THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2023
Vice president did the right thing: "How did things ever get so far?"
We believe Don Corleone said that.
This morning, the famous statement came to mind as we watched pundit reactions to last night's "debate." Many observers focused on this somewhat surprising fact:
Six of the eight Republican hopefuls said they'd support Donald J. Trump as the GOP nominee even if he's been convicted of a felony in one of his upcoming trials.
Six of the eight would still support Trump? How did things get so far?
In this matter, that strikes us as a political / journalistic / epistemic question. It's a question about where we citizens get our facts—or, more accurately, our pictures of the world.
We live in a world where citizens receive dueling arrays of facts from dueling cable news channels. Also, from a welter of other news orgs aligned to some tribal perspective.
Those dueling perspectives rarely come into contact with one another. For example, you've never seen a Trump supporter interviewed on MSNBC. Instead, you see endless streams of "favorite reporters and friends"—sometimes including "dear, dear friends"—agreeing with one another on every point as the hours pass away.
On Fox, the conduct is often—not always—worse. In such ways, citizens receive highly selective versions of "the facts."
Can a very large nation function this way? Almost surely, the answer is no.
As of this morning, blue tribe pundits were commenting on the fact that six candidates would still support a Nominee Trump, even if he'd been convicted of a federal crime. This exchange, and its aftermath, was producing much less commentary:
MODERATOR MACCALLUM (8/23/23): President Trump's former vice president is on this stage tonight. He has faced hecklers on the campaign trail over his actions on January 6.
On that day, the vice president moved forward with the certification of the election. So do you believe that Mike Pence did the right thing?
Senator Scott, do you believe he did the right thing?
SCOTT: Absolutely. He did the right thing...
Say what? Vice President Pence did the right thing on January 6?
Scott then launched a long attack on the alleged weaponization of the Justice Department. But he said that Pence had "absolutely" done the right thing on January 6.
As it turned out, Scott was hardly alone in that view. Ron DeSantis was questioned next. After a series of evasive maneuvers, the Floridian copped to this:
PENCE: Answer the question!
DESANTIS: I've answered this before. Mike did his duty. I've got no beef with him.
From there, it was on to Asa Hutchinson, who plainly thought that Pence had done the right thing. So did Chris Christie, who jumped in to say this:
CHRISTIE: Mike Pence stood for the Constitution and he deserves, not grudging credit—he deserves our thanks as Americans for putting his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States before personal political and unfair pressure.
From there, it was on to Nikki Haley. This exchange occurred:
MACCALLUM: Governor Haley, we haven't heard from you on this. Do you agree that Vice President Pence did the right thing that day, or not?
HALEY: I do think that Vice President Pence did the right thing. And I do think that we need to give him credit for that.
How about little-known Doug Burgum? The little-known Burgum said this:
MACCALLUM: Governor Burgum, your opportunity?
BURGUM: Happy to answer the question. Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6.
For some reason, only Vivek Ramaswamy wasn't asked to respond. But along the way, Pence made it clear that he too thought that he'd done the right thing. In sum, seven out of Republican hopefuls think Pence did the right thing on January 6!
This seems to suggest that these seven hopefuls may not agree with Donald Trump's ongoing claim that the last election was stolen. That said, no one was asked about that ongoing claim.
Was the 2020 election stolen? Last evening, that was the fairly obvious question which didn't bark.
At any rate, seven of the eight Republican candidates think Pence did the right thing. That said, six would still support a Nominee Trump even after a criminal conviction.
That doesn't necessarily involve a contradiction. But for ourselves, we would have loved to see the key question asked:
Was the 2020 election stolen? Did Donald J. Trump really defeat Candidate Biden in all those disputed states?
Red tribe voters have been handed those claims a million times. It's a deeply consequential assertion.
Last night, no one was asked about those claims, and no one had to tell. This is the jumbled, confusing way our "discourse" tends to function.
