#4 - the change is predicted activity is nothing to do with climate change - as you would know if you had just read the brief article attached.

Recent reports indicate that there are 7.6m employment opportunities available in the US and only 6.5m job seekers:

#27 - I did wonder in reading some of your posts whether you had a comprehension problem. Thanks for clearing that up.

Republican statement on mass shootings : "We have sadly seen violence from ideological extremists on both sides and that is completely unacceptable and must be condemned,"

Anyone care to point out who in the Greatest Generation would disagree with those points?

#16 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE"

The whole " both sides " argument is simply an extension of Trump's " good people on both sides" position.

It is a false equivalency to suggest that both left and right extremists are equally responsible for mass shootings. From the article:

" The GOP's response to elevate incidents of "violence on the left" clashes with a well-documented rise in hate crimes and white nationalism on the far-right."

" Extremist-related murders have spiked in the last year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, and the vast majority " 73 percent " are committed by right-wing extremists and white supremacists. Not a single extremist-related murder in the United States last year was carried out by "the left.""

"FBI Director Christopher Wray recently told Congress "a majority of the domestic terrorism cases we've investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.""

So to answer your question, assuming the " Greatest Generation" were interested in understanding the whole issue and not the partisan version of the issue, the whole generation would agree that violence from any source is wrong and that ideologically driven violence suffered by the US today can be attributed primarily to extreme right wing/white supremacist views.

Why would you support a party on this issue which, in it's own self-interest, adopts a policy of deliberately misleading the electorate on a matter of such nationally emotional importance?

#111- that seems to have sorted out the log-in, but I'm still being signed out when I close down the browser. Just tried it 3 times - sign in no problem but signed out each time I close Safari.

I'm having no trouble reaching the site but I am having trouble signing in.

When I do get signed in, I'm not staying signed in once I close the browser and come back later.

Any suggestions - other than not bothering to sign in?

"104 yesterday in San Antonio. A typical August day,

#1 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-12 10:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

Interesting because according to this site the average high for San Antonio in August is 94.7F

#13- sorry, addressed to #9, not #10.

#10 - Do Presidents have a long history of photo ops with babies whose parents have just been murdered? A photo op that had to be manufactured by bringing the baby back to the hospital after it was discharged?

Clearly you think standing there with an inane grin on his face giving a thumbs up sign is an appropriate response to tragedy. Most reasonable people, left or right, would not in my opinion. Maybe you can explain what there is to smile about given what has happened to that baby? What is there to celebrate that warrants a thumbs up?

Is pointing out the the President of the US lacks the basic humanity to deal with tragedy in a manner that brings dignity to the office and comfort to the victims TDS? Not in my book. I thought one of the things supporters liked about Trump was that he " tells it like it is" - apparently not an acceptable policy when applied to Trump himself.

"That's a really slow firing rate. He could have done that with low 10 round mags. That carbine can shoot at triple that rate. He took the time to aim.

You know you can own an AR-10 right? Same modular platform, just bigger and 260% more kinetic energy.

#28 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2019-08-07 08:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I would be the first to admit that I know almost nothing about fire arms, so I'm happy to defer to your apparent technical knowledge. There are, however, occasions where technical knowledge runs into real world consequence. As an example your statement " that's a really slow firing rate" is irrelevant in the real world because it was fast enough to shoot 41 rounds and hit 23 people in 32 seconds, aimed or not. If it can indeed fire more rounds per second, that doesn't help.

I wouldn't know an AR-10 if it bit me on the ass, but if it does what you say, then I'd happily dump it in the bin with all similar weapons marked " not fit for ownership by civilians".

#25 - no need to apologize - I understood you were being facetious; I was just running with your post to highlight legal versus justifiable.

In my view there are a few modern interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers that they would find hard to understand.

"Isn't it obvious?

#19 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2019-08-07 04:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I get it, but that is of course why I used the word justified. The facts that you set out are why ownership of such a weapon is legal. The question is why does US society consider such ownership justified, regardless of the obvious damage wrought by such weapons. Is there some off-setting good done by civilian ownership of such weapons that goes unpublicized?

"Those high capacity magazines are illegal.

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-08-07 04:10 PM | FLAG: "

I'm ignoring #20 in responding to this JeffJ - that's a separate issue and one about which I have little knowledge.

But your response to my post seems a little blinkered. My question was how is such a weapon justified, which to me means all of the weapon. i.e. the body of the AM-15, as well as the magazine. Having an illegal high capacity magazine would be moot if the gun had a limited fire rate. So again, how is a virtually no-aim, rapid fire weapon capable of accepting legal or illegal high capacity magazines justified?

This is not a weapon of defense; it is very much a weapon of attack.

32 seconds, at least 41 bullets fired, 23 people shot, 9 killed.

Can someone explain to me how allowing any civilian to own such a weapon is justified?

#19 - It is not new, that I agree with.

But your post was designed to both make that point and suggest Obama's 2 terms were more prolific. I'm merely pointing out an apples for apples position.

From my perspective, the US has gone down an evolutionary dead end in it's approach to gun ownership and control. In my view there is no practical solution available because there is seriously insufficient political will to address what would need to be done.

As for what I'm concerned about, my fear is that what the US cannot cure, it will export - like MacDonalds. I like my policemen and population to be mostly unarmed.

