When the moment is forced, how will the GOP detach itself from Trump without catastrophic damage?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
89 Answers
It will be next to impossible. Too many of them have bought into the Trump cult, whether because of fear or because of actual belief. Extricating themselves will be tricky.
The best thing that could happen for the republican party is that Trump would be found to have done something unquestionably horrible – murdering someone with a sledgehammer, throwing his son out of a helicopter – something so egregiously horrible that they couldn’t possibly make up any excuses for his behavior. That would give the republicans cover to disassociate themselves from His Trumpiness.
Anything less than a grotesquely undeniable horrible deed would allow for ambiguity, and spineless republicans will continue being sucked into the Trump black hole.
They are the super masters at political spin,BUT they have climbed so far into Trump world there will be heavy casualties.
It will be fun to watch though.
They have been protected by power and money for so long, not having to suffer consequences, I don’t think it’s truly sunk in how much trouble they’re in.
Superlative answer from @elbanditoroso. I’m cynical enough to almost agree with you. But I believe there’s a (no longer outside) chance that the sheer weight of the turd’s infractions might undo him.
Trump is saying that Bolton wrote a book that is full of top secret material! Anybody know the name of that book???
Top secret like where Trump tried hiding the transcripts. The manuscript has been sent to be review by NSA, magically it was leaked (NSA is under the Executive branch).
Doubt there is anything top secret except it points the finger at Trump and Pence and Trump is trying to keep that a secret..
I wake up every day wondering if this is the day I get to scream “YOU’RE FIRED!!!!”
I think the question should be “IF the moment is forced…”. You assume a lot in your question. How about this corollary: If the moment is forced, how will the Democrats back out of their ridiculous obsession with Trump without catastrophic damage?
Response moderated
Whether they detach or not the GOP has no idea how hard the Democratic backlash would be against supporting that human garbage in the WH.
I believe that the constitutional expression is “prior restraint” and it says more or less that the government can’t stop you from publishing except for very narrow reasons. Remember the Pentagon papers and how Nixon lost?
And since most of the content is already leaked, it’s hard to think of a reason why it’s secret at all.
Response moderated
Response moderated
Close their collective eyes yelling loudly…“this house is clean!”
Again, as @elbanditoroso makes rather clear, Trump has s history of tough sledding when it comes to enforcing secrecy declarations on matters he deems necessarily worthy of exclusion. The idea that Bolton of all people would commit security sensitive data to any book is dubious indeed. He nevertheless submitted the manuscript for review as is customary. Once again, the truth comes out. “The room where it happened” is but another in the deluge of books chasing our slippery fool. At some point it will be placed in context (perhaps as a chapter) in the by now encyclopedic collection of tomes best labeled as “The Squirming of the Turd”.
@seawulf575 Let’s suppose that I approach this issue from your point of view and accept the grinding destruction of Trump to be based on fictional invention of liberal and media hatred. Were that the case, how would you stop it? If you step back and view it overall, do you see things improving in the near or long term? Where would you predict it is all going? Since your explanation is that liberals will dig for dirt on Trump til they find something that sticks, how would you say they are doing at it thus far? isn’t the current reality actually that it no longer matters which of us is right? Isn’t it rather clear by now that as with any war, the casualties and devastation visited on the losers is multiplied several fold as the end draws nigh? Do you actually see any way out if liberals, the media, courts AND corrupt DOJ are able to conspire with governments the world over to “pin blame” on your hero?
Damage? From Trump?? You have GOT to be kidding me!!!
@stanleybmanly I think after the 2020 elections, the Dems are going to reap what they have sown. And it is not getting rid of Trump. I think Trump will get re-elected and the Dems will lose control of the House. People are fed up with their wastes of time and money. They are fed up with hearing half-truths put forth in an effort to undo an election the Dems didn’t like. When they lose the House, they will go back to the same thing they were doing several years ago…sniping and whining and using the liberal media to keep the lies going. It won’t stop the silliness entirely, but will tone it down.
And for some slim chance Trump doesn’t win re-election are you going to accept it, or scream rigged election and it’s all the Democrats doing??
Then bitch about every dime being spent when your guy spent like a drunken sailor?
And I don’t get this lie thing you keep pinning on the Democrats when Trump has been clocked at over 17,000 lies since he took office.
And fact documented but you won’t accept that documentation because it isn’t extreme right wing.
