Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – Aussie Climate Enthusiast Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, member for Goldman Sachs, has walked back an apparent attempt to introduce a new Aussie Carbon Tax after his own MPs vigorously rebelled against the idea.
From JoNova;
9 mins: He is asked about an energy “emission intensity scheme”.
Josh rejects any “economy wide approach”. “”What this review has indicated is we will look at a sector-by-sector approach. The electricity sector is the one which produces the most emissions — around a third of Australia’s emissions come from that sector.”
OhOH:
Frydenberg: We know that a large number of bodies have recommended an emissions intensity scheme a baseline and credit scheme.
Any chance of that happening?
10 minutes Frydenberg “Wait and see… we want to hear from the experts on the lowest cost of abatement… thats what we owe the Australian households and businesses.”
Full programme: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/201612/20161205-am-fullprogram.mp3
The backlash didn’t take long to reach a crescendo;
Tony Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin claimed she had never seen such a reaction from backbenchers on an issue like she had yesterday.
“My phone has not stopped all day. People are really angry that they sense the party will re-litigate those issues which they had considered closed and dealt with,” she told Sky News last night.
Read more (paywalled): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cory-bernardi-slams-liberals-carbon-pricing-on-power-companies-idea/news-story/60cbcadb271acba5d978aed9237238e6
The Turnbull government later issued a categorical denial;
…
The Turnbull government will maintain its blanket ban on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme and has ruled out an increase to the renewable energy target ahead of its long-awaited review of its climate change policy next year.
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will today announce the government’s terms of reference for its review, which will look at how Australia can meet and expand on its target to reduce emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
…
Read more (paywalled): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-policy-review-to-focus-on-emissions-target/news-story/306781fd1248d6e27eebeef500a28943
Climate enthusiast Malcolm Turnbull ousted skeptic PM Tony Abbott back in 2015. Since then Turnbull has fumbled decision after decision, almost losing an election intended to consolidate Turnbull’s climate friendly mandate.
This apparent attempt to revisit the hated carbon tax, opposition to which delivered a landslide victory to Abbott, is simply the latest in a series of disastrous missteps climate enthusiast Malcolm Turnbull has perpetrated on the Australian People.
I suspect many in Australia’s government will be wondering how long they can continue to support a leader whose misjudgement almost cost them the last election, and whose unbridled enthusiasm for imposing unpopular green policies will likely cost them the next.
Update (EW): Fixed a typo
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s really laughable in the Aussie MSM;
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/pauline-hanson-says-the-barrier-reef-is-fine-welcome-to-our-new-climate-change-policy-20161208-gt6tpk.html
Time (well overdue) to relegate the SMH to the fake news list.
It has been there for years.
Canada, under both Liberals and Conservatives, has matched American carbon policies. Now it looks like Trudeau Jr. wants to go his own way. That means Canada will be out of sync with its biggest trading partner just when The Donald is going to tear up NAFTA. That will cost many Canadian jobs.
Canada just announced a date for phasing out coal power plants…
Trudeau, already headed the wrong way decided to double-down apparently. Typical Libtarded thing to do.
If Trump keeps his word, Trudeau will be toast at the next election. If Canada can’t continue being a cheap labour source for American corporations, it’s going to need a Prime Minister who’s interested in something more than taking selfies to show how important he is.
Good luck in the first 100 days
Join Turnbull but beware of buses.
What is the difference between old Turncoat and a shopping trolley? The shopping trolley has a mind of it’s own.
🙂
My take on Turnbull is although he was a dyed in the wool warmenista and in favour of carbon credit trading (the merchant banker attraction) he has to be aware nowadays that carbon trading is cute in theory but a disaster in practice and then there’s the obvious with the SA wind experiment. He’s happy to rule out a carbon tax and lambast SA Premier Weatherill for the dearest and unreliable power now yet like most mainstream leaders he won’t condemn climastrology. Meanwhile Labor attack him for not being fair dinkum about climate change, as does Premier Weatherill.
Weatherill is a mixed bag too now that he realises he’s in deep trouble with the foreboding blackouts and rocketting power prices and I think he’s been personally vacillating over nukes and wanting to shift direction. In that regard he’s promoted investigations into a nuclear waste dump to test the waters but no joy from within his own party ranks. Overall you get the impression these mainstream leaders are aware of the practicalities but have to play to a lot of interests out there in voter land.