On our blue tribe "cable news" channels, we're routinely offered happy talk about related questions. On this morning's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough said something very close to this:
How does he [Donald Trump] not end up in jail?
Scarborough couldn't seem to imagine a way that Trump could stay out of prison. George Conway voiced instant agreement.
On last Thursday evening's Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell couldn't seem to imagine an answer to that question either. We can imagine a fairly obvious answer. We can even imagine Trump winning a second term over Joe Biden next year.
The comfort food can taste quite good. In our view, the reality seems puzzling, disordered, much darker.
How did it ever get this far? MacCallum and Baier didn't ask if Donald Trump's signature claim is wrong.
They didn't ask, and no one had to tell. In this way the endless gong show just kept rolling along.
Tomorrow: Lawrence [HEART] Willis' work
I suspect Somerby has perhaps a grandchild, maybe 8 or 9 years of age, maybe 11 or 12, and has given over to them the responsibility of writing this blog. How else to explain Somerby’s ignorance?
ReplyDeleteLearning from Somerby, I’m being a little coy. We all recall Somerby’s brief time of asking for patrons among his readers, and soon after not get much response, his shift to the Right and becoming a mouthpiece for Republicans.
MSNBC has spent hours in diners and at rallies asking right wingers why they support Trump.
Somerby’s formerly preferred public intellectual, Dr Bandy Lee, has offered coherent explanations for why Trump supporters behave the way they do.
Somerby just does not like the answers, and so pretends reality is merely his plaything, to manipulate as he likes, in order to manufacture ignorance in others.
Nothing at all hinges on Somerby’s Dumb Question.
It’s possible Trump gets elected in 2024, and no one is ignoring this, but it’s clearly a possibility with increasingly lower probability. Somerby seems to feel this notion, and deeply fear it.
>diners and at rallies
DeleteLOL
Not sure what is funny about that. It is where they go to find Trump supporters -- small town diners outside NYC or Washington DC. Focus groups get their participants by advertising and by handing out invitation cards in malls and other public places. They pay their participants so that is not as good a source as waylaying people on the street.
Deleteanon 12:11, TDH deeply fears that Trump might get elected. It couldn't be plainer than that is his view.
DeleteYes, that is what Somerby says, but what does he do? Yesterday he joined the right by unfairly mocking Biden. Is that how someone who fears Trump might be elected behaves?
DeleteI imagine Somerby was worried that Bush would be elected in 2000. But Somerby didn’t trash Gore; he pointed out how the media was conducting a “war” on Gore. Has Somerby ever looked at the media’s treatment of Biden (including Fox News?) Instead, he routinely attacks Biden, acting like the mainstream pundits he once abhorred.
DeleteAc/ma I understand you’re a Somerby fanboy, will defend with pride, more power to you, but your uncritical, face value assessment of Somerby is ignorant.
DeleteIt’s clear that Somerby wants Trump to win.
12:44 obviously 12:36 is laughing at diners and rallies because he’s amused by the low culture of right wingers.
DeleteRight 12:36? Lol
Nope
DeleteBob has no children and therefore no grandchildren.
DeleteThe dude straight up said he was being coy about the grandchild, exposing TDH’s oft used technique.
Delete3:20 hate to be Capt Obvious, but 1:57 is clearly asking a rhetorical question, mocking your dumb comment.
Delete"Six of the eight would still support Trump? How did things get so far?"
ReplyDeleteThey don't know Trump personally, the way Pence does, and Christie to a lesser extent.
The road is littered with former Trump staff who have been warning us about him and talking loudly about what happened during their watch. None of them support Trump either. The higher the level, the more urgent their warnings about him. Look what those who worked closely with Trump and really know him have been saying about him.
The six are saying they support Trump in order to attract Trump's base when Trump goes down, as he will. It is expedience, not loyalty.
Delete"It's a question about where we citizens get our facts"
ReplyDeleteToday, the right wing is presenting doctored videos that supposed show Biden sleeping during ceremonies in Maui. How do we know the videos are modified? The real ones are available via mainstream media and clearly show that they have been tampered with on Fox News. And it has happened before.
