that Trump is perfectly willing to use US government assets and influence to promote his personal interests and those of the Republican Party. While I think that's unacceptable, there are clearly plenty of people who are willing to go along with the narrative that "everyone does it". Hence I don't see this transcript on its own shifting too many points of view about him - though I suspect further conversations are likely to surface that could affect that.
There isn't a single rational person of a political mind who thinks impeachment is going to change the mind of hardcore Trump supporters. There isn't a SINGLE thing he could engage in that would change their minds. Not one. I would liken trying to convince them of such to walking up to a stop-sign and verbally imploring it to stop being red. The point is to stop being afraid of these people as if they would EVER vote for you anyway and do what is right.
If one is familiar with American football, you know the term "prevent defense". Essentially, this is a strategy that is implemented near an end of game when a team is usually up by 10-14 points. What it involves is moving your secondary back to prevent a big play. But, just as often as it works, it often produces the opposite results. Because while you are minimizing the risk of giving up a home run pass, you are essentially conceding the entire middle of the field and guaranteeing that the opposing team is going to rack up 10-15 yards a play. The prevent defense is meant to "run out the clock", but as the famous saying goes, the only thing it prevents you from doing in many cases is winning.
Democrats were playing prevent defense, hoping to run out the clock on Trump to November of 2020. They were conceding him the entire middle of the field, and he was marching all over them and, by extent, our entire system of government, from laws to the very idea of checks and balances. Impeachment isn't about convincing anyone or even removing him from office (as I still find it an impossibility he won't be able to round up 34 Republican Senators to acquit in the Senate when the time comes). It's about the Democrats (finally, way too late in reality) playing the roll of Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum telling the Balrog he isn't going any further without SOMEONE trying to stop him from doing so.
Well, the transcript is out, and everything seems wildly overblown. No attempts at pressure, no threats, no withholding of any aid, just a basic "i'd like you to look into this, i'll have some people call." This all seems pretty ridiculous.
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty
"Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form
as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record,
including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable
to hear.
The fact that everyone is calling it a transcript itself is Orwellian. And purposeful. I didn't retroactively predict this, I pointed it out at 10pm central time last night. But I'm the crazy one.
Aside from that, the idea that anyone thinks this is either 1.) ok or 2.) the only thing that is going to come out about this is out to lunch. The level of civic illiteracy in this country is unfathomable.
I read that myself, but I just don't think it's realistic that intelligence officers, Trump, and the Ukrainian government are all in cahoots on this one. Trump can't do a single thing without some half-truth leak entering the public. We would know if he even tried.
I don't like nor dislike Greta. It must be nice to be a politically active teenager, and not be slandered by every news media outlet there is, some of which imply violence against you would be a good thing. Instead, if you have the right politics, you are a literal hero to all the same people.
The american right needs to develop a cogent argument about environmental issues, however. They almost never take it seriously. It's something to take serious. Not just climate change, but several issues like protecting and promoting biodiversity and not factory farming.
I realize you're referring to the Covington kid here, but you ARE aware that she was literally called a "mentally ill Swedish girl" on Fox News last night and she was compared side by side to a Nazi propaganda poster, yes?? I saw a thread on Twitter with thousands of replies and likes in which the original tweet author said her speech made him want to "throw all his trash into the ocean", ostensibly to to spite her. Trump himself sent what was an obviously sarcastic tweet her way. This idea that the entire right-wing media apparatus hasn't made her their #1 target for the last 48 hours until this afternoon drowned it out is simply inaccurate. It was inescapable. And the fact that she is on the autism spectrum has literally been weaponized against her when in every way that makes her MORE impressive.
Now that's whataboutism if I ever saw it. You're talking about one guest on Fox and a Twitter thread compared to the entire media class.
And Fox did the right thing. They condemned the remarks and said they will not book him as a guest again.
Did the media hold anyone accountable for the lies and awful things said about those kids? Nah. Of course not.
I don’t think the first part is about Biden, when he says “do me a favour.” I think it has to do with Barr’s investigation into where the Trump-Russia collusion started.
It’s hard to tell though as it’s a rambling mess with a lot of missing context.
