.jpg){kind=link}
h/t Breitbart – President Trump blocked Nancy Pelosi and her entourage from using an Airforce jet for a seven day tour of Europe, Egypt and Afghanistan – though he suggested they could book commercial flights if they want.
President Trump apparently caught Democrats by surprise – their Air Force bus was photographed circling Capitol Hill after President Trump’s order.
Bus for lawmakers on Pelosi’s codel is circling Capitol Hill, awaiting some definitive answers. pic.twitter.com/bpSpPeCZOk
— Leo Shane III (@LeoShane) January 17, 2019
Members including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff getting off the bus in front of the Capitol. pic.twitter.com/G6JMtVCg8h
— Jason Donner (@jason_donner) January 17, 2019
I am sure you will all join me in commending President Trump for helping Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats avoid the hideous carbon cost they would have incurred, had they used an airforce jet for their world tour.
House Democrats no doubt deep down appreciate President Trump’s reminder of their climate responsibilities; Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrat’s believe that climate change is an existential crisis.
So, you don’t think science and politics are intertwined? I’d hazard to guess that the vast majority of climate scientists are government employees and subject to the whims of politics.
I’m working in a government organization that is largely environmental sciences focused and about half climate change or atmospheric chemistry. It’s virtually 100% political. I guess it could be 99%. The leftists there wear their politics. The skeptics like myself generally don’t rock the boat.
How do you know? I’ve worked in close to a dozen federal and state labs and a few more internationally. Some might as well have been extensions of the Democratic party, their bulletin boards are so biased.
I will admit that I am jaded because of the things I have seen.
Fascinating, argument via anecdote is only wrong when someone else does it.
“2100 of them. Hence “small sample size.”
Tell that to the people who publish “science” about 97% consensus!
LOL.
No, better not…you will get kicked out of the warmista brotherhood.
Cast out…the worst fear of a virtue signaling lefty.
Do you have a sample size of 2,100 articles at WUWT that are political?
Get out of here you nugget. climatastrology is politics in a lab coat, same all the other none science practising sciences of post modernism.
Worthless leftist drivel out of all of them 63 sexes etc. not one of them does experimentation or real lab work
Pure Marxist filth.
A classic Dirkse rebuttal, solid, irrefutable and backed by pages of documented facts.
PS: Another standard Dirkse tactic when losing, bring up ever more unrelated comments.
I know that you are desperate to yet again change the subject, but do you have to act so pathetic at the same time?
I think David just said …..real scientists are flaming liberals
They might think they are, just as they think they think they are tolerant.
In reality, they are at least intolerant.
When it takes a humorous political jab towards a hypocritical politician to get your panties in a wad, it shows you’re about the politics and not about science and climate.
Of course, climate “science” is often more about politics than science, unfortunately. How is this news to you?
somehow you think all of their articles about Trump….are not about politics
…boy do they ever have you snowed
go to either one….put Trump in the search…and have fun with it
They do have editorials.
But editorials aren’t articles, therefore Dirkse gets to weasel off the hook that he created.
Marked as “research” (open access): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0170-0
I clicked on that provided link of yours, David.
The one of the top stories being promoted was “How to win public support for a global carbon tax”.
Bang. Right there on the home page. I didn’t open the article so not sure if it actually jabs or not, but not completely sure Nature is a good example for the argument you are trying to support.
Also I am a tad worried about you. I have been skimming through this thread and took a bit of note to the time stamps on all your replies. They do seem ever so slightly close together.
Are you sure you are not sitting on your computer trapped in a cycle of type/post/refresh? For a topic you seem a tad annoyed about you do seem to be spending a lot of your own time engaged. Make sure you take a few breaks, okay? Walk around a bit. Maybe duck outside for a bit and get some fresh air. I made the mistake during the Christmas break of sitting down a bit too long and ended with fluid build up in my feet. Mildly painful.
Look after your health, David. The Science! will still be here when you get back 😀
So as long as a publication has specific sections for political articles and editorials, it’s not really publishing political articles and editorials? The stupid, it burns.
I don’t know about “political jabs,” but the first thing that caught my eye on the page you linked to was “How to win public support for a global carbon tax”. That’s not science – that’s political. And according to the web page, it’s not science, it’s “Comment”.
Ahem. Caps for emphasis. https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/other-subs
“…Correspondence
These items are ‘letters to the Editor’: short comments on topical issues of public and POLITICAL INTEREST…”
So you’ve now establised Nature as a political publication and not a scientific one. Must be why real scientists don’t submit there or read any of the articles, eh?
