monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Why do you think he consulted exoerts?

Its your claim.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton has said "naval mines almost certainly from Iran" were to blame for the damage to oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman earlier this month.

Mr Bolton provided no evidence to support the allegation, which Iran said was "laughable".

The attacks off the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates on 12 May left holes in the hulls of four ships.

The incident came amid an escalation in tensions between Iran and the US.

Last Friday, US Vice Admiral Michael Gilday said he believed "with a high degree of confidence that this [attack] stems back to the leadership of Iran at the highest levels".

Mr Bolton, a long-standing advocate for regime change in Iran, echoed the admiral's words during a visit to the UAE on Wednesday, telling reporters it was "clear that Iran is behind" the attack.

"There's no doubt in anybody's mind in Washington who's responsible for this," he said. "Who else would you think is doing it? Someone from Nepal?"

But Abbas Mousavi, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, rejected Mr Bolton's accusations.

"Raising this ludicrous claim in a meeting of those with a long history of anti-Iran policies is not strange," he told Fars news agency.

"Iran's strategic patience, vigilance and defensive prowess will defuse mischievous plots made by Bolton and other warmongers."

The Trayvon case was about a kid returning home from a convenience store to watch the b-ball game, talking on his cellphone with his friend,

The Trayvon case was about a kid returning home from a convenience store to watch the b-ball game, talking on his ceollphone with his friend, who was profiled by an unknown guy not ion uniform, eho Trayvon thought was crazy. Trayvon ran away to escape confrontation with the crazy guy.

The crazy guy pursued him, for two blocks, cornered him in his own backyard,

grabbed him

and pulled a gun on him, which Trayvon in danger for his life by the crazy guy had every right to try to take the gun away.

The crazy guy, shown by his history before and after to be an inveterate liar, concoted a false story

and got awasy with murder at the trial, according to jurors.

That''s the Trayvon real story, as borne out by physical and auditory evidence.

Bad wanna-be cop, bad shooting.

The auditory evidence was from his phone conversation with his friend.

Zimmerman is a known multiple liar.

he had one minor cut on his head which didn't need treatment inconsistent with claimed multiple pounding of his head on ground.

Also no zim dna on trayvon inconsistent with claimed attack.

Fifty or 100 years from now, we may well say that President Trump’s concerted effort to exacerbate climate change — and that’s precisely what it is — was the single worst thing he did in a presidency full of horrors. A new report from the New York Times gives new details about just how diabolical his administration’s actions have been:

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

The goal appears to be to keep the government from ever confirming that climate change exists and, failing that, to do everything it can to make it look less serious than it is. The administration also plans to create a new panel to downplay climate change and discredit legitimate science on the topic, led by National Security Council senior director William Happer, who once said, “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

But I have to draw particular attention to this part of the Times report, discussing how the administration wants to neuter the National Climate Assessment, which the government produces every few years:

A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the “worst-case scenarios” of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution — sometimes referred to as “business as usual” scenarios because they imply no efforts to curb emissions.

While this is going on, the administration has taken a broad range of actions seemingly designed to increase carbon emissions, including moving to roll back emissions-limiting regulations on power plants and vehicles and open up public land to fossil-fuel development. (You can read a list of the actions here.)

So while the Trump administration is doing everything it can to prevent any reduction in carbon emissions, it is simultaneously trying to stop government scientists from explaining what will happen if we don’t reduce carbon emissions. That is simply mind-boggling.

This is on its way to becoming the most radically pernicious administration on climate change in history. In fact, the Trump administration is placing itself on the outer edge of opinion even within the Republican Party. With the evidence of climate change becoming impossible to deny and young voters in particular increasingly contemptuous of politicians who try, many Republicans are gingerly stepping out of the denialist bubble, even if what they propose to do about the problem is modest at best. “Denying the basic existence of climate change is no longer a credible position,” said Republican political consultant Whit Ayres.