If my regular news source did that, I would watch a different channel. Instead, Fox viewers just laugh and talk about what how Biden must be senile, as intended by the disinformation purveyors. Yesterday, Somerby joined along with Fox to malign Biden. Let's see if he stands up for truth today, or continues retweeting the right's propaganda.
"For example, you've never seen a Trump supporter interviewed on MSNBC."
ReplyDeleteThis is specious. It implies that MSNBC gives all of its interviewees a test, asking them whether they support Trump or not, before booking them on any show. That doesn't happen. When other topics are discussed, I doubt the interviewers have any idea where a given guest stands on Trump. I have been surprised in my daily life to find that people who I wouldn't have thought were Trump supporters, are, but the occasion never came up for them to mention it before. Assuming that everyone is not a Trump supporter on MSNBC or CNN is ridiculous -- and then making such a claim without proof is more ridiculous. You don't know whether someone supports Trump or not unless they say so, and most people do not, nor would it be appropriate when a topic has little to do with Trump.
This is how Somerby puts his thumb on the scales. With stupid remarks like this one.
Again, LOL
DeleteLMAO
Delete"Instead, you see endless streams of "favorite reporters and friends"—sometimes including "dear, dear friends"—agreeing with one another on every point as the hours pass away."
ReplyDeleteWhether guests are agreeing with each other or not depends on how closely you look at what they are saying. Just as all people belong to the human race, you have to look closer to find differences, if Somerby looks at what is said on MSNBC too broadly, he can make such a claim, but if he examines specific arguments or opinions, they are not all the same at all. The same is true of Bill Maher's guests. You can say they are all the same if you ignore their differences, but would that be fair or true?
Why does MSNBC, for example, ask different guests for their take on last night's debate, if they are all the same in their perspective? I've been finding a variety of takes at the various lefty blogs that I read every day. There are important disagreements even within the left. For Somerby to claim that everyone on MSNBC is even the same kind of leftist, would be very wrong.
His dream may be of an opinion channel where a variety of points of view are presented, but the equal time act no longer exists. The Republicans got rid of it because they didn't like their audiences to hear dissenting opinions. The left has called for its return, but that hasn't happened. Now Somerby is pretending the left wants unanimous opinion, when party discipline is a right-wing invention, and its enforcement is way more rigorous over there than on the mainstream media.
And I recall how outraged Somerby is habitually, when some comentator on MSNBC was once more of a righty but now expresses more liberal positions, as if there SHOULD be not only uniformity but consistency across time when people do express opinions on air. It suits his purposes today to pretend that MSNBC is enforcing thought policing among its guests, but that is not even true for its hosts and regulars.
Or maybe Somerby just hates it when people are "pretending" to like each other and accidentally call each other friends, or dear dear friends. He thinks schmoozing is real, poor boy.
"Those dueling perspectives rarely come into contact with one another."
ReplyDeleteBut they DO come into contact with one another -- in the mind of the listener. All people need to do to get such contact is watch shows with different perspectives and think about them.
By the way, this is the exact thing that the right is trying to eliminate in schools -- critical thinking. They are specifically enacting laws to eliminate "divisive" ideas and facts. But Somerby pretends it is the left doing this. It isn't.
"On Fox, the conduct is often—not always—worse. In such ways, citizens receive highly selective versions of "the facts."
ReplyDeleteOn Fox, they don't only get "highly selective" versions of the facts, but they also are told outright lies -- lies that someone went to some trouble to concoct and that are thus very obviously deliberate. Like the lie that Biden slept through the remarks of others in Maui. They portrayed his respectfully bowed head during religious moments as if he were nodding off, and they doctored video to show his eyes closed when they were not, as the same video on other channels clearly shows.