Whatever their initial positions and quandaries now, there’s only one certainty for all these political jugglers and like Walter Russell Mead noted, you can be a noisy emotional alarm clock about global warming/climate change/extreme weather/yada yada but in the final analysis it’s what works among your policy prescriptions. So thin air trading is a crock, solar doesn’t work at night and after dabbling around the fringe with geothermal and wave power dead ends, that just leaves wind power and SA has gone for broke on that but here’s the rub- Try December 1st for SA only by only leaving SA and subtotal checked and also check MW (top right and what do you see? http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2016/december/1
Then repeat for December 6th with percentage of installed capacity
Yes SA wind farms go negative and draw power from the grid one early morning peak and then for a whole day only seem to be producing around 5% of capacity. The more thermal these windmills drive under, the closer the day of reckoning for unreliables fan club and they’re beginning to realise it. Trump’s on a winner in that regard if he sticks to his guns and walks the talk.
“Climate Enthusiast”, I like that. Such a polite way of sticking it to them.
Carbon doesn’t pay taxes. YOU pay taxes.
Marginally off-topic, but I had to chuckle at Al Gore’s press interview, when he attempted to put a positive spin on the meeting he’d just had with Donald Trump, who had clearly told him where to stick his Inconvenient Truth….
While we’re off-topic how is the Donald handling all the swooners by the way?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/12/05/trumps-election-stole-my-desire-to-look-for-a-partner/?utm_term=.d0580166f0fc
He’s playing with the media and ignoring the hysterics.
Trump just announced a possible new policy in a speech he gave in Louisiana this morning. He apparently has been looking at the entire U.S. budget and how it is implemented, and he’s not happy.
Trump said he is thinking about requiring a lifetime ban on any government official who is in charge of government procurement, from working for any company with which he does business as a government employee. Trump says there is too much temptation to give companies sweetheart deals in exchange for a lucrative civilian job after leaving office. He wants to put a stop to that temptation.
Trump said again that he *likes* looking at complicated financial statements. He not only likes them, he understands what he is seeing when he looks at them.
It just keeps getting better! 🙂
Australia and Italy are the two places on the planet that I cannot understand when given written news and updates of politics and policy moves. Well, maybe Syria and Iraq could be added to the list.
Australia exported in 2015 152 million tons of metallurgical coal and 180 million tons of thermal coal across the planet yet enforces useless wind turbines on his own country for nebulous Co2 mitigation. I remain convinced that wind and solar farms only exist to enforce and impose the belief that Co2 needs to be mitigated to justify green government policy. As EPA Chief Gina Mccarthy said about Obama’s clean energy act, yes it will only reduce temperature by 1 one hundredth of a degree but that is not the point its the symbolism that matters. 400 foot high turbines are symbolic but not the symbolism Turnbull and his chums expected they are symbolic of complete and utter stupidity. $2,687 spent world wide on turbines since 2004 and in 2015 they generated just 2.3% of global electricity demand. As only 4% of Co2 is emitted by electricity generation there is no chance even if it was remotely possible that turbines could mitigate enough Co2 to every make a difference. Even if the physics is beyond the intellect of Turnbull surely arithmetic is not?
Didn’t Griff just finish telling us how eagerly the rest of the word was to adopt energy taxes and more renewable energy?
It is eager to introduce renewable energy, certainly…
Especially Australia.
for example:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/33438176/energyaustralia-puts-1-5bn-in-renewables/#page1
Interesting little tid bit.
You would think that NSW would have learned a lesson from the two recent SA snafus regarding the absolute “Destined to Failure” problem of creating a system that is too reliant on wind/solar (renewable) power and the propensity for grid instability it creates.
I have driven past that wind farm many times…and every time I have driven past it *ALL* turbines were still. AU$1.5bil…someone is making a killing…not so much power tho.
But remember skeptical folks the blackouts had nothing whatsoever to do with the windmills-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/new-rules-to-reduce-blackout-risk-in-sa-as-jay-weatherill-and-malcolm-turnbull-brawl-over-energy-security/news-story/6bf5edaf8944068f2b2e3d6d3d80b078
The sublime irony being we live in the Saudi Arabia of uranium but like respectable folk everywhere, although we might smoke a wee bit, we never inhale.
no they didn’t.
and what’s more if SA had had the grid storage now being planned it wouldn’t have had a blackout at all.