@SQUEEKY2 I would tell you I would be disappointed if Trump were to lose re-election. Looking at the field of candidates on the Dem side, I think the world will lose if any of them are elected. I might possibly be okay with Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to be a little more down to Earth than most…more honorable. But would I scream about a rigged election? Not unless there were some reason to believe it so. I will continue to advocate for voter ID laws universally, or some other method that will positively ID the person voting as being the person they say they are and living where they say they do. I will continue to chip at the biased media because I truly believe they are the root of 99% of the problems in our nation. And we should all know by now that their coverage of elections shows more bias than usual. Were you watching the US election coverage in the 2000 election between Bush II and Gore? That was the first time I was aware enough to watch the media try and play a part in the election. And they got caught. What I saw was two specific statements, and it happened on ALL the MSM channels (except Fox). The anchor would do as they always do….tell the country that with partial results in, they are showing that this candidate wins this state. The whole time they are running the ticker tape along the bottom of the screen showing the actual voting results. And at one point, they ALL said that they were now predicting that Al Gore has won Florida. But at the same time, their ticker tape is running along showing that Bush had like a 10% lead over Gore in Florida. They did the same thing with Michigan. It seemed so odd that Bush could have a 10% lead and Gore was the winner. Apparently I wasn’t the only one to notice because suddenly they are ALL coming out saying that they may have made a mistake and that Florida was too close to call. Bush still had a 10% lead! Too close to call? And how’d that all wash out? Oh yeah, we went through the idiotic “recount” with the dimpled chads and the hanging chads and all the rest of the fiasco. I found it telling that the media was THAT off and, coincidentally, on battleground states.
People have great capacity for amnesia and denial. I don’t think the Republican Party will be destroyed, it will just go back to being the Conservative party. People in the party who never liked Trump will just say they were on board because he was pushing some important policies, but once they saw the writing on the wall they broke loyalty with him based on morality reasons. They can explain away anything.
It depends. If he dies in office, he could be held up as some amazing martyr, and they could worship him while moving on, politically. Similarly, if he survives two whole terms, well, his legacy will be cemented, and Republicans can reshape the message however they want, and hopefully Trump goes back to selling rugs, actually now that I say it, it’s really hard to imagine Trump taking the role of former president gracefully.
If he gets a third term, well.. all bets are off.
There are some scenarios I can see where the Republican Party tears itself apart by its sheer size and complete lack of direction, but these are few. We have way more ways in America to rationalize the unthinkable than to admit when we were wrong.
@seawulf575 You’ve been listening to that “fake news” again, haven’t you???
What we are sowing, @seawulf575, are the seeds to get that deranged mad man out of the White House. So I surely hope we reap what we are sowing.
I just wonder what the GOP will do post-Trump. They have become so defined by Trump that they’ve changed their identity around him and he carries the party. Will the GOP return to lukewarm Jen Bush-types after Trump? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
@Demosthenes Honestly, I think many of you define the GOP by him now, but we do not.
As far as what we’ll do after, the same as before. We’re still espousing most of the positive values of the party, such as Pro-2nd, Pro-Life, Pro Military, Anti-immigration, Christian family values, etc…
They’ve all lost their minds, like their leader. They all think they’re untouchable, above the law, like their leader.
The world would suffer if Trump isn’t re-elected how so??
He has pissed off every ally the states has,started a senseless trade war that has hurt the states and many of it’s trading partners.
Totally refuses to believe climate change is even an issue.
Going like mad at deregulating pollution regulations.
Cuddling up to ruthless dictators .
Came extremely close to starting another war,after promising to end ,endless wars.
So please enlighten us how the world will suffer if Trump isn’t re-elected?
I’m waiting too. It’s going to take a tremendous amount of contorting to even defend that asinine comment.
Lol 20 percent sane, 80 percent insane explanation of why the world suffers without trump as president impeached is coming soon from a trump fanatic near you!
Because to them he brings sanity??
The rest of us are fucking doomed!!
Because the money that controls politics will punish us and push narratives about how bad it has become since Trump left, and how we should really get him back. Just like how much smoke is being blown about how great the economy is right now.
@SQUEEKY2 are you addressing me? Okay, let’s review reality a bit…not interpretation.