That is deliberate propagandizing, not merely selective facts. And then there was Megyn Kelly who said that Biden lied about his house fire, which could be readily confirmed via an AP report in 2004. That is not "highly selective" fact, but a deliberate lie by Kelly. This sort of thing is common on Fox and other right wing sources. Why is Somerby trying to downplay what happes over there?
Evidenced by the Dominion settlement with Fox, as others have pointed out. Outright lies about the election and the voting machines.
DeleteBecause there is no factual doubt that Biden won the 2020 election, asking presidential candidates whether they agree or not is merely a political litmus test of right-wing fealty to Trump and extremity of belief. It has nothing to do with truth, which has been determined, but everythig to do with political correctness on the right.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby care about the political correctness of any of the alternative candidates to Trump, if he is actually for Biden and planning to vote Democratic?
Why should the debate organizers take sides in Republican infighting by requiring the candidates to express their fealty to Trump, who isn't even at the debate? That would only benefit Trump and harm those Republican candidates who want to move on and address the needs of the country instead of Trump's personal need for power.
On the news today, everyone is saying that Trump won the debate. It wouldn't be any different had Somerby gotten his wish for Trump-related questions -- it would have been more obvious that Trump is all people care about now on the right. This is why we need to see Trump tried as quickly as possible, so that the right wing can move on and get back to conducting the business of the people.
Trump is a has-been who will soon be a jail-bird. To the extent that the press continues its obsession with him, it is not doing voters any favors. Every conservative should have watched yesterday's debate while asking "Who would be the best candidate and president if Trump were not around." That makes it irrelevant who loves Trump, who would pardon him, who is willing to go along with the fiction that he won in 2020, but more importantly, who is honest and did not go along with the insurrection, who cares about the problems and suffering of constituents and will work for them, and who is not in politics for personal gain but cares about building the country to meet future challenges.
The question about global warming was a much better one for answering such questions -- and it has nothing to do with Trump at all.
“you've never seen a Trump supporter interviewed on MSNBC.”
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever seen a Biden supporter interviewed on Fox? Does the New York Times send its reporters out in the field to talk to Biden supporters, like the large number of non-college educated working class people who voted for Biden in the last election? That might help dispel the idiocy that Fox and Brooks and Somerby vomit forth about “self-satisfied elite” liberals as if those are the only kind.
Liberals here in Arkansas live in a sea of right wingers. I would welcome some national media outlet asking the liberals in Arkansas their opinion about something.
In fact, if Somerby is so solicitous of the red state right wing voters, I invite him to leave the relative liberalism and progressivism of Baltimore and come live amongst them in a podunk rural town in reddest Arkansas. Be my guest, Bob. You’d head back to Baltimore so fast you wouldn’t believe it.
Haha! More hilarity. You guys should go on tour with this stuff.
DeleteI don't know. I think part of Bob's pathology is doesn't like liberal people, and mostly hangs out with Trump supporters, if not outright MAGA vulgarians.
DeleteUsually Trump laughs all the to the bank, but looks now he will be crying all the way to the jail.
Delete"On last Thursday evening's Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell couldn't seem to imagine an answer to that question either. We can imagine a fairly obvious answer. We can even imagine Trump winning a second term over Joe Biden next year."
ReplyDeleteThis reveals Somerby's very odd thought processes. Somerby seems to ignore probability and only consider possibility when he thinks about Trump's future. Somerby says that if he can imagine a possibility then it must be treated as if it were probable, ignoring that there is an increasingly tiny likelihood that Trump will escape legal punishment for the things he is charged with in 4 criminal indictments, after already being convicted of sexual abuse and defamation in the E.J. Carroll jury trial.
When thinking about probabilities (not possibilities), the likelihood of an income is cumulative when there are several trials. He might escape a guilty verdict in one, but the chances of that happening in all of them is much smaller and the chance of being convicted becomes greater with each indictment. We also consider prior probabilities. Trump's chance of being found guilty in these other trials became greater when he was convicted in one of them, so his guilty verdict for sexual abuse increases the likelihood that he will lose in the Stormy Daniels case, and the convictions of his 1/6 insurrection participants increases the likelihood he will be found guilty in that 1/6-related trial, as do the guilty pleas of co-conspirators.