Here you go Dirke we commented on this “ESSAY” in Nature mag only a few posts ago .. Charles called it a paper which I objected too as it is an essay not a paper and the only reference is to the the Psychology nutcase Lewandowsky and his mate Cook
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/15/research-reveals-strategies-for-combating-science-misinformation/
This is so great! After the most recent smear of Lindsey Graham, I woulda thought dems could go no lower. But you take away their junket??!! I mean, these folks routinely accuse Trump of doing evil, but at least it was done to someone else! Now you take away their all-expense paid (don’t even need to use campaign $) no f’ing airport crap trip? It’s on. Keep an umbrella near, Nancy is gonna be feces-flinging mad over this.
But Graham has come out (pun intended) and said that Trump shouldn’t have done it. “One adolescent stunt doesn’t justify another.”
How refreshingly unRepublican it is of Trump to fight back. Pelosi blocks SOTU show, and Trump says, “I can play these games too.” Instead of doing like a thousand other Republicans and just taking it.
Thanks again, President Trump!
No the real scientists, at this site, have debated the so-called climate scientists and the latter have been thoroughly beaten both at the science and the general logic of their position.
The planet is actually cool. A slightly warmer planet would be beneficial to most life.
…then, obviously they are not real scientists
sounds like juvenile internet hacks
“Trumpism: a disfigured Americanism”
Marked as “research.”
@David Dirkse, you are honestly one of the most pathetic trolls I have ever run across. I don’t even have to scroll ONCE through search results to deal with your claims.
[Please do not insult honest, hard-working trolls and trollops on this site by comparing them to CAGW alarmists. It is not polite, and hurts their feelings. After all, “somebody” has to make sure all the goats pay to cross the bridge. .mod]
@Charles – my most abject apologies. I’ll try to be a better person in the future.
Not so much because I’m a nice person – but I came THAT close to losing a keyboard there…
David Dirkse: How many real scientists do you speak for? I’m sure you’re not one, ’cause you certainly waste your time here. One comment at a time.
Real scientits , they are the folk who worship at the alter of ‘The’ science and talk in absolute truths, often citing Proof and wielding credentials in favor of evidence.
I can see why they’d not come here too often, having one’s authority challenged would upset them.
>Karlos51
>scientists don’t talk of “Proof.”
Good grief. Mathematical proofs are not alcoholic drinks. A proof of concept is not a beer.
PhD scientist here. I visit quite often to blow off steam and for the entertainment value. Sometimes I learn something, too.
It beats getting fired if I challenged the wrong belief at work.
David, what you fail to realize is that YOU are the entertainment value.
Thank you for your time, your efforts.
Once again Dirkse reveals that he has no interest in honest debate.
There’s one article that David finds to be overly political, and from that he concludes that all articles here are identical to the one that got his panties in such a knot.
Neither logical, nor honest, but all liberal.
I first ran across Mr. Dirkse on this post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/04/almost-earth-like-were-certain/; where he claimed to be a “logician.” A logician who didn’t have a clue about implication. You’re right about his lack of logic.
Jim
David,
are you aware that Moderators never stop working?
Ponder over that!
Dirke are you aware of your reputation 🙂
Now look at the site traffic rating .. still laughing?
Geez. This is starting to get serious.
A politician tries to deny …er… delay the State of the Union Address to silence him because of the shutdown.
A non-politician in a political office delays her taxpayer-funded “vacation” because of the shutdown.
She’s playing hardball with a home run hitter.
(Popcorn futures are up.)
Fund the Wall.
(5+ billion is not a waste compared to these. )
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/50-examples-government-waste
Yes and yes.
In the private sector, furloughs are intended to save money in lieu of laying people off permanently. Typically, private workers are not compensated for being off. Sometimes they are but not often.
What good is done in the case of these government “shut downs?” The workers get paid even though they were off, taxpayers suffer from longer waits, lack of services. The government probably ends up spending more money in the long run. For example, I know that some lab animals suffer and die from not being cared for. Some government scientists are conscientious and sneak in and do what is necessary, but it is silly that they have to take risks to do so.
Personal Finance 101:
1. Live within your means
2. Maintain enough liquid assets for 6 months of unemployment
etc.
Too many federal workers chose poorly.
I saw a headline on Drudge a few months back that claimed that 78% of families live paycheck to paycheck.
It’s scary that financial responsibility is such a foreign concept these days.
I can’t work up any sympathy for unionized government workers missing a pay check or two.
