When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.In 2017 the US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world. China and India had the largest increases. Maybe you should direct your climate change anger at those two instead.
Here you go.I'd love to hear how Trump is a "whipping boy" for Xi.
So like always we are damned if we get involved and damned if we don't, the world needs to realize you cant have it both ways all the time we also have issues we need to get fixed at home first which has not been a focus with past administrations. I am not trying to come across as an asshole but I think the time has come for us to pull back and get things straightened out here first instead of continuing to dump billions of dollars around the world where most of that "aid" more than likely is being used for make a select few wealthy while their citizens continue to scrap by.He's appointed a climate change denier as the head of the fucking environment protection agency. He's in the pocket of the coal lobbies. He's trying with all his might to prevent the replacement of polluting energy sources for clean ones.
In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes, he chooses to create drama in NATO and put a wedge between the US and its historic allies, at the same time being a whipping boy for Puting and KJU. Don't even get me started on China.
This fat idiot is not the leader of just a country, the US has been the 'leader of the free world' since WW2 ended. Like it or not, what the US president does affects a lot more than just US citizens.
So let me get this straight, once again you're complaining not that the US is doing nothing, but that they are doing less than some arbitrarily selected number that you would consider "good". And of course that the per capita is lower...400 million people will do that.When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.
About twenty seconds, twenty five if they're just mean mean meanies.Just imagine what ol' Bernie and AOC could do with 4-5 billion dollars....
Europeans are also banning cars from city centers, while taxing the ever living shit out of them to keep population from driving and live in tiny little apartments inside tiny little cities that are themselves inside tiny little countries, most of which are maybe the size of a medium US state (many much smaller).When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.
It's generally easier to spot right wing extremism because mainstream media and academia both lean (increasingly) left, and therefore you're less likely to see reporting on left-wing extremism for what it is.I have to agree, here, although things are not exactly as clearly specular: left extremism leads to idiocy and hate and violence in a much less obvious path than the right extremism, because the left start from peace and non-violence and then twists them madly, while the right goes towards violence altogether: it's easier to spot, recognize and refuse right-wing extremists than it is left-wing's. Many left-wing extremists do think they are peaceful and Gandhianly non-violent even as they are being jailed for beating people up.
The public opinion do the same: it sees right-wing hate well before left-wing hate, and the media try to please the public, so they'll be way more lenient towards left nutjobs than towards right nutjobs.
Ok, I found this.Once again, from what I have read and watched, Congress got info from the grand jury on approval from the judge that was in charge of it. A similar thing happened during the Clinton investigation. The last happened after the interpretation you posted.
None of those apply in this case. Only (i) could possibly apply, and that's only if Congress decides to proceed with impeachment (a la Watergate), in which case it is Congress' responsibility to appeal to the judge, not the AG. Barr has even said himself that the chairman of the judiciary committee is free to present to the judge to make the case himself. In other words, Barr isn't blocking anyone from accessing anything.lawfareblog said:
- (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
- (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;
- (iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;
- (iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or
- (v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
You mean, demand that other member countries pay their dues and stop relying on the US to pay it for them?In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes, he chooses to create drama in NATO and put a wedge between the US and its historic allies.
Per capita is a poor metric for this determination, since industry contributes to pollution (however you define it) exponentially more than individuals that are in no way connected to said business practices.
I don't think it's possible for me or for my wife to get to work using mass transit. Unless your commute doesn't take you outside Boston or its immediate suburbs, you need a car here for sure.Europeans are also banning cars from city centers, while taxing the ever living shit out of them to keep population from driving and live in tiny little apartments inside tiny little cities that are themselves inside tiny little countries, most of which are maybe the size of a medium US state (many much smaller).
US is a huge countries with a lot of open space and low population density, where often the only way to get around is a car, and when it isn't the non car options are significantly worse. In NYC, where mass transit is actually the absolute best in the country, there are plenty of journeys that straight make no sense on mass transit as it takes easily twice as long as driving a car even in terrible traffic.
It's a different way of being violent, at least here: the right tend to publicly assert the need for strong measures and bans and limitations and active (too active, mostly stupidly active) resolution of problems, while the left tends to force you legally by forbidding whatever is not what they want.It's generally easier to spot right wing extremism because mainstream media and academia both lean (increasingly) left, and therefore you're less likely to see reporting on left-wing extremism for what it is.
Mostly, I think you are correct, here. The thing is, though: when I look at the US situation, I see a right-wing which is -on average- more on the right than here, and a left which is -on average- more rambling than here. The US seem to lack what here is the proper "left-wing": either they are some center-to-right or right-wingers, or they are left-nuts. In the US, I might even vote Republican (not easy, but possible), while I will surely never vote the right-wing here.Think of a straight line, with a right side (-), left side (+), and a center (0). Obviously, the further you go on either side, the more extreme it is. Well, if you place a dot somewhere on the left, your reference of extremism on that side is distorted, because you're already starting from somewhere along +, but not from 0, therefore the deviation from where you stand is diminished. Conversely, perception of extremism on the other side would be amplified.
I agree. In the end, violence is violence. When at the extremes, actions are not dictated by logical thoughts, but by how the mind has been wired or rewired, so the differences fade out and eventually disappear.FYI the right also starts from a place of non-violence. Essentially, neither (moderate) wing espouses violence, but both extremes endorse it, as is expected from any form of extremism/tyranny. The right had Nazi Germany, the left had Communist USSR. Fascism exists on both extremes, it is not exclusive to one side or the other.
This really depends on the specific case you take as an example: I have seen both creating narratives and both passively multiplying the effects of something just to get more click/money/readers. The best media creators of narratives, here, have been on the right, not on the left. Disgustingly and continuously fallacious: a simple logic analysis showed you that they could not believe what they were saying. No sane, intelligent people could and those people surely had the intelligence to get those jobs, so either they are stupid, or they are lying. And I don't like to underestimate people as an answer to a doubt.You also stated the media tries to please the public and therefore more lenient on left wing nutjobs. Many on the right (I among them) would challenge that assertion, stating the media has been assisting in creating the narratives, rather than just reporting on them.
But more factually right than Trumptard nation media.You picked Vice and Stephen Colbert, not exactly unbiased sources here...
Crazy chart from @DeutscheBank's Torsten Slok: "If the US follows through on the latest trade war threats it will raise the overall US tariff level to 7.5%, which is higher than in many emerging markets"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article230217729.htmlFeds open foreign-money investigation into Trump donor Cindy Yang
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/democrats-subpoena-trump-tax-returns/index.htmlHouse Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal has issued subpoenas for President Donald Trump's tax returns, the committee told CNN on Friday, an escalation in the fight for the President's personal financial records and the latest step this week in Democrats' battle for information from the Trump administration.
Neal sent subpoenas to both IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. A Treasury spokesman confirmed to CNN it has received Neal's subpoena request.
You're conveniently ignoring that your original claim "that manufacturing jobs have hit a multi-decade high" is pure bullshit.You're conveniently ignoring the paragraph following that:
Sure sounds like Trump is adding manufacturing jobs just like he promised...