When he brings up Biden. Trump isn’t asking anything, just stating that the corrupt prosecutor was doing a bang up job and shouldn’t have been let go and Biden is on tape saying he was responsible for it.
There still needs more to be looked into about this, however, as I said before, starting impeachment before all the facts are out is going to backfire.
Well, the transcript is out, and everything seems wildly overblown. No attempts at pressure, no threats, no withholding of any aid, just a basic "i'd like you to look into this, i'll have some people call." This all seems pretty ridiculous.
Perhaps the same minds that presented the Barr letter which wildly misconstrued the Mueller report can't be trusted to release a undoctored transcript. Even after reading the redacted and incomplete Mueller report it's obvious the Barr letter was totally dishonest interpretation of the Mueller report.
Thanks Trump but you're full of crap, let the whistleblower speak. He says there are multiple incidents that were extremely concerning and urgent and the DIA Inspector General said these concerns were valid and time sensitive.
Besides Trump has altered transcripts at least four times iirc . Why do we believe him? Audio would be more believable at this point you can't take his word on anything.
I don’t think the first part is about Biden, when he says “do me a favour.” I think it has to do with Barr’s investigation into where the Trump-Russia collusion started.
It’s hard to tell though as it’s a rambling mess with a lot of missing context.
When he brings up Biden. Trump isn’t asking anything, just stating that the corrupt prosecutor was doing a bang up job and shouldn’t have been let go and Biden is on tape saying he was responsible for it.
There still needs more to be looked into about this, however, as I said before, starting impeachment before all the facts are out is going to backfire.
You wanna know what that part is about?? Because you have to be fluent in the language of American right-wing wingnut to understand it. When Trump is saying "Cloudstrike" what he is saying is he believes a Ukranian company has the 2016 DNC server that the Qanon folks believe has evidence of Seth Rich's murder and he would like them to turn it over. No, I'm not joking.
Comments
Like most people I imagine her parents have influenced her, but no-one is controlling her - she is just a very unusual person. Right from the earliest days of her one-girl climate strike she's shown far more ability to focus on a specific set of issues than would be expected of a teenager. There's a possible comparison with the student leaders of the gun reform campaign following the Parkland school shooting. However, Greta has been more focused, for longer, than them and without the impetus of a single terrible incident stimulating her interest.
That same focus is applied to all her activities, whether it's talking to the press, other students, or a UN conference. You could regard that as emotional, but personally I would take a different perspective. I think her autism helps her to concentrate on the facts of what she's doing rather than be sidetracked by just how unusual her experiences have been over the last couple of years.
If you listen to her arguments you will see that she has a very high regard for facts. She would be the first to agree with you that the response to climate change should be driven by the evidence - which is why she is on the side of the scientists producing the evidence. Her frustration relates to the fact that so many politicians pay zero regard to the evidence. I can understand that frustration - the evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, so seeing politicians like Trump not only ignore that evidence, but actively work to subvert it must be hard for her.
In relation to the wider issue, you refer a lot to the costs of taking action, but don't have anything to say about the immensely greater costs of not taking action. Climate change is no longer some distant prospect for future generations - major impacts are already happening now. I've referred before to the IPCC report on the oceans that's about to be published (see this article for a foretaste of that) and will be the latest addition to the mountain of evidence of current problems. Perhaps, like me, you grew up seeing films about the wonders of coral reefs. If so, you must be dismayed by the substantial losses of coral in recent years and the prospect that essentially all coral is likely to be destroyed in our lifetimes, never mind our children's. That will have an economic impact (though not as large as the one associated with more intensive storms and widespread flooding of coastal regions), but the loss of bio-diversity and spectacle associated with coral seems just as important to me.
It was a YouGov poll I referred to. That doesn't use a random sample of the whole population, but relies on a panel of people who have agreed to take part in this sort of polling. The sample for any given poll is drawn from the panel. Here's an explanation of how this works in the UK - where the panel has over a million people to draw on.
Not taking action is exactly what undeveloped countries will do. Probably rightfully so. Without worldwide commitment this is just a BS penalty on developed nations. Again, just own up to it. If I can smell the bullshit, I'm sure it's fragrant enough for most people...
So you think it's right that developed countries that have boosted their economies for well over a century by burning fossil fuels should only take action if undeveloped countries do so first?
