Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[xy5jn0]

CIA Whistleblower Says He Was Targeted By Brennan, Mueller, Strzok

 

[xy5jn0]

Dinesh D'Souza: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is The 'Stupidest Person Elected To Public Office'

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[xy5jn0]

Trump’s critics were dead wrong about the caravan after all

That's not surprising. His critic here couldn't even keep his license to practice medicine and was fined 190K

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Wow. "Big if true" doesn't begin to capture the gravity of this one.

This gun...it's...smoking.

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Wow. "Big if true" doesn't begin to capture the gravity of this one.

This gun...it's...smoking.

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[xy5jn0]

https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/photo-of-illegal-alien-mom-with-children-in-diapers-running-from-teargas-was-a-staged-hoax/

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[xy5jn0]

Imagine that

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

“[The filing] will set out not just alleged lies but explanations of why they are lies, which has to include the evidence Mueller has that contradicts Manafort‘s prevarications,” former Justice Department official Harry Litman said. “So it will be a rich document chock-full of information that we don’t know.

“But we (as opposed to the court) may not learn any of it yet, because it could be filed under seal to protect the ongoing investigation.”

Former federal prosecutor Patrick Cotter said expectations should indeed be tempered.

“My suspicion is that the Old Marine will continue to hold his fire,” Cotter said. “For guys like Mueller, not letting developments like the emergence of a legal nuisance like Whitaker rattle you is both habit and principle. My money says that Mueller will continue to steer a straight, steady and quiet course.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

But the Trump administration and its allies in Congress will, of course, ignore this analysis. Denying climate change, no matter what the evidence, has become a core Republican principle. And it’s worth trying to understand both how that happened and the sheer depravity involved in being a denialist at this point.

Wait, isn’t depravity too strong a term? Aren’t people allowed to disagree with conventional wisdom, even if that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus?

Yes, they are — as long as their arguments are made in good faith. But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. And denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction is not O.K.; when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved.

But climate denial has sunk deeper political roots than cancer denial ever did. In practice, you can’t be a modern Republican in good standing unless you deny the reality of global warming, assert that it has natural causes or insist that nothing can be done about it without destroying the economy. You also have to either accept or acquiesce in wild claims that the overwhelming evidence for climate change is a hoax, that it has been fabricated by a vast global conspiracy of scientists.

Why would anyone go along with such things? Money is still the main answer: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. However, ideology is also a factor: If you take environmental issues seriously, you are led to the need for government regulation of some kind, so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine).

And let’s be clear: While Donald Trump is a prime example of the depravity of climate denial, this is an issue on which his whole party went over to the dark side years ago. Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people.

 

[Michael Scally MD]