Senseless Trade War: By this I assume you mean he was sticking up for the USA by going for more reasonably fair trade with other nations. If they get pissed off because we don’t want to continue to be raped on a daily basis, well, too bad. Let’s take a look at China, for instance. Are you aware what the trade agreement was between the USA and China prior to Trump? We got about 2% tariffs on all goods we took into this country from China, we had to pay between 25% and 50% on goods we shipped to them. I’m sure in the liberal mind, that is somehow fair and we should just continue to bend over and take it. Sorry, it was hurting our economy badly. Combine that with China’s penchant for stealing industrial secrets and we were getting screwed badly. Yeah, Trump should never have challenged that, right? As for NAFTA, it was similarly set up. Trump established a more fair agreement and it is now in place. And Mexico AND CANADA have agreed it is good. But don’t let that dissuade you from hating Trump irrationally.
Climate Change: I can’t get behind the climate change hoo-haw either. I have voiced this opinion many times, and have yet to have any climate changer actually address my concerns. They back off and call me names. How original. Here’s the things I have seen, heard, and read that make me really question it. It started with the original IPCC report on climate change. The UN had many scientists review the idea that mankind was affecting a global change in our climate to our detriment. The scientists came down with conclusions that don’t look anything like the report that came out. Basically there were a few lines of thought. 1. The climate is not changing. 2. The climate is changing but no specific cause can be determined. 3. Climate is changing but it is a routine natural change, and 4. The climate is changing and mankind is the only reason why. The majority of the scientists fell into numbers 2 and 3 with about equal numbers falling into 1 and 4. When the report was written and submitted, it was re-written by the bureaucrats to say only #4 was the conclusion. Most of the scientists ultimately withdrew from the UN studies because of this erroneous rewrite of their data. Since then, the only real answer ALL of the climate changers can come up with is for us to put control of all carbon emissions in the hands of the bureaucrats. They all use scare tactics to make people believe they are looking our for our best interests. But here are some interesting things that tell me it is a scam. If CO2 is one of the big contributors, why aren’t we protecting our forests? Why aren’t we planting more plants? Why is this not being done now since it is well within the control of those same bureaucrats that claim Climate Change is the biggest threat to us? Plants will scrub out the CO2 from the air. They love it! They need it! It’s what makes them healthy. Yet we don’t hear a push for this. Why? That is a big tell that the whole thing is a scam. Meanwhile, many of these same climate changers are jetting around the world on their private jets to spread the word that we should give them control of our carbon emissions.
Deregulating pollution regulations: I was reading on a different thread about this. One of the Jellies actually posted a list of concerns on this topic. I started reading the list and researching the facts of the story. Maybe you should try it some time…researching. I got through a few of the “regulations” Trump has rolled back. Most of them were just administration burdens. Duplications between federal and state controls. Controls that were put in place for the mere purpose of causing people that might have a chance of polluting to have to pay millions to meet the paperwork requirements of made up governmental departments. I’m all for non-pollution. But I also have been subjected to onerous useless governmental bureaucracy. Let’s put it in perspective for you,. You drive a truck for a living, right? Let’s say in an effort to stop pollution, the government suddenly passed a law that said you had to fill out 10 different forms and submit them with filing fees every time you filled up with gas, and that you had to have your truck tuned up every month and had to file those reports as well. Would you consider those good rules? Would they really do anything towards curbing pollution significantly? Or would you be out of business due to the excessive cost of these regulations? Well, some of what I was reading looks like foolishness like this. Until you can identify specifics, the claim of “deregulating pollution regulations” is nothing but a scare tactic.
Cuddling up with ruthless dictators: Like who? Putin? Trump put more and stronger sanctions on Russia than his predecessor did. He has not shown the slightest “cuddling up” with Putin at all. Kim Jong Un? He is attempting to work with NK to get them to the realization that their efforts at becoming a nuclear threat is a foolish endeavor and unnecessary. That seems to be a good thing to me and I don’t see it as “cuddling up” with Un.
Came close to starting another war after promising to end endless wars: Take a look at the impact from your liberal news sources. You will find the irregularities here. Trump pulls us out of a silly position in Syria that does nothing for our nation other than cost us money and lives, and your liberal media goes crazy talking about how he needs to stay involved in that war. Then, when he takes out a terrorist that is responsible for many, many American lives being lost, the same media goes crazy saying he should stay out of affairs in the ME. Which is it? Stay involved or get out altogether? Personally, I think the world is a lot better off without someone like Soleimani in it…how about you? Were/are you a fan of terrorism?
As for how the world will lose if any of the Dem candidates win the election? That one’s easy. Look at their policies. Every one of them has some plan that will cost our nation more than we bring in for decades and decades. They will kill industry in this nation and will eventually turn us into a third world nation. The economic blow-back from that will impact every nation on Earth. We will fall into a nation of crime and despair, just as many socialist nations do. When we are no longer a nation that can help others, be a marketplace for world goods, or help guide things, think about how that will impact others. I know, you don’t want to believe it. But that is only because you have not been honest about how radical these candidates really are. At best, they will take us back to the times when the government served itself without question.
