Hodad

The point is that he was a successful investor before she was in office and he continued to be one after. That's his profession. He kept working at his profession like most spouses of congresspeople and continued to make lots of money doing so--a consistent pattern of success. So there's no mystery about how she got millions of dollars richer over the last 40 years, which is what seemed to confuse the poster to whom I replied there. As for whether there is a potential conflict of interest, the answer is yes--for anybody in office with higher stakes the higher you go. The Pelosi's have been pretty vocal about separating their work lives. They know they have to make the disclosures and know that every move will be publicly (and hostilely) scrutinized, so they are not going to make any sketchy moves. He doesn't need to cheat to succeed, and frankly, what are small gains in a huge portfolio are not going to be worth doing prison time or losing office. That just doesn't make sense as a choice. I don't think there's anything particularly suspect about the moves Paul Pelosi made. It's not like he placed a bet on some unknown company before it landed a market-making defense contract or something. He made bets on two enormously popular Blue Chip stocks who were not going to be moved significantly by a govt contract and IIRC, ended up losing money on both.

Parrots a pre-packaged list of obvious and easily observed lies while simultaneously boasting about independent thought and not stepping along with the propaganda. ? Indeed, Sgt. Schultz is an apt pick.

Differences are rather dramatic. The STOCK act basically says that members of congress are prohibited from using their insider information to make trades. Then there are some disclosure requirements. Bills that have been floated since actually prohibit members from trading. Essentially, we don't trust them to obey the STOCK act and apparently many of them do no trust each other.

My kid is pretty sure that magic is real and that one day his wand will work if he waves it just the right way. We have sort of the same arrangement: he'll let me know when he makes some progress.

It does send a message. Unfortunately for everyone, that message is that Hawley is a sophomoric twit instead of a leader or statesman. Which is not news, but still... You know there are a bunch of other proposed pieces of legislation with this general intent floating around, right? Including a Dem+Rep teamup that has been around for a while. I think Elizabeth Warren has one. I'm sure there are several more I've never heard of. Those would be sincere efforts, whereas this is just a publicity stunt. Hawley is a classic "bro" though and has no idea his antics make him look like a jackass.

So, despite the complete lack of evidence, you continue to believe claims made by certain people. You've pre-determined that there's an unsupported "truth" out there and you're just waiting to see if it somehow "prevails," despite no reason to expect it to do so. So, basically a weird religion. You're gonna believe it passionately, regardless of the facts in evidence. And are you seriously asking why I, or others, would vocally oppose the effort to undermine and even end fair and free elections? It's hard to imagine that is a sincere question. It's sort of like asking why one would oppose termites instead of just ignoring them. They oppose them because they don't want the house to collapse.

Most likely. I mean, the data gets pretty thin because we don't track guns. Like any laws, gun laws within small jurisdictions, for which there is no barrier, aren't going to have much success outside of fueling grey and black market activity. I really don't think that chasing guns (through whatever means) is going to be effective. I firmly believe we need laws that address the points of transfer and end the unregulated secondary market. All guns start out as legal guns and there are standards and oversight of sales from a licensed dealer. We should have the same standards for every transfer in the secondary market. There should be a clear chain of custody, responsibility and accountability. I should not be able to abandon, give, trade or sell my gun without legally transferring the responsibility to a new custodian. And if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen, the custodian should face consequences.

Serious question, are you actually waiting, and if so, what for? Like Trump's election cases, Lake was basically laughed out of court the first time around. That doesn't seem to have shaken your faith. When she's laughed out again on appeal, what, if anything will that mean to you? Are you looking for facts, or just rooting for a team no matter what?

