waitforufo

Don't put this on me. I'm simply pointing out the irony of those complaining about possible future Trump transgressions after ignoring the same actual transgressions of their defeated candidate. Go read the Hillary Clinton topic. One further thing regarding the emoluments clause. The clause includes "without the Consent of the Congress". Who runs congress?

First, thank you for the information If Comey violated the Hatch act, why is he not under arrest? CNN had an interesting article on the subject. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/what-is-the-hatch-act/ From the article. So no criminal statute was violated. Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning? Any evidence that Comey's intent was to affect the result of an election? Good luck with proving that. So let's take a look at the emoluments clause. Interesting that you are not complaining about Ms. Clinton and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. Were Ms. Clinton's husband and daughter not paid by the Clinton Foundation? Did the Clinton Foundation not accept cash presents from foreign States while Ms. Clinton was secretary of state? Maybe the Clintons had the consent of congress for their foundation. I'm not aware either way. I know the Clintons accepted gifts while in the white house, and took those gifts with them when they left office. But enough about the Clintons. Has Mr. Trump violated the emolument clause? Well certainly not yet since he has never held any office of profit or trust. Will he be in violation on inauguration day? Well that depends on if he accepts any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Well, I guess that depends on the definition of the word "Emolument." Here is the oxford dictionary definition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emolument Will Mr. Trump be in the employ of any King, Prince, or foreign State after he takes office? I don't see how, particularly if he is not running his businesses. No more that Ms. Clinton did by having her daughter and husband in the employ of the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.

It's hard to scream over things that didn't happen. Maybe the Russians didn't release any hacked emails from the GOP because they were simply routine and boring. With regard to blackmailing Republicans I have no worries. The DNC and Podesta emails were highly entertaining and informative. Ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ask Donna Brazile. What's wrong with Exxon? They put a tiger in my tank, and I love gasoline. I couldn't be happier with the appointment of Rex Tillerson. If we are going to have a swamp, I would rather have the swamp filled with Republican alligators. You statement shows you thought there was a swamp and were happy with Democratic alligators. Yes, I would have voted for anyone other than Ms. Clinton, but why worry about my vote. I live in Washington State. All Washington State electors will be voting for Ms. Clinton. If it hadn't been for local initiatives, I might not have voted at all. Cathy McMorris Rodgers was a shoe in so that didn't draw me to the polls.

When you are paraphrasing you don't use quotation marks. In case you don't know what a quotation marks are, they look like this, " ", or sometimes like this, ' '. Also you left dates, or at least years when these quoted statements were made. Where these dates also retrieved from your biased memory.

Swansont is claiming violations of the law not norms or traditions. He should back up those claims. With regard to norms and traditions, are those similar to rules? You know, like the rules that Ms. Clinton broke with regard to sending her emails to the National Archives, securing classified information, etc.

Because the justice department told Comey not to makes it against the law? Can you site a law violated by Comey. If you can he should be arrested. Did Comey ever testify before congress regarding a Trump investigation? Did Comey ever testify to congress that he had concluded an investigation against Trump? Is the FBI investigating Trump? Please site the violation of the Constitution regarding the President of the United State and divesting business interests prior to or after becoming president. I am not aware of any.

I look forward to having this chat again 4 years from now. Republicans never think politicians, even their own, will solve all things great and small. Not being and American, you must have Republicans confused with Democrats. I just think Trump is better than Ms. Clinton. Gaslighting? Perhaps you should read the previous three pages of this topic. Gee, I tried to search for these exact quotes and I can't find anything. Can you provide your sources? Foreign states trying to interfere in another countries election. I'm glad the US never does that. I'm sure Netanyahu would agree. Interference by a law enforcement organization? If that is what you want to call transparency be my guest. I personally think that the American people needed to know that the investigation continued particularly after that same law enforcement agency said it had stopped investigating. An investigation that would have never started if Ms. Clinton has simply shipped her server to the National Archives. Finally did the American people not know that Trump had a business empire prior to the election. Is this some revelation you discovered just recently?

Comrade. Good one. See what I mean. Group psychosis is the only explanation. It's gotten so bad that liberals are running a Red scare. Have you checked for Russians under your bed yet?

Yes, I agree, nothing out of the ordinary. Primaries to select candidates, campaigns by candidates in the States to win electors, voting, state vote counting, State electors selected by the vote outcome, electoral college voting on Monday (12/19), and the inauguration on January 20. All according to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing out of the ordinary. Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

No, I'm simply contributing to the group psychosis of liberals still in denial over the election outcome.