#16 - There have been 12 mass shootings in Trump's first 2.5 years in office: link

#4 - Maybe I have a weird sense of humor, but I have to laugh at a "what about defense " post that actually starts with the words " what about."

Boris Johnson is a charmer - private preparatory school, Eton, Balliol Oxford - he has the pedigree.

He is also an absolute waste of space who has zero chance of delivering on any of the promises he has made to become PM. His sole objective was to achieve his life long ambition. He can tick that box and move on, leaving disaster in his wake, as is his want.

The kind of no deal Brexit Johnson is threatening will not make the UK stronger; it will leave the UK without allies or friends, forced to accept trade terms which are inferior to those which would have applied as part of the EU trade block. This should be obvious to anyone who understands that a country of 66m people does not wield the same influence as a union of 500m people, unless you are naive enough to somehow think the UK is special - and if the last 3 years of total political chaos and ineptitude have not convinced you that the UK is anything but special, you have not been paying attention.

A no deal Brexit will break up the union; Scotland will be gone asap and N. Ireland will be absorbed more slowly over time. But Boris will have PM on his resume, so that's alright then.

And for those of you who might be under the misapprehension that somehow Johnson was democratically elected, there was of course no general election. Rather his appointment was voted on by members of the Conservative party ( not even by Conservative MP's), some 93,000 old, affluent, white mid-class people who in no way represent the diversity of the 66m UK population, decided Boris was the man to further their dreams of old empire and colonial glory. He'll let them down of course - they will just have to learn to live with disappointment like the rest of us.

"No question British voters want out ASAP.

#11 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2019-07-23 11:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Not quite true.

What the UK voters want is an end to the Brexit saga asap. This is not the same was wanting out of the EU, particularly at any price, which is what Johnson has offered up. The most current polls indicate that voter sentiment favors staying in the EU and have been trending that way for some time.

What Americans tend to miss with Brexit is that it is not a situation comparable to electing Trump. However you feel about Trump, he will be gone in either 2 or 6 years. The decision to leave the EU is forever - or might as well be for the existing UK population - and the pain associated with getting it wrong will not "go away", it will "drag on" for many years. The UK population will not be pain free, they will simply have to get used to living with it.

"Whether or not his words and deeds "carry more weight" has no relation to whether they're more or less hateful than anyone else's. Do you think his words carry more weight than members of the legislative branch? After three years, do you think most people (for or against him) actually *expect* Trump to act Presidential on twitter or at a campaign rally?

#15 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2019-07-22 10:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I see you have been selective in your quote. My first sentence which you omitted defines the context of the second. Trump is President, no-one else is.

As for whether his words carry more weight than members of the legislative branch, my answer would be yes.

I find your final sentence to be a sorry indictment of Trump's Presidency. You have accepted an ever lowering bar in terms of his behavior. I am not surprised that Trump fails to act Presidential, but that is no reason to stop expecting him to be Presidential. Why would you accept someone constantly failing to fulfill a basic requirement of their job?

"I see nothing that is any different from the hate spewed by the very people who decry Trump for things he says. Of course, that takes objectivity which is sorely lacking from partisan haters.

#5 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2019-07-22 11:37 AM | FLAG: "

There is of course one glaring difference between Trump and everyone else - Trump is the President of the USA and they are not.

An objective observer would expect the words and deeds of the President, who is after all supposed to be the leader of the free world, to carry much more weight than all the non_Presidents out there - some 7bn plus.

If this doesn't make a difference to you, you may have been blinded by your own self-professed objectivity.

"...the courage of Journalist Steven Edginton.

#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2019-07-21 04:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I fear that this guy has not shown courage, rather inexperience and naiveté.

The journalist who originally claimed the scoop was Isabel Oakeshott, a right wing journalist, a leading Brexit supporter, friend to Nigel Farage and lover of the Brexit party chairman Richard Tice. One of the first people to call for Kim Darroch to resign was Farage and Tice was also very quick to Tweet "Should be pro-Brexit businessperson who can accelerate free trade talks Darroch had been lamentable at" and "Now it's time for a pro-Brexit businessman to be appointed who can lead a quick US trade deal."

I would not be surprised if Ms. Oakeshott is feeling a lot more heat than she anticipated and young Edington will make a nice fall guy. We'll see.

During the 2016 campaign there was a large element within the GOP who recognized that Trump's style was anything but Presidential and who asserted that after election, he would pivot to a more mainstream Presidential manner.

He has not - not even close.

So when they say they are baffled, what they mean is that they don't understand why he is still saying these things "out loud". It's not that they disagree with the sentiments, it's just that they're not sure it's a winning strategy. His base is in the bag, but their concern is that swing voters will be put off. If they get comfortable with this I suspect their bafflement will disappear.

"True, she said we were 10% better than garbage.

#15 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-07-20 07:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

No she didn't. You have deliberately misconstrued her words to support Trump in his lies. What's more, I suspect you know this.

See my previous comment on "moral compass".

I had the misfortune yesterday to watch Trump's Q&A session with reporters ( I was at the gym and 1 of the TV's was showing it - proof that no good deed goes unpunished ). It was the most egregious display of calculated lying I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The question asked by any of the reporters was irrelevant, the answer was going to include "garbage ", "evil Jews" and " anti-semitic".

If you find yourself defending Trump for this type of behavior, either directly or by dredging up some irrelevant whataboutism, you have lost your moral compass.