Pretty awesome stuff from Cruz comparing global warming "alarmists" to flat-eathers, prior to that he references a Newsweek article that he read "yesterday" from 1970 about the earth cooling...enjoy.
I think Hillary is going to be a disaster, personally. Obama wasn't a great president by any means, but he did end up presiding over an economy that turned around. There are just too many other things he did that were ####ty that weren't a result of the Tea Partiers.
Hillary though ... man. Does anyone really know what her stance on anything is? She's such a politician, and she's a hawk too. The scary thing is she's still way better than any Republican.
I truly feel sorry for the American electorate. The way they've had choice and an actual political spectrum stolen from them is shameful.
The one thing, and it's sad that this matters now, is that Ted Cruz doesn't look presidential at all. He absolutely looks like a smarmy politician, and as sad as it is that it might, I hope it costs him.
Five years ago I really wanted Hillary. Now I'm kind of terrified of her, I'm not sure I trust her foreign policy, and this country desperately needs to stop spending money on ill-advised wars that it can't win. That said, she sadly is a vastly better candidate than any of the republican front-runners.
All told, however, so long as this completely inept Congress is at the helm, nothing of real value is ever going to be accomplished. The President holds veto power, but if bills aren't even getting to the desk, there isn't much that he or she can do.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I've been trying to get into the Nightly Show and it is slowly growing on me a bit. But last night I had my first true LOL moment when with the Cruz announcement they got to officially unveil their 2016 tag line.
Blacklash 2016: The Unblackening
Obama was and still is an electrifying speaker. That aspect has been in hiding for the last few years but it came out again recently during the Bloody Sunday remembrance ceremony. Missed that guy.
Just in case anyone was wondering what exactly Ted Cruz was referencing when he talks about the "satellite data" giving conflicting evidence about climate change here is a decent article covering just that:
To explore Mears’s views further, I did one thing journalists can do when covering the climate views of presidential candidates — I contacted the researcher. And his response was quite critical of Cruz’s approach to the evidence on this issue:
"Mr. Cruz (and others who seek to minimize the threat posed by climate change) likes to cite statistics about the last 17 years because 17 years ago, the Earth was experiencing a large ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation] event and the observed temperatures were substantially above normal, and above any long-term trend line a reasonable person would draw. When one starts their analysis on an extraordinarily warm year, the resulting trend is below the true long term trend. It’s like a pro baseball player deciding he’s having a batting slump three weeks after a game when he hit three homers because he’s only considering those three weeks instead of the whole season."
Just in case anyone was wondering what exactly Ted Cruz was referencing when he talks about the "satellite data" giving conflicting evidence about climate change here is a decent article covering just that:
I doubt many were wondering. The assumption at this stage is that he's just deliberately misleading people.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
So global temperatures have not changed much since 1998, aside from minor fluctuations. The 14 hottest years on record have all occurred since that peak in 1998, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
By starting his 17-year count with 1998 -- an abnormally hot year because of the El Nino -- Cruz exaggerated the nature of the pause.
"Looking at the last 17 years is cherry picking," said Brian Soden, a professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami.
Combined with his aggressive play for evangelical voters, in this way Cruz is not unlike the Michele Bachmann of years past—except with a much better political resume and a bigger bankroll.
The trouble is that Bachmann and Perry who had some traction for a short while are both idiots. Cruz isn't an idiot though he probably will get tripped up with his lies and we'll see if he can talk his way out of it.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Bill O'Reilly was on Letterman last night. He was actually quite complimentary of Hilary and felt the Republicans were going to have a tough time beating her. For the record, he doesn't see Cruz getting it done for the GOP. His money was on Walker out of Wisconsin IIRC.
Bill O'Reilly was on Letterman last night. He was actually quite complimentary of Hilary and felt the Republicans were going to have a tough time beating her. For the record, he doesn't see Cruz getting it done for the GOP. His money was on Walker out of Wisconsin IIRC.
Few things terrify me more than the idea of a Republican Congress and Walker as President. Several SC justices are going to be retiring and I do NOT want Walker appointing them. There wouldn't be another SC ruling that wasn't grossly conservative for 30 years.
It seems like every time I read something about a state governor attempting to enact legislation to reduce civil liberties its followed by "He/she is hoping to run in the 2016 presidential election".
It seems like every time I read something about a state governor attempting to enact legislation to reduce civil liberties its followed by "He/she is hoping to run in the 2016 presidential election".
It's strange though. It might win them the GOP nomination or allow them to get deep into the nomination process but ultimately the majority of population really does find this type of thing distasteful. And in another almost two years the numbers who do will have increased another few percent.
Looking at one poll who did a survey earlier this month.
Do you favor same-sex couples being able to enter into marriages? 59% are either in favor or strongly in favor.
This is up 6% from two year ago, 10% from 4 years ago...30% from 11 years ago.
Feb 2015 question: Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to get married? 60% legal (70% democrats and importantly 62% independents).
This is up 14% in less than 3 years.
Feb 2015: "Do you think gays and lesbians do or do not have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"
63% yes they have a right (67% women, 65 % independents)
It goes on and on and on. Yet they insist on being not just on the wrong side of the law but on the wrong side of the beliefs of the population. Heck give it another couple of years and the declared republicans will be over 50% in favour.
I hope the GOP continues to be run by the Tea Party like it has been the last couple of years. If so this next election is going to be a landslide embarassment for them and once that happens maybe they'll figure out they need to move to the center.