The government is on strike. The shoe is on the other foot…
Not so much union.
US Coast Guard is going without pay. Border patrol and TSA agents without pay. National Park Rangers… no pay. Not good.
But the best part is the EPA is mostly on furlough… along with NOAA and NASA climate modelling groups.
Heck, if the EPA never came back to work… no one would notice.
Sure they’d notice; it’s the sudden reduction in that radiating pain that seems to center around the buttocks…
“…along with NOAA and NASA climate modelling groups.”
Children won’t know what fraudulent data is anymore.
The Dimocrats should remember that Trump holds more cards than they do, and he has “trump” cards, like the one he just played on Pelosi’s little vacay.
Trump has far more ways to hurt them than they do to hurt him… that should have been obvious to them, but they are blinded by their raging Dreangement Syndrome panic attacks.
The only thing the Dems have going for them is a compliant, main stream media.
And knowing Trump has more ways to hurt them, the Dims should remember former AG Eric Holder’s words..
“When they go low, we kick them.”
Well, Ms. Nancy went low with her SOTU cancellation letter, and Trump just kicked her.
The Dims should now sit back and ponder the realization that they are holding a weak hand.
It is comments like yours that remind of the Halo Effect, by trying to claim that one blog post represents all blog posts on this site.
God doesn’t forbid it and neither do the moderators.
obviously!….LOL
Let me clean that up….OCD’ed chatter box got in they way
“God doesn’t forbid it and neither do the moderators.”
obviously!….LOL
No David.
A moderator is human being just like you … with an opinion and set of values. Your reasoned opinion is not worth more than his reasoned opinion.
What a moderator must not do, unlike some unethical site moderators do on alarmism sites do, is edit, selectively delete portions, or in any way use “moderator site edit privileges” to change or delete a comment. That is unethical.
That you do not seem to grasp that distinction tells me you are a young person with little life experience. When you grow up out of your Peter Pan years, then you too will be a skeptic of BS climate change claims.
Joel O’Bryan
Ah, here is where I intended to post this comment. I had the same point to make as Joel:
Yesterday I saw a comment quibbling that CTM shouldn’t be commenting. I intended to reply that there was no problem with a moderator expressing an opinion as long as having an opinion counter to the moderator didn’t get your comment deleted. Before I could post, the quibbling comment disappeared.
Perhaps the quibbling comment was removed for good cause, but now I cannot confirm that. I much prefer the method of clipping offensive comments, with an explanation, over simply disappearing comments.
SR
Once again, David decrees that he and he alone is the arbitrator of what is right and wrong.
I am a moderator who comments here, but unlike YOU, I don’t go whining openly and over and over about how this blog is run.
Meanwhile at the top of the page click on the ABOUT button to read the following:
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
Since the topic here was about reducing CO2 emissions on people by politicians who wants to reduce yours by force, it is an appropriate observation to make.
Since you have currently 190 comments approved, despite your history of complaining about the blog and how it is operated.
Snicker…….
“…Why are moderators permitted to comment here? Unethical to say the least…”
Go tell RealClimate.
You have to remember, to a leftist, something is only wrong when someone else does it.
Hey David,
You spelled “unscientific” wrong:
“God forbid should a someone commenting here profess the mainstream unscientific viewpoint.”
There, fixed it for you.
You are welcome!
Pray do tell us, if you please…what exactly is a “real scientist”?
It seems your definition is someone who agrees with the climate mafia regarding global warming panic mongering.
I would bet there are hundreds of people here who have forgotten more “real science” than you will ever learn.
So a “real scientist” is someone who does not publish here?
You mention several people who comment here regularly, which is at odds with your assertions that anyone who is a real scientist looks at the site offerings, and departs without saying anything.
You did not mention that there are many professionals here, active and retired, in numerous areas of science and engineering.
Admit it…you are just enjoying badmouthing people who do not toe the alarmist line.
The reason people that you consider “real scientists”, by which it can be easily inferred that what you mean is alarmists within the climate mafia orthodoxy, is very simple, and has nothing to do with them being unwelcome (they are not, which is more than any alarmist site can say), but with the fact that they cannot control the narrative here, and would be challenged directly, and in ways they could not refute in any factual way.
The people you speak of do science by assertion, and ignore the scientific method, substituting what they call “peer review” for established principles of the discipline that has brought us from the dark ages to an industrial society in a short span of time.
They alter data to fit their pronouncements, do research which invariably has a predetermined outcome, ignore when their predictions prove utterly false, move the goal posts constantly, and in general just keep being wrong while suffering the worst collective case of selective attention, confirmation bias, and ignorance of the history of science, human history, and earth history, that has ever been observed in the world of professional discourse.
