Democrats: You cant critizize Greta!
But what about Nick Sandman
Democrats: We need to impeach Trump!
What about Clinton who ACTUALLY committed a crime
Hyprocisy
Posts
Total:
66
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Democrats: You cant critizize Greta!But what about Nick Sandman
How are those 2 things related. One is a teenager literally trying to save the planet. The other is just some guy who got into a confrontation at a political demonstration. I don't recall the president of the united states attacking Nick Sandman.
Democrats: We need to impeach Trump!What about Clinton who ACTUALLY committed a crime
Clinton lied about a blowjob. Trump abused the power of his office to extort and ally into interfering in a US election in order to personally benefit himself. That's like comparing a jay walker to a murderer.
No, that's comparing what Clinton did to your imagination. You are assuming what Trump did due to your bias and rabid TDS.
Your imagination will not be used to convict anyone. Trump will be acquitted.
hyprocisy
-->
@HistoryBuff
How are those 2 things related. One is a teenager literally trying to save the planet. The other is just some guy who got into a confrontation at a political demonstration. I don't recall the president of the united states attacking Nick Sandman.
Greta has and will never do anything, nick sandman did nothing wrong, so many liberals attacked him
Clinton lied about a blowjob. Trump abused the power of his office to extort and ally into interfering in a US election in order to personally benefit himself. That's like comparing a jay walker to a murderer.
A jaywalker to a murderer.
Liberal logic fail
Trump did not commit a crime
he did not interfere in the election, Hunter Biden is a criminal
-->
@HistoryBuff
The other is just some guy who got into a confrontation at a political demonstration.
He smiled at a psycho that was banging a drum and screaming at him, yet the media said the smiling guy is some sort of villain. The Washington Post is getting sued for libel, fortunately.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Also, Greta willingly put herself in the public eye by going to events and speaking (about a subject that, let's be honest, she has no knowledge about), so she is completely open to be criticized. Nick Sandmann had no say in that being publicized, so if either should be worse than the other, Sandmann's case would be it.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I mean it's no surprise really, is it? She read a prepared speech with some ramped up emotion bfd. Love how they said she has "selective mutism" LOL did anyone actually look up see what that is? They get scared and might not be able to speak publicly yet we need a fancy name for it. This was done so when she was questioned and couldn't form a coherent answer they would have an excuse.
She is an exploited puppet.
It's very sad, not once did I hear anything about her studying the problem or in any way shape or form being knowledgeable about this issue, nope she just read a speech someone else wrote and got all emotional. This is what the leftist love, no facts just emotion.
What they did to Sandmann was horrible and when it was brought to light do you remember all the apologies? neither do I. Those who jumped on that train are full of hate and deceit, obviously.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Greta has and will never do anything, nick sandman did nothing wrong, so many liberals attacked him
She has brought climate change more into the foreground of public discourse. Since climate change is a global threat, making people see that and talking about it could literally save humanity from extinction. I didn't say nick sandman did anything wrong. But the initial video that was released looked like he did. But he and Greta and not really alike.
Trump did not commit a crime
he has committed many. Obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of office just to name a few.
he did not interfere in the election,
He didn't succeed no. But he tried and got caught.
Hunter Biden is a criminal
lol what crime did he commit? i have never heard anyone name any crime he could have committed (related to Ukraine). He sat on the board of a company and did nothing for them. it's scummy, but it isn't a crime.
ok. he is irrelevant to this discussion. He didn't do anything. Video made it look like he did.He smiled at a psycho that was banging a drum and screaming at him, yet the media said the smiling guy is some sort of villain. The Washington Post is getting sued for libel, fortunately.
Also, Greta willingly put herself in the public eye by going to events and speaking (about a subject that, let's be honest, she has no knowledge about), so she is completely open to be criticized.
The problem is that most of the criticism is stupid. The right can't really refute the arguments she makes, so they attack her personally.
Nick Sandmann had no say in that being publicized, so if either should be worse than the other, Sandmann's case would be it.
I agree that the criticism Nick got turned out to be unwarranted. I do not condone that. But you are using 1 injustice done to nick to justify a different injustice done to Greta. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you actually thought attacking them was wrong you wouldn't be ok with the personal attacks on Greta.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree that the criticism Nick got turned out to be unwarranted. I do not condone that. But you are using 1 injustice done to nick to justify a different injustice done to Greta. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you actually thought attacking them was wrong you wouldn't be ok with the personal attacks on Greta.