And again, you are only looking at one half of the equation. If no-one takes any action the impact on the human world will be catastrophic. The developed world is in the best position to respond to this - to help themselves as much as to help others. I agree that the solutions ultimately need to involve everyone, but that's exactly why the developed countries need to take a lead (and working within international frameworks, rather than opting out of them would help as well ...). For instance, how can you realistically expect China not to burn coal when Trump is doing everything possible to encourage using that in the US (despite that being an expensive, inefficient and polluting option)?
There are though real economic opportunities, not just costs, for the developed countries. Some renewable technologies (particularly wind, but also solar in many places) are already cheaper to use than fossil fuels. However, a lot more could be done. Technologies like heat pumps and tidal energy could be refined and then exported to developing countries to allow them to bypass the use of fossil fuels.
I know I've asked the question before many times, but I'm still not clear on why you seem to regard climate change as some sort of hoax or conspiracy. You've said you have a strong regard for the evidence and I've posted links to an enormous amount of peer-reviewed evidence that climate change is real. Can you point to a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence that it's not?
This is a month old poll that says nothing about whether Americans support impeaching over the Ukraine issue, which wasn't even in the news yet.
I don't think there's anything to be skeptical about here. Trump said he talked to a foreign government about investigating a US citizen. And is now brazenly lying to the American public about specific, checkable details concerning that criminal case.
This isn't true at all. I wish people would... investigate claims on here before just saying things. Most Latin American countries already generate a majority of their electricity from hydropower, for just one example. Even large oil reserve countries like Venezuela do this (and have been doing it even in their good times). And a number of them are upwardly mobile countries in terms of economy and democratic norms, such as Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama and even Brazil.
In fact a number of poorer countries are arguably doing more than the United States is doing. And frankly I'm sick of seeing folks in the USA continue to use this "whataboutism" on this issue. The United States is both one of the largest gross producers of greenhouse gases and one of the largest per capita producers. You don't get to whatabout anybody from that position.
Moreover, all reductions matter. Even if we hit some apocalyptic levels of warming, it will *still* be better to have reduced CO2. Six degrees of warming and 50% of the population dead is way better than say eight degrees and 90% dead.
This climate challenge is an incredible opportunity to transform the economy with new technology and opportunity.
Yes it will cost money but doing nothing costs money too. Bllions of dollars are wasted in catastrophe cleanup alone. Climate refugees and immigration will be increasing problem all do 'we' can protect fossil fuel companies profits.
Greta is right, the status quo is ridiculous.
What was that about Trump saving coal?
What, catastrophes are just going to stop after we 'save the planet'? Mother Earth must be very forgiving...
Like I keep saying, there's no current economic, environmental or strategic reason for the US to burn coal in power plants. That hasn't prevented Trump from doing his best to encourage doing more of that - he's just been unsuccessful as potential investors can see what a hopeless case it is. The fact that he is encouraging the use of coal and denying the problems that causes, however, makes it more difficult to persuade other countries not to use it.
How about an analogy? If you heat water up enough it starts boiling, cool the water down and it stops boiling. There's no forgiveness involved in that - the water is just reacting to a stimulus.
The same applies to the planet. We're in the process of increasing the energy held in the earth's climate systems, which has lots of implications - for instance both the average and maximum intensity of weather events such as hurricanes will increase. Coupled with rises in sea levels, the damage done by storm surges in future will greatly increase.
That doesn't mean that reversing the progression of climate change would halt catastrophes entirely of course, but it would have a major effect.
You're correct. This poll is a month old.
Luckily for me, there was a new poll out today, done during just this time. A majority of Americans still don't want Trump impeached. During this time, they have moved 2% of voters.