That is the truth, and whining about what other people choose to talk about will not change it.
In another post, David declared that science is not debated.
“For laughs, a “real scientist” would not consider a spelling mistake fatal (like you do.)”
And an intellectually honest person would not make stuff up about what other people consider to be true, like you do.
Or fail to recognize the distinction between a personal opinion and the stated beliefs of some other individual, again as you do.
You are swimming over your head, son.
Is it past your bedtime yet?
Real scientists are willing to publish in many places.
Real scientists appreciate feedback and are willing to let others try and refute their work, regardless of who those others may be.
As someone who worships the climate science idols, I’m not surprised that you are unfamiliar with such a concept.
You grow ever more incoherent David.
What is this about “impact factors”?
So, now the reason people you consider ‘real scientists” do not publish here or spend time commenting is due to something called an impact factor?
Are you serious?
Impact factor defines science in your mind?
Impact factors and consensus are the stuff of politics, so you have now come full circle, pal.
Keep digging.
(The rest of that is all but incomprehensible, so whatever. Starting to believe you are a paid troll, and if so you are one of the more unhinged ones.)
You didn’t save yourself with that deflection away from your hyperbolic comment and have indeed now doubled down by not recogizing your error. Interesting that “mainstream scientific viewpoint” is a euphemism for “consensus”. Familiarize yourself with the First Rule of Holes.
Typical David, rather than actually deal with the arguments, he just declares that it isn’t real science, for a large variety of bogus and refuted reasons.
As always, David is looking for an excuse to ignore what he knows he can’t refute.
I see that David has given up on his previous lie, and has no moved on to another.
Instead of no science happening here, he now wants to argue that the science doesn’t matter because none of the people he idolizes come here.
Of course they don’t, they prefer to stick to sites where anyone who disagrees with them can be banned.
Wow, yet another “fact” known only to the great, the omnicient DD.
It really is amazing how he holds himself in such high regard. And with so little justification.
Once again David puts politics ahead of science. By declaring that only scientists who agree with him are mainstream.
As to politics, he’s so far to the left that he considers socialist to me centrist.
Why these people keep trying to take on Trump with these tactics I don”t know, are they stupid?. Pelosi thought she was clever with her SoU stunt.
Who is laughing now?
What do they say ‘Never challenge a pig to a wrestling match in a dung pit, you lose because the pig enjoys it and beats you with experience’.
IMO Trump’s junket cancellation not only sent a strong message in its own right, it is an attempt to goad her into actually deferring the SOTU.
Then he can bring down the hammer constitutionally using the second and third clauses of A2§3 (clause one is SOTU). Clause three allows him to convene a joint session of Congress for ‘extraordinary Occaisions’. He just declares the longest (partial) shutdown ever over the southern border crisis an ‘extraordinary Occaision’. Then he is required by clause to to propose ‘nessessary and expedient’ measures. Necessary comprises the wall and immigration reform. Expedient is some form of narrow DACA in return.
All on national television. He cannot lose and Dems cannot win.
I like your thinking! Email that to the White House immediately.
So, in your simple mind, a site can be about science, or it can be about politics. It can never do both?
By the way, your idea of a real scientist is one who believes as he’s told to believe.
As always, David actually believes that he and he alone is the arbitrator for what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Nobody does science in places like SciAm, they publish there work there, just like people do here.
You are creating a distinction that has value and merit only to yourself, the reason why you are doing it is because you know you can’t refute what is being presented here, so you create a little fig leaf for yourself so that you can show how magnanimous you are by merely ignoring what you can’t deal with.
I see that when it comes to lying, known can take a back seat to David.
Plenty of articles here deal with science, as do most of the posters.
Why don’t you try to deal with the science, instead of pretending that only those who agree with you do science?
Love it!
“are they stupid?”
Rhetorical question, Alan – right?
It has been observed on WUWT for years that the climate debate is not really about science. It is indeed politics–and IPCC stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, so perhaps we should not be surprised. This site is about all aspects of the question, so it includes plenty of both politics and science, and occasionally astronomy that is likely to interest us.
Hmm, in your opinion, science is never debated?
I guess in your world, science is dictated by gods from on high and everyone else is required to accept it.
Once again, David demonstrates that he has absolutely no idea what actual science is.