See:
http://www.energy-storage.news/news/roundup-sunverges-ac-coupled-storage-south-australias-blackouts-germanys-bl
If we only had something not yet invented the world could be different. Is that what you’re babbling about Griff?
hysterical……Griff just said grid storage has nothing to do with windmills
Griff what part of this little gem don’t you get from the Chief Scientist who by the way happens to be a warmenista true believer-
“The COAG meeting discussed an interim report from Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel on energy security, which was commissioned after the September 29 blackout.
Dr Finkel told The Advertiser that measures had been put in place to safeguard SA’s power supply, including new procedures adopted by the Australian Energy Market Operator. “Within the last week, AEMO has put forth a requirement that there has to be a minimum of two synchronous generators operating at all times within SA,” Dr Finkel said. “That provides voltage support and system strength.”
The synchronous generators are gas-fired turbines, which are more reliable than solar or wind power and stabilise the network.”
Presumably that’s Torrens Island and Pelican Point gas power plants and to make that happen they have to guarantee whatever price the owners need to earn a quid in the face of subsidised wind capital with low marginal costs when and if the wind blows. Or to put it another way sorry wind, you only get to sell after gas fired has had its fill. Talk about the biggest triple backward somersault with full pike the unreliables fans have to perform now and we told you so dumbos.
If, if…lol…if the sun does not consume all it’s fuel and not swell to a red giant the earth will last for ever! If…
For my Antipodean friends: Hand guns were banned in the UK as a knee-jerk reaction in 1998. Gun crime actually rose. The formerly legally held & registereed hand gun-owners who overwhelmingly trustworthy & honest were disspossessed of their guns. Gun crimes was attributed to large-scale immigration from ex-Eastern bloc nations of criminal gangs useing smuggled in weapons, fuelling drug-gang turf wars!
“Gun crimes was attributed to large-scale immigration from ex-Eastern bloc nations of criminal gangs useing smuggled in weapons, fuelling drug-gang turf wars!”
Wouldn’t that have happened even with no gun ban?
The number of multiple shootings is I note very low in the UK.
People in the US must remember that the UK has no constitution as such, so all legislation is on an equal footing, so violation of the purported constitution in the UK is quite legal. That as a given, England has had a very low crime rate relative to the US before any gun legislation was passed, starting about 1900 (much later than in the US).
Much of the gun legislation in the UK was aimed at the Irish in particular and leftists in general, much as similar laws in the US were aimed at blacks (and Italians, and Mexicans, and the “those people” in general). Mostly, the record is that the laws had no positive effect in either country, except to keep “those people” in their place, according to the standards of the self-styled elite.
This is rather off-topic, but another example of dubious research.
Much of the gun legislation was aimed at…the people that commit the most gun crime
….if you think it’s aimed at a race or culture……then tell them to stop it
There are lots and lots of perfectly legal guns in private hands in the UK, Griffie.
Fact is, it’s country-dwelling redneck types like me and my friends who own most of ’em.
“Wouldn’t that have happened even with no gun ban?”
So you admit that gun bans don’t prevent criminals from getting guns, then?
Simple fact is that British armed crime rates were far lower back in the days when anyone could walk into a store and buy a gun no questions asked, even if they’d just walked out of the jail across the street. Of course, back then, you weren’t likely to walk out of jail if you were still a threat to the public.
“Much of the gun legislation was aimed at…the people that commit the most gun crime”
No, the British government lied. They said the first ‘gun control’ legislation of the 20s was intended to reduce gun crime, which barely existed at the time. The actual cabinet papers released decades later showed they were doing it because they were scared of Coummunists getting guns and starting a revolution. Everything since has been about further disarming the British people.
But, hey, lying is what governments do.
Sector by sector analysis… That’s the ticket. If you only carbon tax the electricity sector, surely it won’t affect anyone else?
There’s science and then there is common sense. What left politicians have attempted with climate defies the simplest of common sense. People are getting it and they do not like being manipulated to feel stupid. Brexit, Trump, Australia, the left is reaping what they have sown.
It bears pointing out that JoNova is another of the myriad bloggers who thought ‘the basic science is sound’ and that you can calculate the temperature of one phase matter: gas
using radiation metrics for another phase of gas, solids.