I would like you to provide a non biased link for the China thing as well as the climate, you would expect me to provide you with one.
Think you can provide a non biased link @seawulf575 ?
No. He has said he prefers right leaning news articles.
@SQUEEKY2 Nope. It wouldn’t matter what link I gave you, you would call it biased. It happens every time. You don’t care about substance on citations I provide, you only try to deflect by discounting the source.
Sorta the same as you do when I provide links??^^^^^
No, if you ever notice, I read the citations and discuss the merits of them. I don’t discount based on source. Go back and review. I might tell you I disagree with a citation but I will also explain why and why the citation is erroneous or skewed with specifics. That is the difference. Here’s an article from a right leaning website that looks at MSM coverage of things.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/01/29/evening-news-spin-100-negative-trump-defense-95-positive-dems
They have just identified that all the major ones, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. gave significantly more coverage time for the Dems than the Repubs and were 100% negative on Trump and 95% positive for the Dems. And if you care to open your eyes, ears, and mind, you would hear it for yourself when you tune in.
@seawulf575
I’m truly looking for evidence that Chinese tarrifs were as high as 25–50%, or that US tarrifs were as low as 2%. We’ve both got WTO MFN status on each other, after all. That one could use a citation. You must be quoting some “effective” tax rate by some stretched metric, because I really don’t see it.
@seawulf575 seriously? Newbusters.org?
I did open the Forbes link because they’re reputable, only to find that
1) It’s more than 3 years old
2) It’s someone’s opinion
3) The person with that opinion provided not one single scintilla of proof to back up their claim.
@Dutchess_III being 3 years old does not negate the validity, especially since the Climate Change (which started as Global Warming) has been going on since the 1990’s. And it has been building on previous reports, all of which were challenged due to sketchy selection of data and rewrites by bureaucrats. The Forbes article does quote some of the damning e-mails sent between some of the “climate scientists” and they show a concerted effort to hide the facts. If you’d like all of the emails that were hacked and released,
http://web.archive.org/web/20110223203538/http://eastangliaemails.com/
I tried their search function and it isn’t working, but if you click on any of the e-mails, it will open up.
That charge of the media favoring Democrats over Republicans or being blatantly biased against Trump is poppycock. And the simple rejoinder to such accusations is once again (and I’m serious) what kind of good news or positive spin is there for a turd? This pretense that Trump is being picked on because the news about him is ALWAYS negative is a clear cut case of blame the messenger. The news is bad because the fool HIMSELF is BAD NEWS. And of course the Democrats are getting more coverage than Republicans. The Democrats WANT and SEEK more coverage Which side would you expect to want the attention; the one tasked with defending the turd?
@stanleybmanly interesting claims. Where are your citations to back up your claims?
You want citations on whether or not it is more fun
to defend or ridicule a turd? In fact, forget about fun. Which is easier?
No, I want citations that show the media is not biased.
^^He just told you with that post why. Citation? From where and what exactly? Angels in heaven keeping score? Lol
Guys, you can literally look up any site for media bias rating.
Of course that site specifically says that unbiased news does not exist.
My point is that the bad news around Trump is NOT about bias. It’s bad news and a surfeit of it.
@stanleybmanly I disagree. If you didn’t learn anything from 2016 about media bias and polls, then I can’t convince you. Have a good weekend.
This is farcical. If trump was a Democrat, media bias would go all the way to the next 50 galaxies down the road. And that’s just Fox News.
@mazingerz88 isn’t it funny that I have no problem at all finding citations for this exact topic? Yet you guys on the left act like it is not only unreasonable to be asked for a citation but that they don’t exist. Yep…the ones that tell you the media isn’t biased and is entirely fair don’t exist…and that is what your point of view seems to be.
@stanleybmanly and my point is that much of the negative is driven by the biased media. The site I just gave you shows that over a given period they had 100% bad reporting on Trump and 95% good for Dems. The amount of time they gave for the Dems in the impeachment was almost twice that they gave for the President’s defense team. When your “news” agencies are giving you 100% bad, it isn’t surprising you believe there is no good. Imagine, for a moment, if all the news agencies had been pro-Trump this whole time. Refusing to support any of the witch hunts, actually ridiculing the Dems for pursuing them, congratulating Trump for silly stuff, and on and on and on. You’d probably think he was a good president. Because you wouldn’t hear anything else. And apparently you can’t come up with your own opinions or do the research to point out that media bias.
