We Need To Talk About Donald

[Animavore]

See what Colbert wrote about Donald? -

“You have more people marching against you than cancer,” said Colbert. “You talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster.”

Stephen Colbert has done it now. He has triggered an army of Donald Trump supporters outraged by one of the late night comic’s jokes about their beloved leader. In fact, these Trump snowflakes are in such a tizzy over Colbert’s politically incorrect joke they now want to silence Colbert by demanding he be fired.

This controversy exploded late Tuesday when Breitbart.com, in between articles demonizing immigrants and Muslims, published an article to whine about Colbert’s joke that sent Trumpers looking for a safe space. So what was this horrific joke that mandates Colbert be silenced in the eyes of Trumpers?

Well it was part of a block of jokes where Colbert quipped: “Sir, you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine. You have more people marching against you than cancer. You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head.” And then the line that cause Trumpers to freak out: “In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster.”

And cue the outrage. Come Tuesday night the number one topic trending on Twitter was #FireColbert. And the tweets there offered up the biggest display of hypocrisy since the last time Trump opened up his mouth.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ia=FB_Page

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

The callousness of right-wing arseholes.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/05/02/r ... t-disease/

[Animavore]

Further attacks on women from the GOP scum.

After failing to bring their Affordable Care Act replacement to a vote in March, GOP legislators have come armed with a new health care plan that may be even more heartless than their last.

According to Raw Story, the bill's recently added MacArthur Meadows Amendment would ditch the ACA's protections for preexisting conditions — sexual assault being one of them.

Under the amendment, states would have the all-clear to waive the ban preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to patients based on preexisting conditions. That means companies can also deny preventive health care services, like mammograms and gynecological exams, to these patients, which sexual assault survivors in particular rely on following an attack.

In 2010, before the ACA became law, the Huffington Post reported the story of Christina Turner, a 45-year-old woman who had been turned away by her insurance company because she'd been raped.

After being drugged and sexually assaulted, Turner's doctor prescribed her a month's worth of anti-AIDS medication, just in case. Though it turned out Turner hadn't been infected with the virus after all, when a prospective insurer saw the prescription on her health record, the company said it wouldn't cover her until — "in three or more years" — she proved she was still AIDS-free.

https://mic.com/articles/176092/under-t ... .D8v4KK648

[JimC]

What else do you expect from the Pussy-Grabber-In-Chief?

[Brian Peacock]

Politics is a serious business and anyone caught laughing at a politician or political appointee, even at a massive liar like Jefferson Disregard Sessions III, deserves to be taken round the back of the courthouse and lashed to within an inch of their life.

[Brian Peacock]

Most people dont know that Abraham Lincoln very angry and concerned about rise of Nazism, and worked with secretary of state to marginalize Hitler and...

Had a really great plan, a brilliant plan, to stop World War II from ever happening. Most people don’t know that Lincoln was so involved in World War II, but he was. A great American.

[Tero]

Trump sends collectors after student debt
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/loca ... on-lawyers

[mistermack]

Well of course they should be defaulted.

Anyone who's gone bankrupt as many times as Donald Trump projects will understand the importance of paying your debts.

[Scot Dutchy]

Or the importance of not paying your debts.

[Animavore]

It's actually, physically sickening that an important decision like this comes down to a guy who is so stupid he's practically a chimp.

US President Donald Trump is expected to decide soon whether to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, which is the world's promise to end the era of fossil fuels and avoid climate catastrophe.

Now it's become clear Trump's decision could come down to a single sentence.

So ... let's unpack that sentence. Because this sentence -- and, consequently, the United States' involvement in the Paris accord -- could help determine the very fate of the planet.

Here it is, Article 4.11 of the Paris Agreement (Warning, it's boring. But stay with me): "A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition, in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement."

And here is my rough translation into human-speak: Any country that signs onto the Paris Agreement has to make a pledge to reduce pollution, called a "nationally determined contribution." The United States, for example, pledged to reduce heat-trapping emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Anyway, these pledges are the building blocks of this agreement. The overall goal is to eliminate fossil fuel pollution this century, to avoid sinking low-lying islands, flooding cities like New Orleans and creating the sort of runaway warming that scientists say could lead to mass extinction. Hopefully these pollution reduction pledges will get MORE AMBITIOUS over time. But we're not saying explicitly that they MUST get more ambitious.

That last bit -- the part about ambition -- appears to be the sticking point for Trump.

Does this sentence REQUIRE the United States to stick with its current pledge, which was made by the administration of Barack Obama? Or could it revise its pledge to be LESS AMBITIOUS?

The former scenario might push Trump out of the agreement. The latter might be easier for this administration to stomach.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/polit ... index.html

[mistermack]

I don't see any ambiguity there.

Does the author not understand the word "enhance" ?

Trump has two choices. To walk away, or cheat like everyone else will be doing.

I would walk away if I was in his shoes.
Or demand REAL evidence of MMGW, not just the failed models that we've been served up.

And Trump could make sure, on his side, that nobody in NASA or paid by the US fiddles the figures any more. If he has that power, he should be on it now.

[Brian Peacock]

...

I would walk away if I was in his shoes.
Or demand REAL evidence of MMGW, not just the failed models that we've been served up....

What would you consider REAL evidence, and what do you think is UNREAL about the current datasets and models?

[pErvinalia]

It doesn't agree with biases.

[Animavore]

Oh yeah. Just walk away while flooding increases, hurricanes intensify, coral regions turn to rubble, ice caps fracture, permafrost turns to sludge, epidemics spread, seasons shift, animals go extinct, and droughts create more refugees.

What a terrible, ignorant, dangerous, unethical, short-sighted, pig-headed, uncaring, stupid, and shit leader that would make, absolutely not fit to lead the people and nations where they need to go in times of crisis.

Oh, wait!