I am a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change and I have never bought into this since hearing Al Gore lecturing us on this topic while he was Vice President. For me it seems like more and more scientists are supporting this hoax and the public as well and this has me very worried. For now President elect Trump doesn’t support this and if possible please continue to help him not to come under pressure by the left to support this nonsense. One positive is his choice for EPA director and that is a positive start. Please continue to get out the word and educate the “robots” that have been indoctrinated into believing this lied
I want to remind folks, that JoNova is another one of the blog sites where it’s taught ‘the basic science is sound’ of calculating the temperature of compressible fluids, using the law of thermodynamics for incompressible fluid the way Green House Gas believers do.
Seems Climate Change dogma is not very popular with populists
Brexit ,Trump , the referendum in Italy, Gert Wilders,Marine Le Penn.tut tut.
Tony Abbott the Aussie Donald Trump.
Malcolm Turnbull is still spellbound by the CSIRO and BOM. He is captivated by their gaze and I hope that Mr Trump moves swiftly to expose the rorts being perpetrated by some alarmists (hello Gav) so that the rest of the world sees just what is going on under their noses. We almost got there here with the “homogenisation” of Amberley and Rutherglen but these unelected bodies are very powerful and not to be underestimated.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/05/corrupting-australias-temperature-record/
This Bud’s for you, Griffie…
Radical Solutions for Radicals Who Demand Answers
(Ben Franklin would have loved this!)
The Answer: The real need for gun control…Democrats should be Constitutionally Banned from owning guns.
Banned from even thinking about owning guns (causing much less stress & anxiety for them). An optimal solution…
This will help straighten out voter registrations for middle-Americans along the lines that the Founding Fathers intended, as well as counterbalance (most) registrations from
“newly assimilated” immigrants who overwhelmingly register as Democrats. It seems like a relatively easy solution for most of the heinous political assassinations and mass-murders that have occurred in American history from early days in our republic to the present state of affairs – reducing “murder by gun” to tolerable levels.
A rationalization (so beloved by progressives and academics) that finally turns back to dealing with reality (both historical and modern).
This rational proposal is based upon the following empirical data (formerly known as the truth, but now subject to post-modern interpretations based upon “social justice”).
Viz:
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, (Republican) President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the
United States – who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy,
President of the United States .
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President
of the United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of
the United States .
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in
a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people
in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a
GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people
in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, TX .
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5
coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at
a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a
failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people
at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32
people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat in Arizona named Jared Lee Loughner, shot
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater
and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7
people in Minneapolis .
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people (mostly children)
in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
(There have been no reliable reports regarding the political registrations for our US-based Muslim terrorists, but who wants to bet that this has been suppressed?)
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. It deserves a new way of looking at causes and effects,
and it’s not too difficult to figure out a good solution.
Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or conservative-leaning perpetrator was involved in any of these heinous shootings and murders.
It should be pretty obvious at this point:
Guns don’t kill people, Democrats do!
Putting Identity Politics where it really belongs.
Fortunately, Democrats are registered. We know where they live. By the way FWIW, I am an Elector here in Texas. I have been getting up to 14,000 (yes, 14K, usually around 3K) emails a day asking me to betray my family, my party, and my country by voting for Mrs. Bubba Clinton (wife of the first trailer trash president.)
Hopefully the guy you are casting your vote for will not have the opportunity to grab your wife/girlfriend/daughter’s genitals
I wonder how much it costs the Demcrats to gin up 14,000 emails a day. And that’s just for one elector.
They had an elector from Texas on tv last night on the Tucker Carlson show and this guy said he was not going to vote for Trump even though the people he represents voted for Trump.
The sad, scary thing is, he thinks he is doing the right thing by opposing Trump. He thinks he is right and all the people he represents are wrong.
I doubt he will ever be an elector again. And his behavior should result in states passing laws requiring the elector to vote the will of the people he represents. Some states already require this. All states should.
He said there are women who would let celebrities grab them like that, Steve, and I’m curious if you think he was wrong?
JohnKnight, as far as I know, sexual assault is against the law, isn’t it?
Steve Heins, as it happens some wives/girlfriends/daughters enjoy having their genitals grabbed by billionaires. Scott Adams explains the phenomenon here – http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151933602961/lie-detection-and-scandals
Steve,
They’ve been called different things at different times . . gold diggers, sugar babies, groupies, ho’s, etc., and Mr. Trump speaking privately about encountering some is far from shocking to me. In fact, he sounded a bit critical/disproving of them, to me.
