Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
dmaestro 14-Jan-19, 05:09	thehill.com There’s just no good reason why Dems should give Trump his wall just because the miinority that supports Trump wants it. The country faces a crisis where a minority insists on imposing their views on the majority of the people including those most affected nesr the border or a major issue like the wall. The refusal to wait for the people to vote in 2020 on the wall just shows the minority knows they don’t have the popular support
anomalocaris 14-Jan-19, 05:11	Thats your idea? Put it off until the next election so we can try and get a different president? Would anything ever get done? DM, you are playing politics plain and simple. It gets nothing done, which apparently you are proud of.
mo-oneandmore 14-Jan-19, 06:34	Obama's home wall One needs to appreciate that Obama's nice, fully protected, $7,000,000.00 WDC home rests on only about 3-acres of land and Obama paid for much of the security protection out of his own pocket --- Obama and his wife are worth about $40,000,000.00 these days, I believe. They are both in high-demand at public and closed speech events.
dmaestro 14-Jan-19, 06:37	Anomal Of course we should do something and Dems are willing to pay for more border security but if you on the right only offer the wall or nothing knowing the majority does not support it that leaves us no choice but to block it and force it to the next election. Border security can be enhanced without that wall. The pictures clearly show that. What I don’t understand is why you think it’s the wall or nothing and why you justify disregarding the large majority who don’t support Trump on this issue.
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 09:46	<Obama paid for much of the security protection out of his own pocket ---> Do you have a source for this statement?
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 09:50	<The country faces a crisis where a minority insists on imposing their views on the majority> Do you feel this way about the theory of man-made global warming? Or do polls only matter when they support what you think? Most Americans couldn’t care less about the theory of man-made global warming and it consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans’ priority list (and rightfully so) despite all the hype and propaganda surrounding it.
dmaestro 14-Jan-19, 10:09	Rasmussen Poll m.rasmussenreports.com This poll favors Trump and even it shows his new low approval and that we are crushing him over the unpopular shutdown and the wall. He chose his Waterloo.
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 10:32	Bump for DM <<The country faces a crisis where a minority insists on imposing their views on the majority>> <Do you feel this way about the theory of man-made global warming? Or do polls only matter when they support what you think? Most Americans couldn’t care less about the theory of man-made global warming and it consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans’ priority list (and rightfully so) despite all the hype and propaganda surrounding it.> Do you not want to answer this legitimate question?
dmaestro 14-Jan-19, 10:38	Romans How can you expect discussions when you consistently make false claims that are easily disproven. It’s true older right wing evangelical dogma says climate change is not an issue but so what? Most others care. www.google.com
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 10:39	How can one find “Neutral Ground” when one side consistently ignores questions they find uncomfortable?
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 10:45	That’s an interesting poll (and thanks for posting it - I saw it after my most recent post,) but is there a poll on the support among Americans for actions to address the theory of man-made global warming? Specifically new and higher taxes? It doesn’t surprise me that a majority of Americans want to clean up the environment or are concerned about the environment. But when steps are proposed to address the theory of man-made global warming, what happens to the polls then? Did President Trump take a hit politically when he withdrew the United States from the Paris Accord? I believe the answers to both those questions is “No.”
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 10:48	<when you consistently make false claims that are easily disproven.> This is a false claim from you and indicative of why you have no business being a moderator, IMO. People who are in here “playing a part,” as you previously stated about yourself, have zero credibility in my book. But continue posting polls on an issue that has received one-sided saturation propaganda. I find those posts amusing.
dmaestro 14-Jan-19, 11:23	Romans You made the statement Americans don’t much care about global warming when a simple check of recent polls shows is not true.
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 12:09	Being an expert on polls, one of many fields in which you have claimed to be an expert, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Wilder effect and how answering polls to conform to what is viewed as societally and culturally acceptable is a real and legitimate phenomenon. The true opinions and feelings of Americans on the theory of man-made global warming come about when they’re asked to prioritize the spending of taxpayer dollars and on whether they would accept new and higher taxes to solve a “crisis” to which they responded in a poll that they are “somewhat concerned” or “very concerned” about. It’s no surprise people are willing to parrot or agree with the one-sided saturation propaganda on that issue when they’re not asked to put skin in the game. In short, what I said previously is correct, imo, and the poll you cited is not indicative of Americans true feelings on the issue, again imo.
romans8384 14-Jan-19, 12:10	Oops! I meant to say “Bradley effect,” not Wilder effect.
anomalocaris 14-Jan-19, 17:13	DM How much of an issue is global warming to you?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 06:42	It’s a big issue but it takes global cooperation.
anomalocaris 15-Jan-19, 06:45	DM Thats fine but how far are you willing to go for that? How much good does your effort amount to if entire countries are not doing their part?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 06:47	The USA is a big cause and we have the technology to make a difference and by setting an example.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 06:52	Do you think the Paris Accord treated industrialized countries equally?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 06:55	Wall Shutdown www.vox.com www.google.com Trump is just not going to get his Wall and he is going to be much weaker politically after owning the Shutdown. While he did nearly unify republcans behind the wall he is losing other voters.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:02	What’s the latest polling in the issue?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 07:02	The Climate Agreement was basically goals it did not have much teeth. But it had a symbolic affect. The USA withdrawing was a political stunt. And no you can’t treat poor and rich countries equally you need some flexibility.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:03	Great question “30 Democratic Congressmen are at a beach resort partying with 109 lobbyists, attending parties, and the Broadway show Hamilton during the shutdown. Do you think if they were Republicans, the Fake News would be covering it and not ignoring it?” mobile.twitter.com
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:05	China’s a poor country? And if I’m not mistaken, the United States has to pay a heck of a lot of money upfront. But if it had no teeth, what’s the big deal about the U.S. backing out of it?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 07:10	projects.fivethirtyeight.com www.google.com Trump took a hit after the shutdown and is back to his hard core base again. Dems would be criminally stupid to let him out of his self imposed box now with elections around the corner and a majority against his foolish Wall. It won’t happen.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:10	From The Hill: “Nothing horrifies the intelligentsia more than President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change. But, based on new information on China's emissions, it increasingly looks like the president made the right call. Just last week, an analysis from Greenpeace indicated that China's 2018 carbon emissions were on track to grow at the fastest rate in six years. The study, based on government data regarding the use of coal and other energy sources, shows carbon output rising 4 percent in the first quarter of this year. Analysts are projecting similar gains over the next several quarters. The weakness of the Paris Agreement was that it was lopsided, requiring little from China and a great deal from the U.S. President Obama committed the United States to reducing carbon emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent, which would have meant a substantial jump in electricity costs.” thehill.com
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 07:18	There was no need to withdraw because there were no real enforcement provisions with teeth. It was a political stunt. www.google.com
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:25	Did the U.S. have to pay $$$$$ upfront or not? And if it couldn’t be enforced, what’s the big deal about President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from it? On the one hand, you seem to think it’s terrible the U.S. withdrew, and, on the other hand, you don’t think it was enforceable, so what difference does it make that the U.S. withdrew? Your Trump Derangement Syndrome has you arguing with yourself.
stalhandske 15-Jan-19, 07:56	<Your Trump Derangement Syndrome has you arguing with yourself. > Is such diagnose making of members really in accordance with the principles of this club? Pen name: Just asking
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.