#28 - Perhaps Pegasus would like to refresh his memory concerning the motivation behind the EU:

"Obama spent 114 Million while so far Trump has only spent 10 million... (2017)
www.newsweek.com

Looking for any articles written in 2019...

#96 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2019-10-17 05:35 PM | FLAG: "

I'm assuming you realize that you're comparing total travel costs for Obama's 8 years to Trump's first year only? You obviously do not realize that the estimates for Trump's travel in his first year have been shown to be significantly understated. The article you quote indicates each trip to Mar a Lago cost $1m; subsequent investigation shows each trip cost closer to $3.4m per visit:

" I can not speak for HRH but I assume she is for Brexit as doing so returns some of the power back to her.

#4 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2019-10-17 02:59 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I seriously doubt that the Queen supports Brexit at this stage. Plans are already being aired in Scotland for a referendum on independence next year and it is likely any deal that the EU accepts with respect to Northern Ireland will lead to increased calls for Irish unification. She is a very traditional monarch - the break up of the UK would be totally abhorrent to her.

^#79 "airfare" should be "airforce".

Point stands.

The US airfare stays at Trump resorts in Scotland:

"This short article raises more questions than it answers.

The Milky Way is 100,000 LY side to side. That means that if this explosion was felt 200,000 LY away, it was felt 150,000 outside the galaxy. IOW, where there is nothing. So how is this known?

Wish there was more to the story. Looks like I'm going to have to call upon my friend, Mr. Google.

#4 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-10-07 01:00 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

From the article:

"The flare created two enormous "ionisation cones" that sliced through the Milky Way and left its imprint on the Magellanic Stream. This is a long trail of gas that extends from nearby dwarf galaxies called the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds.
The stream lies at an average of 200,000 light-years from the Milky Way."

Google good; reading better.

#15 - Are you suggesting that FEMA does not provide funding support for disasters other than flooding? Simply click on any of the links I previously provided and select a listed event. Chances are it will show the amount of financial support FEMA provided. Here's an example:

#8 - I am not suggesting that all forms of natural disaster are equal; simply that there is nowhere in the continental US that you can live without there being a credible threat of natural disaster occurring. I recognize that volcanoes and earthquakes are outliers, clearly subject to long periods of inactivity, but local events are quite common and the major disasters are inevitable.

If federal assistance for one type of weather/climate/natural disaster related risk is to be denied, it should be denied to all such risks. The fact that one particular type of risk is the first to possibly manifest longer term climate changes should not warrant special treatment; rather it should be the impetus for developing a federal strategic plan to address evolving disaster events of all sorts.

As for your " terrible comparisons", each to his own, but here are links to the relevant FEMA pages in the order you list them:

#7 The exodus in Florida, if the article is to be believed, is related to the threat of general sea level rises rendering coastal property uninhabitable, not to hurricane flooding per se. How does this differ from seasonal risk of fire, exacerbated by climate related events such as prolonged drought conditions? Or seasonal inland and river basin flooding due to higher rainfall levels, again driven over time by higher temperatures? Or flooding related to snowmelt?

As for earthquakes and volcanoes, agreed they are not seasonal, although they are very much limited to specific areas. They are however, inevitable. Should a moratorium on construction be imposed in areas vulnerable to such disasters? Should property owners be taxed to cover future losses?

When you suggest these things are not a federal problem, are you suggesting that FEMA does not provide assistance to a wide variety of disasters? Here is a link to the FEMA website:

" Good. I've been saying this for years. We should abolish all incentives for people to live in flood-prone areas, like the federal flood insurance program Additionally, a moratorium on new construction should be imposed, and a climate property tax in these areas to pay for future emergencies.

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-29 10:24 AM | FLAG: "

Why just flood prone areas? What about tornadoes? Wild fire? Inland flooding due to rainfall? Snowstorms? Earthquakes? Volcanoes? This link shows that there is basically nowhere in the US to live that does not have inherent natural disaster problems, with all but the last 2 I listed likely to be exacerabated by rising temperatures.