All of this adds up to a much larger probablility that he will be convicted than that he will be found not guilty. And that is why Conway and others are predicting that Trump will not survive his many legal problems and will not be elected president when found guilty (as nearly half of Republicans say they will not vote for a convicted candidate).
Somerby may be able to imagine a rare event, such as Trump surviving ALL of the rest of his trials and then also being elected despite the overwhelming popular vote against him in 2020 and the wised up DOJ and Democratic party who were not hep to his tricks in 2016. But that doesn't make such an event likely at all. It makes it very very unlikely.
To illustrate, if Somerby went to Las Vegas, his way of reasoning suggests that he should bet every sports team and horse in every race on the Sports book, because he can imagine every one of them winning their contest. But is that how gamblers think? Of course not. They figure the odds and consider the facts in each race, taking into account who is injured, the previous record of each horse or team, the race conditions (rain, snow, home or away). They combine all of this info (including tout sheets) and make their best guess about what will happen, win or lose, by how much. The pollsters do this for political races. But Somerby insists that we must all bet on Trump because Somerby can imagine Trump winning, and a possibility must be the only prediction tolerated, even when it is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible.
Somerby reasoned this way before the 2020 election too. What happened? Biden won by a historically large popular vote and also won the electoral college -- Trump whined and cried like a baby and implemented his Plan B to stay in power, trying to overthrow the election by corrupting our system. I would rather bet on whether Trump might try to do something like that again, than to place any money on the extreme longshot Somerby keeps arguing may happen.
Why does Somerby keep urging this sucker bet on his readers? It is what the right is telling its Trump voters too. And Somerby is obviously being paid to promote the talking points of the right wing -- no matter how far-fetched, silly and stupid they might be. Because the right believes its followers will swallow anything.
Don't be that guy, the mark or rube that Somerby used to accuse the public of being. He still thinks that about his readers, but he is working for the other side now.
I can totally imagine this is true about Somerby!
Delete“This reveals Somerby's very odd thought processes. Somerby seems to ignore probability and only consider possibility”
DeleteExactly, well said.
"Somerby insists that we must all bet on Trump because Somerby can imagine Trump winning"
DeleteThere must be a quote from Somerby you can provide as support for this peculiar-sounding claim. What is that quote?
Go back and read the part where he says he can imagine Trump winning.
DeleteSomerby is chiding Lawrence O’Donnell for not considering that Trump may be found not guilty, or that Trump may be reelected. It is plainly stated.
Delete3:10, right, Somerby says he can imagine Trump winning. How do I get from there to 'Somerby insists that we must all bet on Trump"?
Deletethese yentas come on here every day and lie about what Somerby said, even though his post is right there for all to see. and then they feign moral outrage about other people's lies. it's absurd. but don't be too hard on them. they're lonely old yentas with no friends because no one can stand to be around them.
DeleteSomerby’s claim is that Republican candidates should have been asked a certain question, however, they have all been asked that question before, their answers are on record.
DeleteFurthermore, Somerby’s question assumes they will answer in good faith, and this is a highly ignorant assumption, particularly considering how most of the candidates’ answer to the question has evolved over time, and considering the general tenor how these candidates answer most questions.
Then Somerby baselessly asserts that Scarborough and O’Donnell can not imagine Trump not going to jail or not becoming president.
Somerby apparently can not imagine Joe on a hot day saying “it can’t get any hotter”. In reality, Somerby is not this dumb, he is playing you for a sucker, in his relentless but empty goal of manufacturing ignorance.
Readers can reasonably not take author’s/speaker’s words literally and on face value, they can reasonably consider context and motive.
Reading Somerby, he clearly has a deep disdain for the blue tribe, and bends over backwards to justify right wing corruption.
