ChiGoose

From what I've seen, the Great Lakes basin will be least affected while the west will have more frequent wildfires and the south will have reduced crop yields. There are some informative maps here: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

I find this chart from The Economist to be helpful when trying to gauge some of the macro trends of climate change. It's not that all places will always be warmer all of the time; it's that, on average, places will generally be warmer. Additionally, our current extreme heat events will become more common and we will begin to experience even worse heat events. Sure, there will still be snow in the winter (though there may be less) and we will still have some nice weather in the spring and fall, but overall we are going to see more droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and other events that will negatively impact our crops, wildlife, and our lives.

White House Fact Sheet Personally, I think this is a bad move. I do not think that most consumers will feel the impact of the gas tax holiday as the savings are more likely to be gobbled up by middlemen than passed down to customers. I get that the president of the US has very few options to affect gas prices in the short term, but I would rather see strong investments in medium to long term plans to alleviate our reliance on gas indefinitely than a short term band aid that's more likely to help the gas companies than consumers.

I don’t think that’s regularly true of either party. Hillary had detractors in the Dems and Biden can’t go a week without being called out by the far left for something. I don’t think the GOP had a cult of personality around Bush or Romney, but there is something about Trump that ignites a fanatical base. The current party seems to be that you’re either fully supporting Trump or you’re a RINO. There is no actual policy, there is only Trump. It’s definitely not true of all Republican voters, but it is with enough of them to drive the party and I don’t think it’s healthy.

I think this is important but not in the way you may agree with. The committee wants testimony from those who publicly disagree but they refuse to testify. If it is all a partisan hack job, then they should testify and completely blow up the committee’s narrative, but they are doing everything in their power to avoid that. Not to mention that any time one of them has been under oath, the do not say the same things they say publicly. They evade, plead the fifth, or admit everything said publicly was a lie. And so far, basically every witness has been a Republican and many were very invested in Trump winning. They aren’t having the AOC’s of the world testify, they are getting Trump’s actual campaign manager, Ted Cruz’s mentor, and even the guy behind the plan to have Pence not certify the vote. At what point does it start to seem that those publicly arguing against the committee’s case but privately telling a different story are acting in bad faith?

Oh thank god. I thought DR stood for doctor and I was really worried we had someone dispensing medical advice without a brain.

Just another example of dumb straw man arguments from you. One of these days, you may actually post something of value here, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I am looking at the evidence like sworn testimony. The kind of thing that people can go to jail for lying about. You can continue to trust people who lie to your face and then tell a very different story when they can get into trouble when they lie. Just doesn’t make you very convincing.

So you would be fine with your taxpayer dollars going to educate kids to join Islam? Or Judaism? Or Catholicism? Or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If the Church of Satan established a school in Maine, do you think it would be a good idea for Maine taxpayers to subsidize it? I don’t. I do not believe the government should have a hand in religious education. I also believe that the constitutional requirement of prohibiting the government from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion is incongruous with funneling taxpayer dollars into religious education.

1. I don’t give a ***** about what CNN says and I have no idea why it would be relevant to the discussion. 2. I think there is a decent debate to be had around education but I’ve always held what I believe to be the small “c” conservative view of the government only providing public education and not getting entangled in religion. From what I can tell, there was no issue with the quality of the other schools. And even if there were, there’s an argument for making those schools better instead of continuing to move funds away from them. I have absolutely zero problem with parents choosing religious schools for their kids. My parents did that for me. What I have a problem with is taxpayer money going to religious institutions for secular education as this would be a tacit governmental endorsement of that religion.

Who gives a ***** about the media?

I may have missed it but was the issue that there were no schools that met the standards so they had to go to a religious school? It doesn’t look like that from a brief scan of the arguments. From what I can tell from the certified question is that the parents *opted* to use sectarian schools, not that they had to. That is a VERY different argument than saying the only school they could go to in the area was sectarian. In that case, they have a good argument for that a lack of subsidy would be denying their right to an education. But if it’s a just a choice (i.e. there are local schools that qualify but they preferred a religious one), then what we are seeing here is that taxpayers must subsidize religious education. That would NOT be a ruling to ensure access to education because they had access to education at a qualifying school they opted not to use. Also, the Constitution actually guarantees both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. This ruling means that Catholics may have to pay money to Muslim schools or Jews may have to pay money to Hindu schools. And they would have no say in the matter. It also continues the entanglement of the government into religious affairs.

False. The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion). With this ruling, taxpayer money can now be funneled into religious schools. So taxpayers could now be funding Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or any school that teaches religion. You could potentially set up a school for the Church of Satan and get taxpayer money.

Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Chicago is great. It definitely wasn’t burned down and basically everything we hear about how awful it is here is either completely overblown or just not true. Sure the violence in the Summer of 2020 was bad but it was not nearly as bad as you would think reading stuff here or in the national news. And the left didn’t have a monopoly on the violence either.

The best thing anyone can do to stay informed is turn off cable news.

Yeah, I have lived in Chicago for the last decade and the entire city has basically been rubble for the last two years. Basically everything burned down and it’s next to impossible to live here. Antifa is everywhere burning everything down constantly.

I think it sucks and he shouldn't do it. I get that people care more about gas prices than human rights or democracy, so bringing the prices down could help the Dems in the midterms, but we still shouldn't be doing this. But yes, Trump still sucks.

Senator Al Franken could not be reached for comment...

Same guy who tied up his mistress and took photos of her to blackmail her and beat his wife. Real nice guy. The increased violent rhetoric coming from these extremist Republican candidates is going to get somebody killed.

PPP logic: Bad thing happens: President is on my team: It's not the president's fault! President is not on my team: It's the president's fault! Good thing happens: President is on my team: Look how great my president is! President is not on my team: The president had no hand in this! Maybe try some root cause analysis sometime. Might make these conversations better instead of the usual trolls just trolling each other.

If they post an interesting or compelling argument, it’ll be a first.

Nah, it’s just that talking to you is like talking to a wall. There is no evidence or facts that can possibly penetrate, so I’ll only do it as long as it’s fun. There are other, more serious posters who actually add value to the conversation that I’d rather engage with. If Donald Trump came out today and said “I did it. I wanted my supporters to overrun the Capitol and prevent the certification and I made sure that they did” you still would find a way to say it’s all a Dem conspiracy.

That’s just like, your opinion man. And you sure do spend a lot of time discussing Jan 6th here for someone who doesn’t care. Methinks you doth protest too much. Go outside and touch some grass, you’ll feel better.

I’m going with: I don’t know the answers and hope the committee addresses them. Since one of the teams on the committee was tasked specifically for this, we should expect them to give us info on it and call them out if they don’t. Your story seems to be that you already know everything the committee has and you believe the positions of people you know are lying to you because it aligns to your worldview and anyone who disagrees is a shill. Once again, you’re just jumping to conclusions based on what you want to see and what people who *you know are lying to you* are telling you. Spending a lot of time talking about something you say you don’t care about. You can prove you don’t care by just logging off and letting the adults have a conversation.

I think we could have a better and more efficient tax structure, that when paired with better enforcement, would generate revenues that wouldn’t require hard working Americans to pay so much without substantially reducing services. Also, a balanced budget requirement would be a terrible idea, though I agree that I’d like Congress to start acting like adults and actually figure out what their priorities are.