rangerx

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Their own "permanent solution" for DACA.

They had one, but Trump nixed it.

In the real world, a compromise would mean restoring DACA as it was intended, not a watered down version and offering something else.

But no, instead Republicans insist on bad faith negotiations and scorched earth tactics to get what they want.

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Pelosi has responded with her own deal(Before Trump had even stated his publicly).

 

If Trump signs a bill to reopen the government, extends DACA and TPS protections permanently, the Democrats will discuss potentially increasing border security.

https://wsvn.com/news/politics/pelosi-dismisses-trump-proposal-as-non-starter/

 

 

Additionally, Trump has offered three other things that Democrats claim they support. 

• INcreased infrastructure investments at our ports of entry, including additional ports and roads.
• Advanced technology to scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband where the vast majority of drugs come into our country and advanced technology to detect unauthorized crossings.
• More customs personnel including filling the more than 3,000 customs and border patrol vacancies

This stuff is unfolding as we speak, so I've not had the opportunity to review it.

I will do that now and comment (if necessary) later.

The onus on Democrats is zero.

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, who, in the US government, is considering the well being of those 800,000 people ?
Is everyone going to join D Trump in the 'mud' ?
Or is someone going to take the 'high ground' ?

Does incessantly reiterating a political promise (and voted in on the premise) for a wall and insisting Mexico pay for it mean nothing and has no consequences?

Trump is an unapologetic liar, his followers are hellbent on goose-stepping his every whim and his senate is the party of no.

What's the penalty for Republicans changing horses mid stream? None in this scenario.

Yet Democrats are expected to compromise?

Is what you're really saying, they must cave in instead for the good of the government workers at the failing of the democracy?

Trump owns this one, all of it.

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly agree with that.

If anything, we agree that's one area where America went wrong protesting the British Parliamentary System.

It's given rise to extremism because one side can advocate complete nonsense (like building walls) and the other is hamstrung addressing it.

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I might agree with it as well. Maybe I do "represent" the far right to many here.

In Canada I am generally considered a Liberal, but have also vote Conservative  and a couple of times NDP.

While growing up, all 3 of these parties were considered Left of the US Democratic party.

I'm Canadian and I don't consider you as liberal, especially given your devil's advocacy in disguise for ideology.

Like you, I have voted all three parties in my day too, but we are worlds apart in our alignment. What may be a supportive vote on my part may be a protest vote on your part, or vise versa. (and thank goodness for the three party system and the non-confidence vote)

If you're a moderate elsewhere, but intentionally not here, tells me you're just shit disturbing for the sake of doing so and little else.

Canadian conservatives lost their way when they dropped the "progressive" part from their title.

But that's another topic, back to the wall.
 

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think a lot of Leftists might agree with that.

Anyone with reading comprehension would agree with that. Only one with bias would frame it that way with that quote.

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Under that definition I have no bias...but I assure you by proper definition I do.

I'd believe that if you actually practiced what you preach, which is little more than bias. In this (and other) threads you represent the far right, while numerous others are infinitely more moderate or otherwise to the left.

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's both actually. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's not both. Moderation is the understanding of common ground and the validity of fact issues.

Bias ignores commonality and distorts or dismisses the fact issues.

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Instead of civil discourse much of the time, I hear accusations. I'm advocating civil discourse from both sides, and I generally have moderate views. It might not seem it here where I mostly question those who would generally be considered left of centre.

While civil discourse is important in any discussion, you've admitted to intentionally targeting liberals. That's not moderation, it's bias.

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and it would be much easier to see that, if there was less news with such obvious bias.

When the president says something stupid every day, then the media reports it verbatim, how can that be bias?

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Apparently this time it was the fake news cycle, but that was actual my thought also.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

Not reporting would be suppression or censorship. Reporting only the positive issues is propaganda.

The desperation for a gotcha runs high in that camp. It's all they got, and little else. People are in jail and more are likely headed there.