Considering this context, it’s more than reasonable to assert that Somerby is a right wing shill bent on seeing the destruction of the blue tribe to the benefit of right wingers.
These Somerby fanboys come on here every day and misrepresent comments critical of Somerby, their hero, and spew their hate, insulting commenters, yet without offering coherent counterpoints.
This is because these fanboys are right wingers, who are tragically wounded people with the resulting trait of an undying need to express dominance.
@11:07 is using the word yenta as an anti-semitic dog whistle.
DeleteThe highlight of the debate had to be the moment when they were asked if they’d support Trump after he is convicted and Ron DeSantis checks around to see how everyone else responds before raising his hand.
ReplyDeleteToo good.
To read the comments here makes me wonder how many commenters are actually reading Somerby’s posts. When even objective observations of Joe Biden are deemed attacks (he IS an old man; he DOES mumble from time to time) it’s not the writer who has a problem. And given the lunacy of the Electoral College and gerrymandering of states like Ohio and North Carolina, it certainly IS possible Trump could lose the popular vote and win the White House. Observing that doesn’t make the observer pro Trump. It makes the observer pro reality. Whining that Somerby is a GOP shill is the same as posting: I have a reading comprehension problem.
ReplyDelete"he IS an old man; he DOES mumble from time to time"
DeleteYeah. Bob's really putting the effort in today. Where else could we have gotten such insight?
Keep reading and see what you think in a few more months.
Delete2:18,
DeleteYou are shouting into the wind. The verdict on Bob was decided long ago among this bunch.
Bob’s original sin is to point out flaws in the true blue tribe. This crimethink is apparently punishable by the flights of fancy displayed here in ever-growing abundance.
See 12:54, who seems to think that if one person says, “Off with Trump’s head” and another says, “Trump’s head should come off” that we've been exposed to a difference of opinion, or 12:42, who pictures MSNBC hosts putting questions to their guests then waiting on pins and needles, not having any notion what kind of answer they will receive or 1:49, whose utter confusion over the uses of the terms 'possible and 'probable' defies any easy summary.
The commenters yesterday were the ones dealing with reality, not Somerby who sided with Fox News’s misrepresentation of Biden’s speech.
DeleteIf you think this Hector, you can skip the comments and no one will miss you.
Delete2:18 it's just one troll. They are trolling comments with the same bullshit for years.
DeleteIt isn’t just one troll.
DeleteI know which comments I’ve written, which means I know which ones I didn’t write. There are quite a few liberal commenters here with different views from each other, if you are paying attention.
DeleteSays the one troll. Go fuck yourself, Corby loser.
DeleteHector, respectfully, stick it. I can speak to you at length about the left’s flaws and sins. At one time The Daily Howler usefully critiqued group think and shoddy reasoning in political reporting.
DeleteThat’s a far, far cry from what Bob has done for many years now and I suspect you know it. To look at just this post, Bob draws a line in the sand and says “ONLY this must be considered” blah blah blah. That had nothing to do with assessing the left’s veiw of Trump in a balanced way. It’s left him without a readership, a parody of a hack. He appears delusional, and the core twisted bitterness surfaces from time to time. Your defense of him cannot be taken seriously.
Come on guys, it's not just a single troll. It's two. Both lonely old yentas with no friends cuz no one can stand to be around them and their self-righteous prattle
Delete11:14’s projection/confession makes me sad for their circumstance. I can’t help you, I’m not a mental health professional, but I suggest checking out your area’s mental health providers, seeking help is a good first step.
DeleteHector, your histrionics are bemusing.
DeleteSomerby does not point out valid flaws in the blue tribe, the main flaw being the embracing of neoliberalism, corporatism, and third way politics - Somerby never mentions this, he mostly offers disingenuous and misrepresentative nitpicks of corporate media as a means to weirdly paint the blue tribe as being responsible for society’s ills, which is laughably illogical.