I think there is quite a bit to be skeptical about, but as i've already stated, i'm content to wait and see.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462934-support-limited-for-removing-trump-from-office-poll
Anyone who has read even one book about Watergate knows how this game gets played. The next step is getting a Senator with severe hearing loss to listen to and dictate the tapes. As usual, their so-called transparency was nothing but an attempt to get through the news cycle. How many times is Lucy going to pull out this football before people realize these people are lying about EVERYTHING?? If this pathetic attempt is supposed to be exculpatory, I wonder what the actual complaint has in it. Because in this one, he literally asks for them to "do us a favor". What did they imagine they were accomplishing by releasing this?? It isn't a real transcript AND it confirms and ADDS to what we already know. I'm shocked they released it at all, unless these people are that far gone in their belief that they can't be touched. This is open and shut, and we've barely seen anything. This is Christopher Darden asking OJ to try on the glove:
Before this is over, it isn't just Trump who needs to go. Barr and Giuliani should be brought up on charges for their role in this. And it isn't just me. Apparently both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are gobsmacked that they released this given what it confirms. These are Godfather/Goodfellas-like tactics being used here. The language is coded but undeniable to anyone who has ever seen a mob movie. Actually, he's barely even speaking in code. That gives him too much credit. This is nuts. And the involvement of Barr directly takes this to a whole new level. Moreover, this call lasted a full half-hour. This is only 4.5 pages. That......does not compute on any level. And you will notice there are ellipses immediately after every time Trump makes a request. Those ellipses might as well be black marker.
Anti-vaxxers are moronic, but the number of people who will die due to a lack of vaccine protections will be infinitesimal next to the number that will die due to our impact on the climate..
Anti-nuclear people are also dumb - and their reticence to use nuclear power to help fight climate change is mind boggling - but at least these people tend not to deny climate science.
Lastly - polling is also a science. A great deal of statistical analysis goes into polling in order to generate useful results. US polling is as accurate as it has ever been. The inaccuracy has been in people's inability to interpret polling.
You wanna provide some evidence of this? You keep making this comment, and have been asked multiple times for sources, but you have never responded.
As far as I know it can't be reversed anyway. At best we could stop it from getting worse, maybe. Whether even that is possible is anybody's guess. That's the main reason I think science is the best chance we've got. I'd be much happier if folks were more concentrated on spending money on a scientific solution rather than worrying about cow farts. Good luck to any party trying to hold power while forcing people to pay more taxes and more for their energy. Democracy goes both ways. It's easy to be all for clean energy and getting rid of plastic and pesticides and GMO until the price has to be paid...
While I don't think anyone disagrees that we should look to scientific breakthroughs to help control the damage from climate change - it seems like an obvious mistake to simply sit on our hands and *hope* we discover a solution that doesn't inconvenience anyone.
That's a really really bad plan. It's like knowing you're living outside your means and buying lottery tickets rather than tightening your belt and budgeting.
We have the capacity to diminish the effects of climate change. We don't need some breakthrough to start doing it right *now*
The document does read like a transcript to me, though I imagine that the wording has been cleaned up a bit to omit all the ums and ahs. I understand the point you make about the length of the call though, so it will be interesting to see whether other information (such as the whistleblower complaint) suggests anything is missing.
I don't see this transcript in itself as being some sort of smoking gun, though it's of course possible that more details (for instance conversations with Giuliani) will provide that. In this phone call Trump is obviously asking for another country to do him a personal favor, but that's no more than was already public knowledge from the Mueller Report. I imagine Trump will just use the same rationale (no big deal, everyone does it) and I don't see many minds being changed about him on the basis of this. If further details come out showing a clear link between financial aid and an investigation targeted at Biden's son, that would have a bit more effect.
You mean like the part where the Ukrainian President talks about buying missiles and then Trump immediately says "we need you to do us a favor though" and then proceeds to talk about the 2016 DNC server and the Bidens?? That part?? "Someday, and that day may never come, I may call upon you to do a service for me" sound familiar to anyone?? Want more:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that," Trump told Ukraine's president on the call.
"So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."
He is not only asking them to start their own investigation, he is asking them to funnel the info to Bill Barr as well. I seriously don't know if we're reading the same document. A document, by the way, that has a disclaimer on it that it IS a memorandum and not a verbatim blow by blow. I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. How is it not a smoking gun unless words mean absolutely nothing?? And there has been TONS left out of this call, and I'd bet everything I own on that being the case.
And you know how you know it's a quid pro quo?? Because he is using the word "though" as an adverb after "we need you to do us a favor". The definition is easy to find:
however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
Again, either words mean something or they don't. I realize this entire Administration has been focused on obliterating truth, but this is BASIC grammar.