It's worth pointing out that the article there isn't actually from Forbes. It's from a Forbes contributor, which is actually an unpaid news and opinion contributor, like a guest blogger. The contributors have long terms relationships, but don't have the standards and editorial oversight of actual Forbes reporting. -- Forbes gets a wider content pool and search footprint. The contributors get to associate their names with a serious news org. Win-win. All that being said, I actually know that writer well, and though a super nice guy, I wouldn't necessarily put my eggs in that basket. The article is pretty confusing, jumping from cable to broadcast and back pretty indiscriminately and without contextualizing the data. Try this from Variety instead. Also, it's worth noting the change from total ratings to ratings "in the demo." Oldies love Fox News AND they love watching actual TV (weirdos, lol). Below are the primetime rankers for broadcast, cable and premium cable networks in 2022, among total viewers (as well as the top 50 list in adults 18-49). Most Nielsen-rated networks can be found here, with the exception of a few channels that are not ad-supported. [For historical record, here are previous year-end network rankers: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015.] THE MOST-WATCHED NETWORKS OF 2022 (BY TOTAL VIEWERS) Rank NETWORK VIEWERS (000) % CHANGE 1. NBC 5,148 -7% 2. CBS 5,144 -8% 3. ABC 3,867 -6% 4. Fox 3,233 -14% 5. Fox News Channel 2,369 -1% 6. ESPN 1,877 +14% 7. Univision 1,315 -9% 8. MSNBC 1,197 -22% 9. HGTV 1,081 -13% 10. Hallmark Channel 1,034 -9% 11. Ion 1,023 -2% 12. TLC 971 -6% 13. TNT 965 -12% 14. Telemundo 933 -10% 15. TBS 875 -15% 16. History 836 -10% 17. Discovery Channel 821 -11% 18. Food Network 779 -6% 19. INSP 778 -1% 20. USA Network 738 -13% 21. CNN 735 -34% 22. Me TV 688 -8% 23. Bravo 595 -16% 24. Lifetime 589 -15% 25. The CW 574 -29% 26. Investigation Discovery 566 -12% 27. TV Land 521 0% 28. A&E 508 -10% 29. Hallmark Movie & Mysteries 492 -15% 30. Paramount Network 491 +8% 31. UniMás 489 -8% 32. AMC 468 -8% 33. FX 462 -9% 34. Grit 433 +5% 35. WE TV 428 -7% 36. Game Show Network 361 -8% 37. Syfy 359 -17% BET 359 -2% 39. National Geographic 356 -16% 40. Travel Channel 336 -9% 41. ESPN 2 335 +8% 42. Oxygen 331 +10% 43. Freeform 301 -32% 44. MTV 288 -28% 45. Nickelodeon 287 -14% 46. Animal Planet 286 -19% 47. Nick at Nite 283 -21% 48. Fox Sports 1 273 -7% 49. Comedy Central 266 -13% 50. Bounce TV 254 0% 51. Reelzchannel 252 +107% 52. HBO 250 0% 53. FXX 246 +23% 54. Adult Swim 245 -37% 55. VH1 241 -6% 56. Family Entertainment TV 240 +14% 57. SundanceTV 238 +11% 58. LMN 237 -2% 59. E! 232 -21% 60. IFC 223 +12% 61. CMT 217 -10% 62. OWN 213 -10% Motor Trend 213 -1% 64. HLN 211 -12% 65. NFL Network 207 -33% Start TV 207 -5% 67. Magnolia Network 203 +13% 68. Cozi 202 +6% 69. CNBC 196 -10% 70. BBC America 190 -9% 71. Ion Mystery 185 +13% 72. Science 184 -22% Newsmax TV 184 -2% 74. Disney Junior 183 -29% 75. Nat Geo Wild 181 -21% Cartoon Network 181 -12% 77. Disney Channel 178 -25% 78. Heroes and Icons 172 -10% 79. Nick Jr. 169 -27% 80. Weather Channel 160 -14% 81. Tru TV 147 -25% 82. Laff 146 +2% 83. TUDN 135 -23% 84. Pop TV 128 -20% 85. Up 117 -11% 86. Antenna TV 115 -19% 87. Estrella TV 106 -21% 88. TV One 104 -5% 89. Comet 99 -1% 90. Cooking Channel 98 -18% Smithsonian 98 -8% 92. Defy TV 97 n/a 93. MLB Network 96 -12% 94. Golf Channel 94 -18% 95. Showtime 92 -29% 96. Hallmark Drama 90 -19% NBA TV 90 +5% 98. FYI 87 -2% 99. Starz 83 +17% 100. Galavisión 82 -23% 101. FX Movie Channel 80 -12% Charge! 