Actually I do debate special relativity quite regularly .. the problem I have is I can’t prove it’s wrong so I have to accept it’s right 🙂
That post of mine was in reference to a post that has been deleted. I was not speaking to ladylifegrows. I apologize if the edit made it appear that way.
Actually, the climate debate is about public policy. Although the root word of politics is policy, sometimes there does not seem to be much public policy debate in politics. A good example are your comments so far, where none of them are about public policy. Particularly offensive are your comments about “scientists doing science.” That is very elitist, especially considering that many people who frequent WUWT have degrees in science (i.e B.S., M.S. and so on). Some are published. Others may not have formal degrees but are very clearly practicing science. The elitist view that science can only be done by a restricted priesthood is not very democratic. In a democracy , every citizen has an inalienable right to debate public policy. WUWT is the premier marketplace of ideas discussing public policy with an emphasis on climate policy. Although debate is moderated, it is done lightly. Democracy requires dissent and debate.
Thank you. Well phrased.
Comment by Phil (no period) as opposed to comments by Phil (with period):
Night versus Day
Plate Tectonics was once debated in scientific journals and the consensus was it was wrong;
The existence of DNA was once debated;
David,
I am curious what your views would on accepting someone as subject matter expert, in your world, would those people have to have advanced degrees?
It’s probably somehow illegal, but Trump could earn some points by contributing to the various drives people are running to help some of the furloughed workers. He probably has deeper pockets than Nancy.
Absolutely nothing illegal about what Commander-in-Chief Trump did to postpone Congresswoman Pelosi’s trip to Europe, Africa, and Asia on US military aircraft with military security.
As President Trump pointed out, Ms Pelosi is free to use commercial air travel from her congressional travel budget to make the trip happen.
Dems just found out they hold a weak hand in this game of poker with President Trump, the chief executive of the Executive Branch.
Joel, I could be reading it wrong but I don’t think D.J. was suggesting the trip postponement was illegal. It looks to me like D.J. was suggesting the idea that he was proposing in his post (that the president could earn some points by contributing to various drives to help furloughed workers) might be illegal.
@John;
Yes, that was the point I was driving at.
Absolutely nothing illegal about what Commander-in-Chief Trump did to postpone Congresswoman Pelosi’s trip to Europe, Africa, and Asia on US military aircraft with military security.
As President Trump pointed out, Ms Pelosi is free to use commercial air travel from her congressional travel budget to make the trip happen.
But then his administration apparently leaked that they were planning to do so which would have put their lives and those of their security at risk. That’s a no-no.
Pelosi tried to say that Trump’s life was at risk because the Secret Service was not being paid. Next day she is ready to hop on a plane to Afghanistan. How anyone cannot see the stupidity and hypocrisy of her actions is beyond me.
I can’t think of any reason why the president, as an individual, couldn’t donate as much of his own money to any cause that he wants to.
Yeah but he doesn’t like putting his hands in those pockets, he preferred using other peoples money. His illegal use of the Trump Foundation has been stopped so I don’t think you’ll see any donations from him.
Fascinating how according liberals, everything that is done by people they hate is by definition illegal.
The Trump Foundation has been dissolved by court order for engaging in “a shocking pattern of illegality”, according to the N.Y. attorney general.
Funny, that same office is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, seems they are having a difficult time getting the subpoenaed items they have been asking for the last 4 years. Wonder why that is?
What is a “real” scientist?
Trump is also commanded in chief of the US military. Build the wall. It’s a legitimate US military concern for the security of our country.
I don’t know about building the wall, but since border force has no funding, perhaps he should call in the Army to guard the southern border & the Navy to patrol the ocean.
That is what I have been advocating for since 1990, after the debacle of Simpson-Mizzoli. Designate the entire southern border as open military reservation, compensate landowners the same as is done with other military reservations around regular military bases, and deploy on rotation basis every single member of the US military, 60 day cycle, for “training”. First year go heavy on Combat Engineers, Seabees and BEEFs and build the damned wall and onsite living quarters/fortifications. Problem solved. Whilst they are around deal directly with the drug cartels, they have openly declared themselves enemies of America, treat them as such.
A few years some proposed that as a response to the pressure being put on big cats around the world, we turn the border into a nature preserve and import all the lions, tigers, whatever that we can find into it.
Warning: Trespassers will be eaten.
Cheapest solution: Claymore mines.
They would certainly be an integral part of any barrier constructed by US military. And lots of concertina. Overwatch positions with interlocking fields of fire. Ya know, all the bells and whistles.
He certainly has an interesting signature.