Am I missing something?

It seems to me that no apostrophe was required in the first place - Trump simply tried to use a misspelled, folksy version of the word "little". If it was required at all, it would be required if Trump used the form "L'ddle" to signify an omission.

So it wasn't required, Trump defended his use of something that wasn't required and he incorrectly called it a hyphen. In Trumpland isn't that just another day?

In the scheme of things, not a big deal. As a demonstration, if another was needed, that Republicans having elected someone without the intellectual capability to do the job, add it to the list. Do Republicans care? I seriously doubt it and that in and of itself is a condemnation of Trump's supporters.

#9 - I'm not exactly sure, but I think you suggesting my previous post supports the viewpoint that Greta is "mental".

I don't see how my words could be interpreted in that way, but each to his own.

"If you want this fanatic to be the face of the climatista movement, you are welcome to her.
www.youtube.com

#4 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-23 05:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG'

I find myself in the very odd position of agreeing with you; this young woman should not be the face of a global effort to address climate change.

The face of a global initiative should a political leader with enough clout, respect and intelligence to move the process forward. Under normal circumstances the world would look to your country for this leadership. Regrettably the US does not have such a leader; during Trump's presidency the only consistent ideological positions he has held are that if Obama did it, it has to be undone and if his base applaud it, it must be policy.

""Sorry, within the contexts that you have used it I do not believe you.
#102 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER"

What you believe or don't believe is of no importance to me. My statement is factual.

#104 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-09-22 12:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

In my post #102, I explained to you why your statement, that Obama is " half black" cannot be true as you keep stating it; simply put, his mother has some percentage of "black" genes. This implicitly means that your statement is not factual but you either can't understand the point or you've been called out as a racist, don't like it and will keep making the same invalid point over and over as a defense.

Repetition bores me, so this will be my last comment. What I believe is, as you say, of no importance to you, so it won't matter if I tell you that I don't believe a word of your defense and that last night, at 1.54am your inner racist got the better of you and now it's out there. As they say, you own that.

"It is an objective fact - he is half-black. That is not racist, that is genetics.

#50 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-09-22 11:18 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

So your decision is to double down on the statement being purely factual and not derogatory and racist. Sorry, within the contexts that you have used it I do not believe you.

As for whether Obama is half-back, an "objective fact" as far as you are concerned, you may like to know that his mother's ancestry can be traced back to include some of the earliest African slaves in the US. It is unlikely then that she is able to pass on 100% "white" genes to her son and therefore equally unlikely that Obama is "half" anything.

#40 - "So, Obama is not half-black? That is an objective fact, unless you have your own birther conspiracy."

Why does it matter to you what color Obama is? If you feel he is a loser based on policies with which you disagree, why do you need to bring his color into it? Obama may not be a loser because he is " half-black", but you are certainly racist for your focus on it.

Or are you going to pretend you use it only in a factual, rather than derogatory way? If so you are not only a racist, but you lack the courage of your convictions.

"What is racist? Not liking a piece of schitt? Sorry, I find that common sense. You crowned that half-black loser of a president the messiah. You still look up to that racist, anti-semitic piece of schitt Sharpton. I don't. I am objective. I don't support or demonize someone based on their sex, religion, or race - that is immaterial compared to POLICY. Your whole Liberal loser cabal is dead set on identity politics - white man bad! Yes, some white men are bad, as are some black men, Asian men, and women of all colors. Again, IT IS ABOUT POLICY. So, stop crying buttercup.

#21 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-09-22 07:08 AM | FLAG: "

I'm traveling at the moment, so it has taken me a while to get back to your eloquent prose.

"What is racist" you ask and I answer your words "You crowned that half-black loser...".

America crowned ( to use your term ) an American citizen as President and all you can see is someone who is "half-black". Just curious, but why not half-white? Less racist that way?

As for you being objective, that is an opinion we do not share. I have trouble accepting that someone does not demonize based " on race" when they feel it necessary to inject race in to every description of someone with whom they disagree. Don't believe me? Read your own comments again.