And what is Somerby’s punishment? You act as if those critical of Somerby have built a gallows and brought rope. In reality, Somerby must suffer the indignity of pushback and criticism.
Learn to cope, my friend.
9:23,
DeleteThanks for the respect.
Somerby thinks saying the 2020 election was stolen is a "deeply consequential" assertion. I agree with him. This belief is highly corrosive and the more it is ignored, the more it will eat our democracy from within.
5:49,
I’m honored to be your friend.
If I may pick a nit, Somerby nowhere says the blue tribe is responsible for society’s ills, rather that tribalism as a whole--blue and red--contributes to society’s ills.
If you were truly honored to be my friend, you wouldn’t misrepresent Somerby, who routinely blames solely the blue tribe for our troubles. (Somerby is also not a psychologist or anthropologist, he has fundamental misunderstandings about tribalism, and human behavior in general.)
DeleteThis after nonsensically appearing to claim that people are ignoring Trump’s claim about election fraud.
Stunning how ignorant your claims are.
Let me introduce you to a couple more friends, aka the adults in the room: Jack Smith and Fani Willis.
“The more it is ignored”, brother, please.
Oh dear. Our friendship is off to a rocky start.
DeleteI found this phrase of yours quite symptomatic: Somerby 'appearing to claim' something.
Somerby's harshest critics rarely quote him directly, but prefer to attack what, in their mind, he 'appears' to have said.
Why not discuss what he's actually said?
Quoting Right-wing nonsense IS quoting Somerby.
DeleteI thought candidates had to pledge to support the nominee in order to qualify for the debate. Did they drop that requirement?
ReplyDeleteDavid in Cal
No, but that isn’t exactly Somerby’s question. His is specific to Trump.
DeleteNot a single candidate on stage is concerned about climate change. Why would anyone think any of them are going to work to make anything better. Just a bunch of knuckle dragging loons in the thrall of their monied betters.
ReplyDeleteHardly any Americans are seriously ready to do anything about climate change. The attacks on oil and the proposals to develop wind and solar are a joke. They will not come close to ending the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.
DeleteThe only serious proposals would be either:
1. Build a huge number of nuclear power plants -- enough to supply most of our electric power. Even if we mustered the political will do do this, it still might not be enough, because the rest of the world must be dealt with. Nevertheless, this is fairly possible today if we perfect small, modular nuclear reactors/
2. Give up on reducing CO2 emissions. Instead focus our energy and resources on adapting to a world with increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, neither party strongly favors either of these approaches. IMO the Republicans are better than the Democrats, because the Reps wouldn't waste as much money on approaches that are essentially useless.
3. Bringing back the 90% top Income Tax rate to fund FEMA.
DeleteUnfortunately, one of our political parties has slogans they don't understand, like "taxation is theft".
David in Cal,
DeleteI'm still laughing over how the Right owned the libs by replying to BLM with "All Lives Matter",and now refugees are pouring over our southern border, because they thought the Right were being serious.
Hilarious!
We have to cut CO2 emisions.
DeleteWhat’s up with Sen Chuck Grassley saying Pence wasn’t going to show up to count the votes on Jan 6, and then Pence’s security pass being deactivated during the insurrection, and then the guy responsible for deactivating security cards, Michael Stenger, dying the next year of “natural causes” without a review by a medical examiner?
ReplyDeleteAnd now the lawyer, Chesebro, that wrote the memo detailing the end around Pence plan, thought he could outfox the DA in one of the most moronic moves, forcing the Georgia trial to start in October. Doh!
“I’m not getting in that car.”
What’s up with Vivek Ramaswamy flip flopping on climate change?
ReplyDeleteAnd why did he plagiarize Obama on national tv?
When I asked my right wing neighbor about this, he just shrugged and said he’s voting for Trump, but that Trump could appoint Vivek Ramalamadingdong as head of the 7-11 clerks department; why did my neighbor say such an openly prejudiced thing?