80 -1% 103. Great American Family 79 +22% 104. Big Ten Network 75 +23% 105. Viceland 71 -14% 106. Nicktoons 65 -2% 107. Discovery En Español 63 +11% Fox Business Network 63 +17% Newsnation 63 +37% 110. Dabl 59 +28% 111. Court TV 58 +7% 112. Universo 57 -15% 113. Telexitos 56 +4% 114. American Heroes 55 -25% Ovation 55 -18% MTV 2 55 +4% 117. Starz Encore 54 -5% 118. Disney XD 53 -36% 119. Boomerang 52 -32% Destination America 52 -20% 121. RFD-TV 50 -14% Tennis Network 50 0% 123. ESPN U 49 -11% 124. Azteca 47 +2% 125. BET Her 44 +13 126. Teennick 43 +19% True Real 43 n/a 128. AXS TV 42 -13% 129. Fox Deportes 41 -9% Logo 41 0% Story Television 41 n/a 132. Discovery Family Channel 38 -14% 133. TBD TV 31 -31% 134. Outdoor Channel 30 n/a 135. Discovery Life Channel 28 -18% Cinemax 28 -3% 137. ESPN Deportes 27 +4% 138. The Cowboy Channel 24 +4% 139. Universal Kids 23 -34% 140. Discovery Familia 20 -41% 141. Olympic Channel 19 -21% Fox Sports 2 19 -10% 143. Baby First TV 18 -14% 144. Nat Geo Mundo 17 -6% 145. NBC Sports Network 15 -95% CNN En Español 15 0% 147. Galanovelas 14 n/a 148. Cleo TV 13 +44% 149. Justice Central 11 -15% 150. Accuweather 9 +29% Sportsman Channel 9 n/a 152. Fuse 8 -38% 153. BEIN Sport Español 4 -33% NBCLX 4 -20% Black News Channel 4 0% Comedy TV 4 0% 157. BEIN Sport 3 0% 158. Pursuit Channel 2 -75% 159. G4 1 n/a Source: Nielsen, NPM (12/27/2021-12/4/2022, Live+7 and 12/5/2022-12/18/2022, Live+SD vs. 12/28/2020-12/5/2021, Live+7 and 12/6/2021-12/19/2021, Live+SD) Mon-Sat 8pm-11pm/Sun 7pm-11pm, ad-supported and premium pay networks. Nat Geo Mundo based on NPM-H. Ranked by 2022 Year-To-Date. THE 50 TOP-RATED NETWORKS OF 2022 (BY ADULTS 18-49) Rank NETWORK 18-49 VIEWERS (000) % CHANGE 1. NBC 1,176 -13% 2. Fox 902 -23% 3. ABC 864 -12% 4. CBS 811 -22% 5. ESPN 702 +13% 6. Univision 522 -8% 7. TNT 383 -18% 8. Telemundo 337 -17% 9. TBS 299 -20% 10. TLC 264 -14% 11. Bravo 231 -21% 12. USA Network 224 -25% 13. Fox News Channel 218 -9% 14. Food Network 205 -22% 15. Unimás 198 -15% 16. Discovery Channel 194 -20% 17. HGTV 188 -22% 18. Ion 178 -21% 19. FX 170 -16% 20. Comedy Central 153 -15% 21. A&E 149 -14% 22. MTV 146 -38% 23. History 143 -27% 24. Hallmark Channel 140 -6% 25. FXX 139 +23% 26. Adult Swim 136 -40% Freeform 136 -30% 28. AMC 133 -18% 29. The CW 128 -45% 30. Investigation Discovery 128 -21% 31. CNN 126 -35% Paramount Network 126 -7% 33. Nick at Nite 122 -19% 34. Lifetime 119 -27% 35. BET 114 -15% 36. VH1 110 -17% ESPN 2 110 +8% 38. Nickelodeon 103 -14% 39. Syfy 102 -26% 40. WE TV 90 -21% 41. E! 86 -30% 42. MSNBC 85 -40% 43. TV Land 83 -11% 44. Fox Sports 1 79 -14% 45. Tru TV 76 -30% Cartoon Network 76 -7% 47. Travel Channel 73 -20% 48. TUDN 69 -26% 49. National Geographic 67 -28% 50. NFL Network 64 -42% Source: Nielsen, NPM (12/27/2021-12/4/2022, Live+7 and 12/5/2022-12/18/2022, Live+SD vs. 12/28/2020-12/5/2021, Live+7 and 12/6/2021-12/19/2021, Live+SD) Mon-Sat 8pm-11pm/Sun 7pm-11pm, ad-supported and premium pay networks. Nat Geo Mundo based on NPM-H. Ranked by 2022 Year-To-Date.