BTW - I am not American, so you can't blame me for either Obama or Trump - but if you were going to, I would take Obama over Trump every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

"Supporting a half-black piece of schitt makes you a Democrat.

#16 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-09-22 01:54 AM | REPLY | FLAG"

Congratulations on the most blatant racist comment I've seen on DR in my time here.

If a man can't let his true feelings out at 1.54am, when can he, eh Ira?

I found this article interesting:

"Let's all sit back and watch as China blinks in trade war negotiations.

#1 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-09-15 03:51 PM | FLAG: "

The article you linked is a year old - that is a long time without blinking.

If you want to know what the Bahamians seeking the US's assistance went through, check this video:

"they have been taking taxes from their former colony since 1973. Let them fix one of the largest cash cows in the Commonwealth.

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-09-11 08:26 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I like to think I stay fairly current with matters involving the Commonwealth, but I have never heard of the Bahamas, nor any other Commonwealth country for that matter, paying taxes to the UK. I would be grateful for a link to the source of your claim so that I can educate myself.

"Do you see anything wrong with expecting the queen to take care of her subjects? Why is not more said about this? I believe it is because people can be so hateful, they'd rather hate on Trump rather than be objective and ask questions about the people who should be looking after the Bahamas.

#75 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-09-13 10:34 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

The Bahamas became an independent, sovereign country in 1973.

They voluntarily chose to join the Commonwealth at that time and this entails accepting the Queen as head of state, but the relationship is not the same as the relationship she has with citizens of the UK. The Bahamas is free at any time to leave the Commonwealth and to renounce the Queen as head of state.

So Bahamians are not subjects of the Queen in the way I suspect you mean it; they cannot move to the UK without complying with immigration regulations. Similarly, UK citizens cannot live in the Bahamas without complying with their immigration rules. In this regard therefore, Bahamians need to jump through immigration hoops in both the UK and US, but there is no denying that the US is much more conveniently located and this is important.

The islands will be uninhabitable to all but the most hearty for some time; rebuilding will be long and difficult ( I speak from experience ) and the ability to get on island quickly, make decisions, deal with practical matters and get out again will be very important. This cannot be done from the UK.

Does this in and of itself impose an obligation on the US - no. But is suggesting sending them to the UK a viable alternative - absolutely not. If the US wants to be a world leader, sometimes it has to step up and this would be one of them. Or is the just another way in which Trump has convinced supposedly patriotic Americans to accept yet another small diminishing of America's leadership role?

"Almost cries out for a second referendum....

#11 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER "

You would think so but unfortunately the politics and political self interest is just too murky.

The Labour Party would seem to logically be the politic party to champion a second referendum, but as recently as 1983 they had leaving the EU as a main stay of their political manifesto. Jeremy Corbyn has been a life long Euro skeptic. Both these positions are driven by EU regulations that would prevent the UK Labour Party from introducing certain socialist policies they favor. Under Corbyn, Labour have pretty much blown their chance to lead on this issue and the other parties are too weak individually to lead.

I would favor a second referendum, not because I favor " corporate globalist elites " but because I believe democratic solutions are the way to go, as long as the voter has some chance of sifting facts from fake news and lies. This was not the case with the first referendum and Boris Johnson was largely responsible for perpetrating the worst and most influential lies. Here is an interesting list of Brexit lies to date:

https://brexitlies.com

Your observation that even a second referendum would be close is in my view spot on, because the whole issue has dragged on so long that many people just want it over, damn the consequences.

^#6 - Whether B is smaller than A is irrelevant.

If Trump benefits from lower interest rates and higher asset prices if he can pressurize the Fed into lowering rates, who knows what his motive is. I don't and you don't. Maybe he is concerned for the man in the street, maybe he is concerned for his own wealth or maybe he is concerned that a recession ( which is absolutely inevitable and probably somewhat overdue now ) should be deferred until after 2020 and his bid for a second term. Maybe all 3 in some weighted manner.

I remain a skeptic concerning Trump's motivation; clearly you are not.