I submist this for WUWT readers’ consideration of all the BS spewing forth currently from Trump-derangeded Democrats:
For the record regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s demand that Trump postpone his State of the Union (SOTU) address, currently scheduled for January 29th.
The US Constitution says this:
Article II, Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may on extraordinary Occasion, convene both Houses, or either of them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper…”
Speaker Pelosi’s requesting Trump delay his SOTU speech is a (constitutionally) weak demand in regards to the President’s clear constitutional authority to order them to convene and to listen to him give the SOTU.
To be absolutely clear, under the US constitution the President can call both Houses of Congress together, despite Pelosi’s objection, and he can read them his SOTU. He can lecture the Democrats.
If individuals in the Dimocrat Party decide not to attend, then the entire US electorate can then see what children the Democrats have become.
To be absolutely clear, under the US constitution the President can call both Houses of Congress together, despite Pelosi’s objection, and he can read them his SOTU. He can lecture the Democrats.
No, it is commonly understood that the later part of the passage, about the President’s ability to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions,” is usually related to the presidential power to bring Congress back in session during a recess or adjournment.
So you agree that the Majority Leader of the House in Congress cannot prevent the President from delivering to Congress his SOTU at his time of choosing. That is my reading of it.
Pelosi has no clothes.
Dimocrats are holding weak cards to the President’s strong hand in this regard.
So you agree that the Majority Leader of the House in Congress cannot prevent the President from delivering to Congress his SOTU at his time of choosing. That is my reading of it.
He can deliver it in writing whenever he chooses as many presidents have, he delivers it in person to the Congress at their invitation. Richard Nixon delivered his in writing in 1973 for example, Reagan didn’t give one in 1981.
Excellent idea, while he is standing on the Capital Building steps giving the SOTU address to the Americca people he can politely turn and hand Nannee and Chuckee their copies. The expressions of burning hatred on their faces will make great campaign ad footage for lots of candidates. Even Democrats could use it as they run against the Democrat Party’s publicly stated platform. The winning, it just keeps coming!
Pelosi with no clothes, that was a mental image I did not need.
He should do it at noon, on the steps of the Capital Building and invite the America people to the Mall. And do it short notice, give Nannee and Chuckee zero chance to respond in any way other than coming outside and participating. When you got them down is when you put the boot in.
His letter is so well put he mentions different reasons why the trip wouldn’t be appropriate without being nasty or rubbing her nose in it. In so doing he does just that showing she doesn’t care about those her actions are affecting as she and her cronies are off on a jolly thank you very much.
James Bull
Visiting Afghanistan wouldn’t be my idea of a ‘jolly’.
It’s meant to buy votes from the troops & their families back home.
So only republicans are allowed to go?
Not sure what your point is. By rule, the junket has to be bi-partisan, so Pelosi was forced to throw a few token Republicans onto the bus. The majority on that bus were Democrats.
Apparently all such flights are banned now during the shutdown, not clear if it impacts the First Lady’s flight back from florida
She could very well take Amtrak, what used to be called the Orange Blossom Special. Start a trend perhaps!
His point is that he assumes that everyone is as corrupt as those he supports.
For a politician , it is an image building PR stunt, not a sun-shine holiday. It’s still self-serving.
She retains her carbon-based footprint, but her anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will be progressive for the foreseeable future. At least until the government places civil rights first, and pursues a policy of emigration reform to reduce collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout, then the monotonic process will likely reverse, as the prophecy is poorly considered, especially by its advocates and activists.
At least he’s been bipartisan as he’s also cancelled his delation’s junket to the Davos economic conference.
Seen on Facebook, Diamond and Silk
“I disagree with the President cancelling the military flight for Pelosi.
I would have waited …. then cancelled the return flight.”
Certainly the Afghan leg of the return.
I am a naughty boy!
James Bull
Get them on the ground at Bagram and then pull a technical. Make them pay commercial and fly coach to get home. If you don’t make stupid hurt they never learn.
Diamond and Silk are fantastic!
The Lady will need to find an airline with seats available for herself and a small staff. She will need to go through all the palaver which other passengers endure with taking off their shoes and putting them with personal belongings, especially electronics, on a conveyor belt and watch them disappear to be xrayed. Meanwhile she will go through scan and be patted down by a female staff member. Then she can go and wait interminably for a plane . This may then have to wait for an hour or more
on the runway until it is cleared for takeoff because of delays in other planes schedules caused by stormy weather. ( caused by global warming)
All this is supposing that the staff will be on the job and not absent because of the shut down in Government jobs. ( If the staff are not employed by a private security firm)