OK Beliaik, I don’t know if you have a wife/girlfriend/daughter, but if you do, it seems that you’re OK with a billionaire grabbing her genitals. So tell me, where do you draw the line? If it’s OK for a billionaire, is it OK for a millionaire? Is it OK for a guy with a hundred grand? How about the guy with a $100 bill? Secondly, would you get excited watching it?
Steve, if you’re not prepared to learn why do you come to WUWT? You clearly haven’t read the link to Scott Adams that explains why billionaires are attractive enough to get away with grabbing pussies and you aren’t.
And thanks for the insight into the leftist mind, Steve, where controlling others is paramount. It doesn’t matter whether you’re OK with wives/girlfriends/daughters’ pussies being grabbed; that’s their business and it’s nothing to do with you. That you speculate on watching is just disturbing.
Since you’ve shown you won’t follow links to new and relevant information here’s a brief intro to Adams’ points. Some women, deliberately or inadvertently, give signs of sexual availability when dealing with rich and powerful men. That none complained until Trump was near to election is all about political opportunism and nothing at all to do with being ‘assaulted’.
Your side lost, Steve, get over it.
Beliaik, you didn’t answer the question: “Where do you draw the line?” Your diversion to “learning” or “your side lost” doesn’t answer the question I posed. This has nothing to do with “left” versus “right” it has to do with the definition of sexual assault. Please try to answer the question I asked.
Again, Steve, it’s not your line to draw. Had those ladies felt ‘assaulted’ they would have rushed straight to the police. They didn’t because they weren’t assaulted. They liked it, Steve.
It sticks in your craw that a billionaire might get lucky more than you, Steve, but that’s reality for you. You’re looking at this through your own particular lens; a shirtless, gap-toothed grub can’t grab pussies because women don’t like it. Rich, handsome billionaires can because they’re far more attractive than you.
It is truly fascinating the way leftists latch on to a non-event while Hillary Rotten Clinton had genuine questions to answer. How does that fit with the weird world of leftists, Steve? How could you vote to continue a family crime syndicate in the White House?
PS Beliaik, it’s very obvious from your acceptance of “rich and powerful men” GETTING AWAY with sexual assault demonstrates that you lack much experience with women. Most women don’t like getting sexually assaulted under any circumstances.
Steve. Focus. It’s not “sexual assault” if they like it. You’re upset that they like it, but it’s not about your feelings. In fact, very little that happens in the real world is about your feelings. Your feelings don’t matter. Get over it.
Now, how about telling us how you can support a representative of the Clinton Crime Family for POTUS? Did you seriously think putting a crime syndicate in charge of the US would be good for wives/girlfriends/daughters?
Beliaik says: “It’s not “sexual assault” if they like it. “….no, it still is sexual assault. You are woefully ignorant of the law, and of reality. If a 13 year old girl “likes” what the 19 year old guy is doing to her, it is still statutory rape, even if the 19 year old is a billionaire.
Trump didn’t molest teenage girls, Steve, and it’s disturbing that such a thing leaps straight to your mind. And by your definition all physical intimacy is sexual assault, regardless of implicit or explicit consent. Weird.
What a strange and wonderful place it must be in your world, Steve, where facts don’t intersect with perceived reality. Is this is why warmunists are so afraid of temperature increases, because snowflakes melt so easily?
And c’mon, Steve, don’t be shy; tell us why H Rotten Clinton was a better choice for POTUS given her known breaches of national security with her private email server? What’s that? You don’t want to talk about it?
Steve, it is obvious from your postings on this subject you never heard, or are deliberately ignoring, the whole “Access Hollywood” recording of Trump and B. Bush. Trump is rudely amazed at the conduct of women coming on to him after he became a TV producer. Only the Democratic party spin described it as assault, which is why the tape was only rarely played in full.
“it is still statutory rape, even if the 19 year old is a billionaire.”
Please reproduce the documentary evidence, court transcripts, police statements or reliable newspaper reports that categorically state that Trump physically molested anyone at all, either with or without the permission of the alleged victims.
If you are unable to do so, I suggest you withdraw your allegations, you are steering very close indeed to posting actionable statements.
