monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

And the flooding in Bangladesh is even worse.

Conservative climate change deniers will counter, "Well, you can't prove this is a direct result of human-induced global warming." But it doesn't have to be proven. The article says that this is what the consequences of climate change look like. Even if suffering the third "500 year flood" in three years is just a statistical anomaly the flooding provides a real life model for damage that could occur in the future as a direct result of climate change.

(By the way, I suspect that the extreme weather events which are happening more frequently are connected to anthropogenic climate issues; I merely wanted to insulate the article from the sort of facile refutation often supplied by deniers.)

I pointed out a few pages back that much of the damage and suffering could (and should) have been avoided by common sense ecologically-based zoning, preservation of wetlands, and an emphasis on planned growth. But capitalism loves a boom economy — hell, keep paving! We'll just grow our way to prosperity, the natural world be damned!

Could have been briefer. You could have just written, "I fart on Hillary".

As to the suggestion in that aside, you're lying or you're stupid. I'm going with the first option. Trump's sociopathic output on Hillary has been on-going since the inauguration.

I don't see a lot of evidence that he knows very much about anything related to public policy or running the government; least of all the purpose of the departments for which he's appointing leaders.

I hope Hillary stays in the news.

She needs to be there to remind those morons who sat at home or voted for Jill Stein in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania of their ******* mistakes.

Plus, she has the best ideas going for the country right now. The most realistic ones with half a chance in hell of passing.

I very much doubt he knows much about them or cares much about who goes where - so long as they match a couple of criteria:
1) they'll be loyal to him
2) they're from central casting (thus reflecting positively on him, he believes).

These appointments are all of a type. They are pro-corporate, pro-industry and definitely pro-energy sector. They are anti-regulation and anti-democratic. They are, almost one for one, just who the Koch brothers' operations would put in those positions. Who is actually in charge here isn't clear to me but Pence and Sessions are likely key figures in these determinations. The GOP now is so influenced by the Koch crowd that there is almost zero protest from Republican office holders to putting enemies of these government agencies as heads of those agencies.

I'm not current on what Trump has said about her in toto. I don't know how anyone has the stamina to keep up with everything he says.

She does seem to vie for the spotlight, which is true AND stupid, and a burr in the ass of the ever-popular DNC.

No you don't.

You reported me to the mods for defending you, my saying I knew you and thought you were sincere in your posts; I forget the name of the poster I advised.

Apparently, I invaded your privacy saying I knew you as you had visited us in Albuquerque.

I don't remember if I included your being my house. You claimed you liked my paintings.

That was a sin, if you didn't.

I didn't hear from the mods or was otherwise remonstrated.

Please excuse, that was off topic. Done.

Three years of honorable service in the United States Army, when I was a young and callow fellow give the lie to your typical nastiness.

I relate.
My dad was at a union meeting the night I was born, with complications.
I gather I was blue, which could explain some of my oddity re my eyes and possibly nose.. as I'm anosmic, but he was too.. UCLA wrote me a letter re whether I'd had some trouble at birth.

I figure yes, which is good and bad - good, in that my eyes are stable (if I hadn't had the miserable cataract surgery from the guy in the Eureka area. I probably should have sued that guy, five surgeries later after his fuckup.

That was film editors union, don't remember the name (he was into editing, maybe late 192o's and pretty much ever after.

That I take for granted.
I also take it that there are no engineers in Texas.
Not to sound better - I've thought building and safety, etc., in New Mexico, are out to lunch and dinner.

And who is to say that Hillary would have gotten things right? Granted, on many issues she would likely have been much better there in The White House than Captain Orange; but, she would have had her own blunders as she is as equally pig-headed and self serving much of the time as he is.

Regarding your 'mistakes' matter, it may not serve your interests or even those of most of the nation for people to have voted for Stein; however, they did vote. Voting is in and of itself an important act regardless of who it is a person chooses.

Regarding those who simply did not vote, sometimes there is no candidate that a voter feels in any way comfortable and therefore abstains from casting a vote for a particular office. It is what I did in 1996, when I could not bring myself to vote for Bill Clinton a second time (in part, a big part, due to his signing of the deadly Welfare Reform Act) and there was just about no way I could ever bring myself to vote for Bob Dole. I went to my polling place, signed the register and cast votes for other jobs, but, not for President.

All fine and good Sturgis, but I suspect that many non-voters or Stein voters made their decision, in part, because polls and news reports had reported for months that Hillary was going to win.

You can make a protest vote if you think your candidate is a shoo-in.

I think Clinton would have been horrible. Worse than Trump? I can't answer that one.

The 1996 incident is the only time I went that way in the presidential election. As for shoo-ins, I don't that that ever really exists. Polls change regularly and have many times over the years proven to be wrong when forecasting a winner.

You and I may understand that polls have margins of error and even given the margin of error they are only accurate 90% of the time (I mean, accurate within the margin of error).

But, it does appear that Trump winning the election surprised a huge number of people...not the least of which is the Donald himself.

I fear he does.
No, I'm not sure. I take it he takes slips of paper of swell names.

Doxxing is against TOS.

Off-topic and completely unrelated to my post. It's like you fell out of a tree.

Not even close to agreeing with you here.