The point I was making is the document is written as an actual conversation rather than a summary of the conversation - that's entirely different from the Barr 'summary' of the Mueller report. It's possible that bits of the conversation have been missed out from this version, but personally I doubt that's happened. That would require a conspiracy involving a number of people and would be a high-risk strategy by Trump.
I'm not saying that the conversation represents acceptable behavior - far from it. However, it's always been obvious that Trump pays no regard to conflict of interests. If this type of conversation had been about an issue of interest to the US as a whole (something like you support NATO and we'll give you military aid) that would have been uncontroversial. The reason it's a problem is that Trump is perfectly willing to use US government assets and influence to promote his personal interests and those of the Republican Party. While I think that's unacceptable, there are clearly plenty of people who are willing to go along with the narrative that "everyone does it". Hence I don't see this transcript on its own shifting too many points of view about him - though I suspect further conversations are likely to surface that could affect that.
If one is familiar with American football, you know the term "prevent defense". Essentially, this is a strategy that is implemented near an end of game when a team is usually up by 10-14 points. What it involves is moving your secondary back to prevent a big play. But, just as often as it works, it often produces the opposite results. Because while you are minimizing the risk of giving up a home run pass, you are essentially conceding the entire middle of the field and guaranteeing that the opposing team is going to rack up 10-15 yards a play. The prevent defense is meant to "run out the clock", but as the famous saying goes, the only thing it prevents you from doing in many cases is winning.
Democrats were playing prevent defense, hoping to run out the clock on Trump to November of 2020. They were conceding him the entire middle of the field, and he was marching all over them and, by extent, our entire system of government, from laws to the very idea of checks and balances. Impeachment isn't about convincing anyone or even removing him from office (as I still find it an impossibility he won't be able to round up 34 Republican Senators to acquit in the Senate when the time comes). It's about the Democrats (finally, way too late in reality) playing the roll of Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum telling the Balrog he isn't going any further without SOMEONE trying to stop him from doing so.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty
"Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form
as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record,
including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable
to hear.
The fact that everyone is calling it a transcript itself is Orwellian. And purposeful. I didn't retroactively predict this, I pointed it out at 10pm central time last night. But I'm the crazy one.
Aside from that, the idea that anyone thinks this is either 1.) ok or 2.) the only thing that is going to come out about this is out to lunch. The level of civic illiteracy in this country is unfathomable.
Now that's whataboutism if I ever saw it. You're talking about one guest on Fox and a Twitter thread compared to the entire media class.
And Fox did the right thing. They condemned the remarks and said they will not book him as a guest again.
Did the media hold anyone accountable for the lies and awful things said about those kids? Nah. Of course not.
It’s hard to tell though as it’s a rambling mess with a lot of missing context.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/16/william-barr-meller-report-investigation-2020-election
When he brings up Biden. Trump isn’t asking anything, just stating that the corrupt prosecutor was doing a bang up job and shouldn’t have been let go and Biden is on tape saying he was responsible for it.
There still needs more to be looked into about this, however, as I said before, starting impeachment before all the facts are out is going to backfire.
Say, why not release the unaltered audio?
Perhaps the same minds that presented the Barr letter which wildly misconstrued the Mueller report can't be trusted to release a undoctored transcript. Even after reading the redacted and incomplete Mueller report it's obvious the Barr letter was totally dishonest interpretation of the Mueller report.
Thanks Trump but you're full of crap, let the whistleblower speak. He says there are multiple incidents that were extremely concerning and urgent and the DIA Inspector General said these concerns were valid and time sensitive.
Besides Trump has altered transcripts at least four times iirc . Why do we believe him? Audio would be more believable at this point you can't take his word on anything.
https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-transcript-trump-reporter-insult-1148756
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-putin-press-conference-transcript/565385/
And of course he altered a map which is a crime:
https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-trump-sharpie-altered-dorian-map-transcript
You wanna know what that part is about?? Because you have to be fluent in the language of American right-wing wingnut to understand it. When Trump is saying "Cloudstrike" what he is saying is he believes a Ukranian company has the 2016 DNC server that the Qanon folks believe has evidence of Seth Rich's murder and he would like them to turn it over. No, I'm not joking.