Beliaik, you said it’s not sexual assault if they like it. I gave you a concrete example where you are dead wrong. Yes it is “disturbing” but it does happen in the REAL world which you are obviously disconnected from. Then you make another big mistake, you say, “by your definition all physical intimacy is sexual assault” NOPE….I did not say that…..you said it.
…
Want another example?…….If a lady is falling down drunk, is she capable of consenting? I’ll bet in your world you think “she likes it.”
..
Stop trying to change the subject, this is about “sexual assault” not about Clinton, or warmists.
…
You need to get out into the real world, and listen to what REAL women have to say about this because your attitude betrays an immaturity in relating to them.
Oh dear, Steve, your idea of “concrete” is more like shifting sand. Let’s hope you’re not a builder. But then your side aren’t ‘builders’ are they, Steve? No, they’re wreckers, not builders.
Here’s the link again – http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151933602961/lie-detection-and-scandals – take the opportunity to learn, Steve, don’t let new and different ideas frighten you.
And you diverted this thread from Aussie politics to Demo-rat media beat-ups, so let’s talk about what else was in the media that deserved the same level coverage. What about the server, Steve, exactly why is that so insignificant compared to your sexual fantasies?
Tom Halla, The wording betrays the “guilt”…… “GETTING AWAY” means avoiding repercussions. His own words give it away.
Steve, it is still special pleading. If one goes by the whole tape, Trump is describing the behavior of women seeking favor with him as a TV producer. While trading sex for favors is not politically correct, it is not “assault”.
Tom Halla, The exact quote is: ” I could grab her pu$$_y and get away with it, because I’m a star.” Face it Tom the “get away with it” is an admission that he did something WRONG (hence avoiding repercussions.) Context doesn’t change the implication of getting away with something.
Yes, Trump is an old fart who feels guilty about offers to trade sex for favors, not an admission he ever took the women up on their offers, or admission to what I would consider “sexual assault” . Prostitution, perhaps, If he did take them up on their offers, but not assault.
Beliaik asks: “Steve, exactly why is that so insignificant compared to your sexual fantasies?”
…
This is not the proper forum to placate your need to investigate someone’s fantasies.
Steve, you need to understand the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ before you can begin to understand why you feel so bad about Trump winning.
The effect of cognitive dissonance is that you invent a fantasy to explain away reality that doesn’t fit your perceptions. That’s what you’re doing here with your pussy-grabbing fixation.
Your cognitive dissonance stems from the fact that your beloved Demo-rats compelled you to vote for a criminal candidate even though you would prefer not to vote for a known criminal.
Blame your party, Steve, because it is their fault that your feelings have been hurt so badly.
Tom Halla, “offers to trade sex for favors” is called “solicitation. ” Grabbing genitals is NOT solicitation. Get it?
Beliaik, I don’t have a fixation, I have a concern for women that might be assaulted by the president-elect. He seems to think that because he’s a “star” (or the president) that he can get away with grabbing their genitals.
Steve, the next term you need to understand is ‘confirmation bias’, which is where you sit in a circle and echo each other’s views. You can do this simply by nodding in agreement with TV news.
In an age when everyone has a videocamera-phone in their hand or pocket, if the President-elect really randomly grabbed pussies there’d be ample video evidence of it. But there’s not. The fact that there’s not says you’ve fallen victim to confirmation bias.
And Steve, if your biggest worry really is that some lucky woman might joyously receive some flattering attention from the most powerful figure of our times then you really don’t have that much to worry about, do you?
catweazle666, I have made no “allegations” as you have accused me of. I was providing an EXAMPLE to Beliaik showing his/her claims that if “they like it” does not mean it’s not assault.
Steve Heins December 11, 2016 at 2:22 pm
“Tom Halla, The exact quote is: ” I could grab her pu$$_y and get away with it,”
It seems you are unaware of the difference between COULD and DID.
That quote is not an admission of anything.
I suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and inform yourself before you embarrass yourself any further, you are in a hole, so stop digging.
Beliaik I feel sorry for you, because if you think that “flattering attention” is having your genitals grabbed, you must secretly desire having yours grabbed. Having them grabbed is not “joyous.” Most women would think it very unlucky. But since you seem deprived, I hope you get yours grabbed someday.
Steve, thanks heaps, I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time!
It’s hard to imagine oneself as a woman young and attractive enough to draw the eye of the world’s most famous and powerful alpha male, but, going with your suggestion for a moment, its not hard to imagine a fertile young lady, flushed with excitement and hormones, responding eagerly to such a touch.