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Apparently this time it was the fake news cycle, but that was actual my thought also.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

Mueller's spokesperson claimed the Buzzfeed report was not accurate. That does not make the story fake, but something about is incorrect.

Buzzfeed disputes the statement, standing on evidence collected by law enforcement personnel.
 

Collusion is just a term for communications  in secret, illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Hanging on the term is a deflection and little else, for the most part. As plausible deniability decays with every new revelation, moving the goal posts is all they've got.
 

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm just wondering what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and people finally wake up.

Mr. Mueller perhaps?

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is suggesting it is?

I am because it is true.

Unless it comes from Fox and Friends while he's on the toilet, there's no convincing Trump of anything.

By your suggestion and all things being equal, Trump must convince Mexico to pay for it, like he said. But you and I know that will never happen.

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess neither side should give in then...

A false equivalency.

Where's the Republican compromise in all this? Nowhere, mon frère. My way or the highway is not negotiating in good faith, neither is deferring the cost on the backs of taxpayers when Trump so adamantly and often declared Mexico will be paying for it.

When he doesn't get his way, Trump threatens to shut down the entire border merely by his word. By that logic, a wall isn't necessary at all.

Because it's in the down position?

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

US jurisdiction is North America + few little islands..

It has no jurisdiction over sovereign Canada.

I own mineral uranium properties in BC and although partisan Americans think my inventory is their inventory, it's not.

The accusation by American conservatives and Trump himself over the sale of of Uranium One to Rosatom at the behest of the Clinton Foundation is total bullshit.

Carbon sequestration

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

You neglected to include what it is that you understand you know the evidence.

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with seawater creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

In your denial of human activity contributing to climate change, what part of man made carbon dioxide is inert?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I don't think it's ransomware, as it encrypts your PC. I would go to Bleeping Computer Here for assistance.

Yup, Combofix is terrific. I run it routinely (every few months) just to be sure something isn't lurking in the background.

No installation necessary, just run it and let it do it's thing. It posts a report at the end.

One load of laundry may release upwards of a million micro plastic fibers each time. There's a movement afoot to include laundry room discharge filters into building codes.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/microplastics-laundry-research-vancouver-1.4735877

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

So these are not really instructions, are they. Just some sort of fantasy.

And do you have any evidence that changing XY to XX would change wither the sex or the gender of a person? Physical sex is determined in the womb (in as much as it is determined at all) and is not necessarily related to the presence of XX or XY genes.

It's possible to achieve all-female populations in fish, but not in the manner suggested by the OP.

The steps involved in producing an all-female strain of salmon are masculinize the first generation; 2) develop a genetic marker that will distinguish genetic males (XY) from genetic females (XX); 3) test each fish with the genetic marker and remove all the genetic males (XY); 4) verify that the removed fish are really males (XY) by growing them to maturity and mating them with normal females (XX) to produce a mixture of male (XY) and female (XX) offspring (used only for research projects); and 5) mating the screened-in fish which are genetically female (XX - but appear to be males and produce sperm) with normal females (XX) to produce all female (XX) offspring.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/acrdp-pcrda/fsheet-ftechnique/issue-fiche-03-eng.html

Hasty Generalization. Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate.

False analogy.  An error in reasoning occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons.

51 minutes ago, Olin said:

Be specific

1- Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have absorbed approximately a third of the carbon dioxide we have produced
2- Anthropogenic ocean acidification to our knowledge, it is at least 10 times faster than any natural acidification event in the past. This current rate of CO2 release is the fastest in at least the past 55 million years.
3- Overall, ocean acidification has been shown to negatively impact more marine organisms than it helps. In particular, marine species that need a compound called carbonate to build skeletons or shells are negatively impacted because as seawater acidity increases, the concentration of carbonate ions in the water decreases. As this happens, it becomes more difficult for corals, shellfish, and other calcifying (carbonate-requiring) organisms to make their hard parts.

https://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-acidification

Conversely, instead of being rhetorical and broadly dismissive in your opinion, can you be specific?