Well the electoral college votes on Monday, so time is getting short. Even NBC news, as show in my last post, says the effort to change electors votes will end in failure. Drastic measures must now be taken. I suggest simply buying the votes of the electors. A million or two per vote should do the trick. You know, a deal deal. They are Republicans.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coming-soon-real-presidential-election-n696556 Well it looks like the death threats made to the electoral college electors isn't working. What's next, threatening there children? Their mothers maybe? http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/banerian-death-threats-cnntv/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4037850/Now-electoral-college-voters-Trump-sent-DEATH-THREATS-Republican-student-22-reveals-chilling-promise-bullet-mouth.html http://kxan.com/2016/11/18/texas-electoral-college-member-harassed-for-backing-trump/

Not a lie. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-15-issues-americans-worried/story?id=29758744 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/03/what-will-be-the-biggest-issues-in-2016

I posted Scott Adam's article "The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science" because it is related to the lack of national concern required for political action on climate change. Again, most polls do not show climate change as a significant concern to most Americans. In many polls it doesn't even make it into the top 15 concerns of Americans. Adam's specifically refers to himself as a "Non-Expert" in the article title so I don't think he is asking for you to believe him. His article is about why he, and others, have little concern. You want political climate action, you need to raise the level of concern. This is particularly true now that Trump will soon be president. In my last post, I included a quote of of my favorite part of Adam's article. I appears that most only read that quote and commented on that. Here is the heart of of the article explaining the skepticism of catastrophic anthropological climate change. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science To raise concern for catastrophic anthropological climate change to allow political action, those in favor of political action must address the above points. These post need to be addressed not to scientists but to auto mechanics, factory workers, those employed in retail, etcetera. I think in particular item 4 above needs to be addressed. Now go ahead and prove item 4 is true by your responses.

Here is an interesting article by Scott Adams of Dilbert cartoon fame from his blog. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science I thought it was pertinent because it mentions President-Elect Donald Trump, climate change, and the level of concern Scott Adams has for climate change. I'm sure most agree with his level of concern. It's a short read so enjoy. The entire article is great but I particularly liked the conclusion.

lots and lots of salt.

Folks, this topic is in the politics section. This topic is titled "Trump's Denial of Climate Change". Last I checked, the nation just elected Trump president of the United States. Trump repeatedly during his campaign dismissed climate change and climate science even calling it a hoax. Yet he was still elected president. I have searched and searched for a national poll showing that climate change ranks within the top 10 concerns of the American people. I can't find one. Maybe you will have better luck. If you do, please post it. If you can't, please admit that you can't. How am I doing with facts so far? Without national concern, there is little political traction for climate change action. Trump can torpedo every climate change action of President Obama without a political backlash. Many in fact many will cheer. Without significant national concern within the top 10 concerns, scientific consensus can easily be politically ignored. How about now? Anything I've said deviating from fact now? I responded to posts about better educating people regarding climate change. Education, it was said, would increase concern regarding climate change. I pointed out that there has been plenty of education on climate change. Hell, a cow doesn't fart in a dairy without a news article discussing a dangers of climate change. Yet, climate change still does not rank in the top 10 of the people's concerns. I asked "So how do you propose to educate them? [the people]" without response. Debate, including scientific debate, will be required to increase political concern to an actionable level. Yet warming alarmist refuse. This simply makes them look like cowards hiding from the truth or arrogant jerks unconcerned about financial realities of working people. Not a good way to increase concern. I have pointed out that the burden of proof needed for climate change action is high do to the extremely high costs. I have pointed out that the burden of proof needed for climate change action is high because such action will be opposed by environmentalists. Environmentalist will not sit idly by as nuke power plants and spent fuel repositories are built, acres of habitat are covered with solar panels, bird burners & choppers are constructed, dams are built, and the power grid is expanded to meet the needs of renewable energy. Climate action is political. Climate alarmists have had more than a decade and a supporting president to push climate change political action. The end result was Trump's election. So are the above political facts too much for warming alarmists to bear? Perhaps instead of having a tizzy fit about these political facts, you should accept the burdens of the political action you wish the nation to take.

Great scientific comeback. Where are you going to get all the free power infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Where are you going to get all the free replacements for gas and diesel cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, snowmobiles, etc. How are you going to get environmentalists to agree to build more nuke plants, dams, power grids, solar farms, and windmills? Even RFK Jr. doesn't want to look at them. Again, you keep making this personal. What part of "you are failing to convince the public" don't you get.

Forget about me. Polls have shown for years that the people put climate change at the bottom of their list of concerns. If you want change, climate activist have to increase that concern. Currently they are failing. With regard to the tremendous impact of Al Gore's movie, I have my doubts. In my opinion, our recent and long economic recession, plus the impact of the switch to cheap natural gas from fracking has been the source of the tremendous impact you mention. I don't think noble cause corruption will reduce climate alarmist's burden of proof.

Fine, but your burden of proof is much higher for climate change than it is for exoplanets. The money spent to reduce CO2 emissions is money not spent elsewhere and the costs are huge. The cost to find exoplanets is trivial by comparison, and if the evidence for new exoplanets is proven false, few care and no one's life is impacted.

Its different because climate alarmists want to completely restructure our economy, dramatically increase the cost of energy to the consumer, reduce or eliminate many enjoyable activities currently dependent on fossil fuels, etc. Succeeding in those goals will take a lot of convincing. Exoplanets are interesting and expand our knowledge of nature, but have no impact on anyone's life.

Well, the people are not convinced. So how do you propose to educate them? The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is now 10 years old. That didn't increase concern. Leonardo Dicapriois striking out. The public views warming alarmists as cowards for not debating. Climate is at the bottom of the public's concern and has been for years. The nation just voted in a president who repeatedly called climate change a hoax and who is focused on expanding fossil fuel development. So global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or what ever new catchy term they are calling it today is failing to gain traction. So again, how will you convince the people?

I agree. Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise. http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

Do you really think Donald Trump cares about being yelled at and cussed out?

Yes, they are.