Maybe Greta is just a target for outrage from people in America doing the proper thing by lowering emissions while China gets a pass to achieve a projected TRIPLE the USA emission rate in the next 20 years.
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe Greta is just a target for outrage from people in America doing the proper thing by lowering emissions while China gets a pass to achieve a projected TRIPLE the USA emission rate in the next 20 years.
Has she said that only the US has lower emissions? no, she is telling people it is a world problem and every country needs to act on this.
Also, please provide a source for your stat. From what I have read, China is doing way more to curb climate change the US government is doing. I would imagine that having a population about 4 times larger the US might have something to do with that.
The US is actively trying to make it worse. They are fighting for coal power, lowering emissions standards for cars and even suing to block California from having better standards, attacking wind power every chance trump gets from some reason etc.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Oh, feel free to do a google search with Thunberg or any Eurocrat shaming China.
How dare you China!
How dare you.
China is doing way more to curb climate change the US government is doing.
Lol, where in the hell are you getting your indoctrination?
China is projected to go way over 15,000 MtCO2 in the next 10 years..the slope of the rate of change is close to 1.
USA which at one time had a peak of 7400 is projected to flatline somewhere below 6500 MtCO2 in the next ten years...the slope of the line is a slightly negative trend.
HOW DARE YOU!
-->
@HistoryBuff
.. block California from having better standards..
California, not surprisingly, has chosen the route of stunning, stifling and ever-increasing levels of regulation. California’s environmental regulatory ways started in 1959. Back then, California enacted legislation requiring the state Department of Public Health to establish air quality standards and controls for motor vehicle emissions. The first statewide air quality standards were set by the Department of Public Health and became the ‘model’ for Federal legislation in 1960.
From that modest start, perhaps the peak of the California regulatory fever is its very own Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006 and made more stringent in 2016. Under that Act, no less than 18 agencies promulgate and enforce regulations aimed at reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Their stated goal is to reduce pollution world-wide. Most recently, their efforts have taken the form of imposing regulations to reduce the methane ‘emissions’ of dairy cows.
With that, perhaps it is time to ask (a) whether overregulation is reducing pollution for California and the Globe or (b) whether regulating cows represents an irrational tipping point – even for California.
In plain truth, in what economists call the laws of unintended consequences, overregulation is actually adding to worldwide pollution. The reason why is called “leakage.”
It is a well-known fact that regulations and taxes have driven manufacturing and even agriculture out of California. Manufacturers and the like have decided they cannot or will not deal with the regulatory and tax burden of places like California and have taken their factories and jobs and farms to places with less restrictions.
Those places include states like Arkansas and countries like India and China. Lord knows the latter two allow for far more pollution than anywhere in the United States. That delta in pollution – between what would have happened in California and what is happening in the alternative locale is called “leakage.”
This is not a small or academic discussion. In the last 25 years, California has lost over a million manufacturing jobs (over 500,000 to Asia by some estimates). As a partial result of that leakage from California and the United States in general, in the short term, global pollution is higher than it would have been if those jobs would have stayed in California and the United States under a more reasonable regulatory and tax system.
In plain truth, in what economists call the laws of unintended consequences, overregulation is actually adding to worldwide pollution. The reason why is called “leakage.”
A secondary unintended economic consequence of overregulation is that it also adds to pollution in the long run. If those factories and jobs were still in California, the market-driven clean manufacturing industry would be far more advanced in America today than it actually is. The demand, and therefore the market, for such technology, however, is lower globally because companies in China and India aren’t in the market for such technology anywhere near as much as a vibrant California would have been.
Plainly stated, it would have been better to have more limited regulations (and lower taxes) and therefore more jobs in California because it would have spurred clean technology industries. In turn, the U.S. could have been the Global leader in that technology and sold it to the world – thereby reducing pollution worldwide in future years. That has been, and will be, a missed opportunity if we stay on the current path.
After decades of government action that have produced the opposite of the desired result, it’s time to leave our poor milk cows alone and take a harder look at the sacred-cows of government regulation.