You may be right. But for the life of me I cannot recall an incident of Trump performing something positive to be then shortchanged for it by the press. Indeed, the bad news is so consistently bad, that much of it is no longer worthy of being categorized as news. The lies for instance are so incessant they now receive scant attention from the press or anyone else.
@stanleybmanly The USMCA just passed. Everyone agrees it is a big deal and a good deal. And it was Trump’s idea. Wanna guess how much time the stations gave to it as compared to slobbering all over the Dem managers and slamming Trump? The bad news is consistently bad. That is what should be a key to you that it isn’t all true. Take a look at the NYT changing their headlines because the backlash over the first one.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/06/new-york-times-front-page-headline-changed
Trump made a speech about the twin mass shootings. He urged unity in the country instead of pushing racism. It was a very good speech. The NYT put the head line in TRUMP URGES UNITY VS RACISM which was entirely true. The left went crazy because they didn’t slam Trump somehow. there was such a backlash that the headline was changed to ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS. That way they have something they can say negatively about Trump. This has been going on since before the election in 2016. In fact, because Trump recognized this, he took to social media to bypass the MSM who were working overtime to give Hillary the presidency. He got right to the people and it shined a spotlight on the lies of the media.
Trump bypassed the MSM because his lying ass is incapable of sustaining 3 truthful words in a row. He has no choice. Having faced the additional handicap in being recognized by any rational outlet for the tasteless practical joke he most assuredly is. So of course he would choose the domain where the nation’s cuckoos congregate. Trump’s “genius” is in his coalition of the whackos where he champions every conspiracy cultist and pathologically defective nut job loose in the country. From birthers through skinheads through abduction sex proponents he has a formidable following encompassing the certifiably delusional through the functionally illiterate. He did indeed bypass the “mainstream” for the “forgotten” people, thus reaping the “benefits” accruing with the shutting down of the nation’s asylums and its woeful deficiencies in mental healthcare and public education.
@stanleybmanly “So of course he would choose the domain where the nation’s cuckoos congregate.” You do realize that roughly 80% of the US has social media profile, right? So in your hatred of Trump, you are willing to say they are all cuckoos? Kinda arrogant of you.
Arrogance would be the inserting of words into the mouths of others. Lying is another word for the practice. Trump’s trademark and the hallmark of his acolytes.
And speaking of insertion comrade, you might want to put an article between has and social.
Yep, arrogance is inserting words into the mouths of others….something you do on a regular basis…along with thoughts, feelings and actions they never did. And while you are correct about putting in an article, you did understand the comment and you entirely dodged it, opting instead to try making it a grammar class. Nice. Must be nice to be as perfect as you. You won’t mind if I call you on your next grammatical or spelling error, right? I mean, if we are going to act like third graders, or Democrats, I might as well.
Like you haven’t “called me” on my “grammatical errors” in the past. And you miss the point in your hasty insulting of the 3rd grade. The missing “a” is but a reference to an error common to those from the Motherland who acquire English as a second language.
Yes, because that is so much more likely than simply typing to fast and not proofreading. But you bring up an interesting thought. You seem to know an awful, awful lot about the motherland and their integration into our society. It seems that would make you either (a) a person from the motherland that has been schooled in frequent mistakes made that might give yourself away, or (b) so totally obsessed, you border on (and possibly are) a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Care to comment?
You’re right @seawulf575. The age of the article isn’t really relevant.
How conveniently you rebutted the only thing you could rebutt out of the three things I listed, and now you’re breaking your arm patting yourself on the back about how clever and smart you are.
Here are the other two if you want to try again:
2) It’s someone’s opinion
3) The person with that opinion provided not one single scintilla of proof to back up their claim.
@Dutchess_III It was an opinion, that is a fact. However, the individual did cite several of the e-mails that were involved. So that eliminates #3 of your complaints. So all you really have is that it is an opinion. I think the same could be said about the evening news, yet you believe that. I also gave you a link to the entire bunch so you can research for yourself.
I notice, though, that while you are trying to complain about the link, you have carefully avoided the topic and the data provided. So your complaint is starting to look like a dodge. In fact, your entire first comment was nothing but a dodge…avoid the topic by attacking the source…not the substance. And your attacks were weak. So you are looking a bit desperate to avoid having to admit the entire Climate Change narrative might be a scam based on doctored data.