So it isn’t as though there’s some kind of political benefit to be gained from this kind of attack on the future of humanity and every other species on the planet. You couldn’t even argue that Trump is doing it because it’s something he feels strongly about. Though it’s true that the president used to believe that climate change is a hoax concocted by the Chinese and now takes a denialist position that is only slightly less deranged (“Something’s changing, and it’ll change back again”), it’s not like he cares so deeply about this issue that he’d be demanding this kind of full-bore assault on every shred of climate-science integrity in the federal government if the people he appointed weren’t pushing in that direction. It’s not that he objects, but I’d guess that he’s only vaguely aware of the particulars of what’s going on in his administration on this issue.

So the explanation may lie in a theory I’ve had for some time about why a president with no real commitment to conservative ideology — something that in 2016 made many conservatives extremely nervous — could wind up running the most extreme right-wing administration in memory. Outside of a couple of issues including trade and immigration, Trump has almost no interest in the details of policy. Combine that with his intense focus on appealing to only his base, and the fact that working for Trump necessarily entails a substantial risk to one’s reputation.

The result is that the Trump administration is overwhelmingly staffed with two kinds of people: grifters who see in Trump a model for their own corrupt ambitions, and extremist ideologues who see in his indifference to policy an opportunity to indulge their wildest fantasies of swinging the United States in a retrograde direction.

A different Republican president might at least impose some guardrails on this war on science, if for no other reason than to pretend for political purposes that they cared about the fate of the Earth. But precisely because he doesn’t much care what most of the federal government does, Trump is letting the radicals he appointed run wild.

Imagine that the government decided to provide subsidies to tobacco companies, actively encouraged people to take up smoking, then instructed the National Institutes of Health to not only shut down its cancer research but to also cease all mentions of the word “cancer.” That is pretty much what the Trump administration is doing on climate. And we’re all going to pay the price.

It was oraalloy who reintroduced trayvn.

You will notice he gave no facts, just his opinion.

Why don't you give him ****.

Following his lead, I put in what I took away from following the case in some detail.

Oralloy really had a lot of imaginary details in his past posts on reayvon.

Zimmerman was bogus and gave every indication of lying as he did with great facility.

bad wanna-be cop, bad shooting,

White people succeeded in murdering innocent black people.

That was the monstrous truth BLM was protesting.

All they have wanted is not to be killed.

Zim chase Trayvon, grabbed him and pulled his gun.

Trayvon didn't want to be killed. that was all.

zim killed him.

The Trump administration takes climate denial to new heights

US National Security Adviser John Bolton has said "naval mines almost certainly from Iran" were to blame for the damage to oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman earlier this month.

White people succeeded in murdering innocent black people. /Yjat was the monstrous truth BLM was protesting.Allbthey have wanted is not to be killed. Zim chase Trayvon, grabbed him and pulled his gun. Trasyvon didn't wabt to be killed. that was all. zim killed him.

Why define it in terms of race?

How do we know that both Zim and Martin weren't engaged in some kind of transaction that turned conflictual and the subsequent fight and eventual shooting didn't result from that?

The principle of stand-your-ground is reasonable, but that doesn't mean people can't and won't abuse it.

livinglava wrote:

Why define it in terms of race?

Because BLM goons want black people to be allowed to murder police officers with impunity. They are not advocating for anyone else to be allowed to murder police officers.

livinglava wrote:

How do we know that both Zim and Martin weren't engaged in some kind of transaction that turned conflictual and the subsequent fight and eventual shooting didn't result from that?

Because Mr. Zimmerman was the captain of the neighborhood watch and was reporting Trayvon's suspicious behavior to the police.

livinglava wrote:

The principle of stand-your-ground is reasonable, but that doesn't mean people can't and won't abuse it.

This case didn't have anything to do with stand your ground laws. Trayvon had Mr. Zimmerman on the ground and was on top of him pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk.

How does that prove innocence or guilt in any way?

The issue with stand-your-ground was that, without SYG, Zimmerman was supposed to retreat instead of getting his gun and coming back.