In reality, Steve, pussies get grabbed every day and in the overwhelming majority of cases they like it. Were that not the case then the courts would be choked and few children would be born.
No, it sounds like in your world pussies don’t like being grabbed, Steve, which means pussies don’t like being grabbed by you specifically. Pussies don’t like you, Steve, but they do like Trump. By gee that must sting.
catweazle666 …..You left out the entire quote, by cutting of “because I’m a star.”
…
Next time include the ENTIRE quote.
“catweazle666 …..You left out the entire quote, by cutting of “because I’m a star.”
…
Next time include the ENTIRE quote.”
OK Steve, just for you I’ll repost with the entire quote.
Tom Halla, The exact quote is: ” I could grab her pu$$_y and get away with it, because I’m a star.” Face it Tom the “get away with it” is an admission that he did something WRONG (hence avoiding repercussions.) Context doesn’t change the implication of getting away with something.”
It seems you are unaware of the difference between COULD and DID.
That quote is not an admission of anything. It is a statement that he COULD have carried out some action, not a statement that he DID
It is certainly NOT an admission of carrying out any action whatsoever.
I suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and inform yourself before you embarrass yourself any further, you are in a hole, so stop digging.
Tell you what, I’ll save you the trouble:
could
kəd,kʊd/
verb
past of can1.
used to indicate possibility.
“they could be right”
did (dĭd)
v.
Past tense of do.
do [doo; unstressed doo, duh]
to perform (an act, duty, role, etc.)
Now can you see the difference between COULD and DID?
Beliaik says: “get grabbed every day and in the overwhelming majority of cases they like it. ”
…
That’s hilarious. You should try it on your mother and see if she likes it.
I tried it on yo’ mama, Steve, and she loved it!
Beliaik says: “I tried it on yo’ mama, Steve, and she loved it!”
…
That makes you a necrophiliac. Get professional help.
It was a while ago now, Steve, when she was young and lovely. Come to think of it, it was about nine months before your arrival wrecked her body…
I would wager everyone of those Democrats from 1975 on (who could) voted for Hillary (probably those from the 1800’s as well)
Terry Burch, please don’t forget that Timothy McVeigh was a registered Republican. (See, I can cherry pick facts too)
Uh, McVeigh didn’t use a gun.
Boy, Democrats are dumb.
MarkG, you are correct, when it comes to mass murder, Republicans know how to do it much better than Democrats.
Steve Hines –
Glad you showed up and gave the coloring room a breath of fresh air by leaving for a while.
Re your excellent comment @ur momisugly 2:23 PM Dec 9th.
So long as he doesn’t try to grab the guns from me or mine, there remain a variety of reasonable and non-violent ways to deal with such. Generally starting with on-the-spot negotiations with clearly stated objectives clearly focused goals, leading to a “good deal for all”. The American Way.
So your proposal doesn’t bother me at all. How will you respond when he grabs yours?
Terry Burch, I have not made any “proposals” so changing the subject make YOU look foolish. But if he tries to grab my genitals, he might lose use of his hand. I do hope that if he does try to grab them, someone records it on their cell phone.
Why does it seem like the phrase “unpopular Green” is redundant?
The people of Washington State just voted against a carbon tax , Australia did a full scale walk back , the USA will never even put it to a vote ,the Chinese won’t do anything but build coal plants till at least 2030.
Canada on the other hand has Prime Minister Photo Op still pushing a national carbon tax ” framework minus – two Provinces .that have the presents of mind to know BS when they see it . The Ontario Greenie Premier has completely screwed the once power full provincial economy with extortion electric rates and fuel poverty to accomplish absolutely nothing . Canada has no problem throwing it’s people and economy
under the bus as long as the Prime Minister gets to fluff up her feathers .
It’s going to be a tragic spectacle watching this troupe of ignorant climate dinosaurs having to walk back away from their ideologies as the Arctic goes critical next summer. That and a series of mega-gaffes and diplomatic blunders and it will be sayonara in disgrace.
“as the Arctic goes critical next summer.”
What do you expect to happen?
Biblical standard catastrophes, perhaps? Showers of frogs?
As far as I can see, less ice can only be an improvement, better for shipping and easier access to drill the huge oil and gas reservoirs.
What’s not to like?