No, he did not cite anything. He said, ”A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday…” Then he made up a bunch of words that he attributes to the supposed emails that he can’t provide any proof of.
I can claim 5000 aliens landed in the night and took Hillary Clinton away and brain washed her. Doesn’t make it true.
Yeah but our Rep/con friends would believe that!
So now we are supposed to believe climate change is a hoax?
Who fucking benefits from such a hoax?
Now I guess rolling back pollution regulations is fine, after all industry will police it self and we can count on them not to do anything that would harm the environment.
I know next they can roll back safety regulations for workers who needs em they just get in the way of profits and if a worker gets hurt, well thee are plenty more where they came from.
@SQUEEKY2 He is starting to dismantle OSHA (it must be impacting profits for some of his high rollers) ! Who needs to protect the worker ?
Look he even beat me to it, yeah them Rep/cons is all heart.
And what gets me is they will probably blame the democrats for it as well.
Safety regulations for workers what the hell,next they will want a living wage and we can’t have that.
Even if climate change were some useless hoax, it doesn’t matter. We HAVE to find alternative energy sources because we are running out of coal and oil. Leave it to the rep/cons to think that oil and coal is a magical, unlimited source provided by God.
@Dutchess_III I absolutely agree. Forget that the supply will eventually dry up, it isn’t healthy for us to burn it. Putting poisons in the air is inherently stupid. I have an uncle that makes wind turbines for a living. Great idea, using wind, right? Except, they are grossly inefficient and no one is really putting any effort into making them more viable. Yes, he makes them and sells them, but they are not the reliable source of steady electricity everyone thinks. We need to give incentives for developing more non-polluting ways of generating electricity or making existing methods more reliable and cost effective. We also need to work on making it more appealing for individuals to want to power their homes these ways. I looked at putting solar panels on my home a few years back. I wanted them for two reasons…one to knock down my power bill and become more energy independent AND in case of extended power outage I might have some power until it could be restored. Unfortunately, the only way my power company would work with it is if I put in a separate meter on my house…one for bringing power in from the grid and the other for my solar panels to send power out onto the grid. They would pay me for the power I generate, but I would have to always buy their power off the grid. In case of power outage, my solar panels would be useless. The numbers just didn’t wash out to be a real worth while investment.
I’d like to see a variation of the old Mopeds created…the ones where you actually pedaled to build up the charge it would use to run. If you could make them more powerful with no extra effort, it would be worth it to me to take one to and from work.
They are not inefficient. You’re just drinking the Koolaid again.
And yet our rep/con friends here just freaking love the guy.
Cause cancer sure,so can listening to fright wing rhetoric.
@Dutchess_III I’m just telling you what the guy that actually makes them says. I know…you have an opinion piece so that’s all you need. But here’s something to think about: When the person that makes a living off of these says they are grossly inefficient, you have to ask what his motivation is other than…well…being honest. It’s not a great marketing campaign.
That isn’t an opinion piece! It’s science from the BBC. Face it @seawulf575 . You’ll never figure the game out.
The argument about the inefficiencies and bugaboos of wind turbines is pointless tripe. The things are erupting world wide like mushrooms in a swamp. Talking them down is not only a waste of time—it is deplorably stupid and pitifully regressive. Resisting advancing technology is as futile as most efforts at looking back. Fossil fuel technology has the same sort of future as slavery and the good old days of wife beating and “healthy” cigarettes.
@Dutchess_III It’s a blog. Face it…it isn’t the BBC, it isn’t a scientific study…it’s a Climate Change nut’s blog. Go back and look for yourself. You gave the citation…maybe you should have actually read what you were citing. You’ll never figure the game out.
No, @Tropical_Willie it is a fact. Here’s the difference: Her citation says its page from one guy. It’s an easily verifiable thing. Not that I would expect you to understand facts.
It presented data that can be verified.
It’s still a blog. It is not the BBC as you claimed. It is opinion…just like what you claim on my stuff. Even if I use an opinion piece that has plenty of data that can be verified, you want to ignore it because it is an opinion piece. Live by your own standards.
Here Although you’ll probably try to insist THAT article isn’t from the BBC, because you can’t handle the truth!
And if you read this article you just cited, you will recognize it is strongly addressing efforts at making them more efficient. And not all these efforts are universal…in fact most aren’t. But it does show my view of making them more efficient is a worthwhile effort. Go back up 5 of my answers on this thread and you will see it
Answer this question 