-->
@Greyparrot
After decades of government action that have produced the opposite of the desired result, it’s time to leave our poor milk cows alone and take a harder look at the sacred-cows of government regulation.
Or, we could accept that de-regulating companies that would love to poison us to earn a dollar is an insane idea.
Is every regulation a good idea? no of course not. If regulations aren't having the desired affect they should be changed.
Is removing all regulation a good idea? and emphatic, undeniable no. Regulation is desperately needed. In many areas we don't have anywhere near enough regulation.
-->
@HistoryBuff
And who is going to regulate government that can't provide the infrastructure people need to travel from point A to point B?
California cities are among the most polluted because of the stop and go traffic, not because their cars are somehow dirtier than the rest of the world's cars. The average car in California burns more than twice as much fuel in stop and go traffic to go the same distances as anywhere else.
Who is going to fix that? Probably not the same people in charge for the last 50 years.
-->
@Greyparrot
And who is going to regulate government that can't provide the infrastructure people need to travel from point A to point B?
The people. That is how democracy works.
California cities are among the most polluted because of the stop and go traffic, not because their cars are somehow dirtier than the rest of the world's cars.
California has much larger cities and population than most states. Making the cars cleaner helps fix the problem. Making the cars dirtier, as trump wants to (and is suing to make them dirtier) makes the problem worse.
The average car in California burns more than twice as much fuel in stop and go traffic to go the same distances as anywhere else.
of course highway driving in a low population states uses less fuel than driving in an urban area. no one questions that. But making the cars cleaner still helps with the problem.
Who is going to fix that? Probably not the same people in charge for the last 50 years.
Who has been in politics for 50 years? I guarantee you it is not the same people working on those regulations.
-->
@HistoryBuff
to extort and ally into interfering in a US election in order to personally benefit himself.
Wow, extortion? Libtards are the definition of melodramatic.
<br>
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Wow, extortion? Libtards are the definition of melodramatic.
Ukraine is in a war with Russia. They need that aid to defend themselves. Trump withheld it in exchange for a smear job on his rival. Withholding something someone needs in exchange for "a favor" is extortion. You either don't know what extortion is, don't know what trump did, or don't know what melodrama is. I'm not sure which.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, assuming your drama is true. Should we be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to impeach him, when the next election is literally 2 months away?
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Ok, assuming your drama is true. Should we be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to impeach him, when the next election is literally 2 months away?
He committed crimes. Your question is, should someone who has committed multiple crimes be charged for them. Yes, yes they should.
Also, the next election is almost a year away, not 2 months. it is november 2020.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sorry, I mean the primaries. And no, he didn't commit multiple crimes.
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Sorry, I mean the primaries.
ok. so what? Why would primaries prevent congress from doing it's job and prosecuting high crimes?
And no, he didn't commit multiple crimes.
yes he did. Bribery, abuse of office, obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of the elections act, just to name a few.
-->
@HistoryBuff
God, libtards are just salty about Trump and are making him look as bad as they can in the public eye. And please give me an explanation for those "crimes".
-->
@WaterPhoenix
God, libtards are just salty about Trump and are making him look as bad as they can in the public eye. And please give me an explanation for those "crimes".
Using the power of your office to gain something of personal value is considered bribery. So dangling aid and a white house visit for assistance with an election is bribery.
Abuse of office is, well, abusing the power of your office. In this case he used the power of the presidency to try to interfere in an american election.
He ordered witnesses not to testify in an impeachment inquiry. That is obstruction of justice. Also mueller detailed multiple counts of obstruction of justice as well.
he has violated the emoluments clause pretty much constantly. It basically says that a president cannot gain financially from being president either from US citizens or foreigners. He diverted military aircraft to stay at his resorts, he tried to put the G7 summit at one of his resorts, blocks of hotel rooms were booked and paid for by companies and foreign governments but then no one stays in them. There are a great many of these violations.
getting any thing of value from a foreigner that helps with an election is a violation of the elections act. When he asked them to smear his political rival, that was a thing of value to his campaign.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Giving aid and giving bribes are 2 very different things.
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Giving aid and giving bribes are 2 very different things.
no it's part of the original definition of bribery when the constitution was written. Basically, if you use your public office to get something of value for yourself, it is treated as bribery. So when trump abused his office to get them to smear his political rival, that is bribery.