Thetexashammer

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, they could do their jobs. Pass laws and budgets and such. You know, legislate? But what do I know, I'm just dumb as a bag of hammers. You've said it twice yourself. At best it's irrelevant. Here's a letter threatening the leader of Ukraine unless he assists us with an investigation. Weird, it's not from Trump and also wasn't a crime.

You have 221 votes in favor now. But I'm starting to get worried they won't do it. The Pelosi thing was kind of a farce, a stalling tactic, but it created lots of momentum. The problem is, cooler heads are likely to prevail if they don't act on the moment. There's nothing blocking articles of impeachment tomorrow. Lots of Democrats, especially the older more experienced ones, have serious reservations. And rightly so. Regardles, I have been on record supporting this for a long time. I could be wrong. We'll see.

Seious question. Why do you hate gay people?

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%. But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.

What was Bill Clinton's approval rating after he got impeached?

I appear to have/had the same opinioin as Nancy Pelosi. Why don't you ask her why she was opposed to it? You have an entire internet worth of information at your fingertips. Why don't you do the research and form your own opinion? Doesn't it show poor judgment to seek the counsel of a dumb as a bag of hammers lying racist? I am so excited. We get to have an impeachment. This is just amazing and wonderful stuff. I think it was a necessary step really.

Realistically, if they impeach, it almost guarantees he gets reelected.

Here's the text of BoJo's speech to Commons today. When Parliament voted to "force the PM to ask for an extension", that was a cop out. Boris says he won't do it. But it's not a stalemate, because Brexit happens on Oct 31. So Parliament has to pass a law repealing Brexit before that date. That is the question. Will they do it? Do they have the balls? Of course, in the meantime, Parliament will be asked on a daily basis to call an election. It's embarrassing. Many of the MPs know they won't get reelected, and so they refuse to vote no confidence. And they do it because the next Parliament looks to have a Brexit majority. It's like the final scene in The Candidate, after Redford wins the election, and he says "So what do we do now?" and there is no answer. Parliament is back in session, now they have to do something. But Parliament is just like our Congress, they're a bunch of useless idiots, fools, and cowards. I lean towards believing they're more corrupt than incompetent, and so they repeal Brexit. But who knows.

Odds as of this posting appear to be around 64%. https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3537/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-his-first-term

You mean, after Trump gets reelected?

I raise a glass to you, good sir.

218 Congresspersons are now in favor of impeachment. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/house-reps-who-would-vote-for-trump-impeachment-our-latest-list/

Kidding about that.

Great you got an INT but he fell down costing us six points. Dude needs to train harder.

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/uk-port-of-dover-says-its-100percent-ready-for-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAHytC8?li=BBr8Mkj

It's nice to want things.

Nm

FIFY

More like Fatlump nowadays.

Local monopolies have always been regulated at the state level. Gas, power, etc.

Offense is likely to roll. It comes down to To__ Olran_o's defense. That'll be $9.95 please.

It's true that the models predict positive feedbacks. But in the real world, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. And the environment is a very complicated system on which it is very difficult to perform experiments. Therefore it is very difficult to tighten down your variables to the point where you can make accurate predictions. The current models cannot replicate the temperature movements of the past. Add that to the reasons that these models are not valid. But most of all...., see below. It isn't as simple as simply looking at a tube of co2 and observing that the co2 absorbs a certain wavelength of energy. Everyone gets that. We all agree co2 is a greenhouse gas. The earth is a complex system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system Even wikipedia is willing to admit that it is very difficult to model this type of system, and that climate is a complex system. The models themselves are models on top of models. Which makes for extremely poor statistical validity. But complex systems are complex. How do you model the risk an a meteor hitting the earth? How do you predict changes in insolation? How do you model changes in technology that make thorium the dominant source of energy? I'm not saying co2 doesn't warm the earth, it does. But the runaway temperatures are modeled on those positive feedbacks, not on co2. Such things have never been observed in the past and have never been demonstrated experimentally. I'll believe it when there is evidence. These guys have made fake prediction after fake prediction. If they want to be taken seriously they should stop worrying about PR and produce real evidence that they understand the climate and aren't jut climate activists like James Hansen and Michael Mann with his fake hockey stick. It's old news now, but the Copenhagen Consensus is just absolutely compelling. If you want to help people, climate change just isn't your bag. Millions of people are dying from indoor cooking fires, lack of gatorade, and lack of clean water. Deal with that stuff, you can save lives.

Shit well apparently they are. But I saw the 610 and had to assume Houston. Why the fuck are they called that? Oh well, I like New Orleans too.

This one is interesting too.

I want to worship with her.