Eh, I think you're focused on the wrong thing here. The real observation and question is why do so many spiteful a-holes also describe themselves as patriots? ETA: I'm just gonna skip ahead to the answer. It's because they see America as a place for straight, white men (and occasionally properly subservient women) and anything outside of that paradigm is unAmerican. They are the original embodiment identity politics and they are so goddamn fragile they need to lash out even at simple candy mascots if the roster includes more women or an anxious guy, or whatever. Some conservatives are just that afraid of change.

It's not two sacks of ballots, slow-poke. It's two sacks of mail and mixed in that mail were 12 ballots. 12 measly ballots. It's not election fraud. It's a lazy mailman or a big error.

That's not election fraud, and I believe the mystery was solved in S10E08 of Seinfeld.

Tolerant of different ways of living and being And, it's basic human decency to be tolerant and inclusive. Political correctness used to be the target. Now "wokeness" is the target. Both of which, as used in these cases, simply amount to being kind and respectful of others. Biblical Jesus was "woke" as shit. Tucker and his fanboys woulda mocked him too.

1. That is completely unrelated to your confusion over the fact that Paul Pelosi continued to make money while his wife was in office. Which shouldn't be confusing to anyone. 2. There is no evidence that Paul leveraged anything from Nancy or vice-versa. If there were, Pelosi would have already been prosecuted, as some of her colleagues have been. If Paul Pelosi had been a shitty businessman and failed investor before Nancy took office and suddenly turned around his fortunes, you'd be right to be suspicious. But he was successful before and continued to be successful after. His trajectory was unchanged, so suspicion should give way to vigilance. It's fine to keep an eye on these things, as we should be doing, but one shouldn't assume that success is evidence of wrongdoing.

Any organization or person (or candy, apparently) that is tolerant and inclusive is "woke" and leftist. Basic decency is anathema to some folks.

What doesn't compute? What do you not understand about the concept of two incomes? Paul Pelosi was a successful businessman and investor long before Nancy Pelosi ever ran for office. He made lots of money before she was elected, and continued to do so after. Her modest salary doesn't really figure into it.

Lol. You have no idea what "scientific data" is. It might as well be sorcery to you, and the closest you've come to "providing scientific data" is being in an adjacent post.

Hawley is such a sniveling worm. This is pure partisan hackery and a gross publicity stunt. Such legislation is long overdue. It's been proposed over and over again in both the house and the senate without success. Someday it will happen. The concept is great, but if Hawley actually cared about doing good instead of getting his name in the papers he wouldn't have given his version this silly name, which is a poison pill. You can't build bipartisan consensus (as others have genuinely tried to do) while being a partisan a-hole.

This that isn't really *about* anything. You just like spamming the board with anecdotes from your backward state. Replies have the substance merited.

I didn't say that article was peer reviewed. I said the peer reviewed work is more telling, and that article provides a snapshot of the peer reviewed work. Though I think you and your german blogger misunderstand the point of the article. The article isn't an exhaustive survey or catalog of hard climate science papers. It's a random sample review that provides insight into how scientists treat the notion of anthropogenic climate change in their actual published, peer reviewed work. Get it. Like if you randomly pick up 3K papers with keyword hits for climate change, does it feel like there is a debate about warming or mankind's role in warming? The answer is no. There is virtually zero debate among scientists on those fundamental facts. Get it? 19 of those papers were attempting to quantify the impact, but the majority of papers were not. But regardless of whether a papers was attempting to quantify mankind's effect, many of them include that fact as a starting premise or part of their understanding of reality. Whereas there is almost no sentiment to the contrary. That's the point of such a review: to see the scientific sentiment as reflected in actual peer-reviewed work.

I did not know Neptune was quite as recent. That is good learning. Thanks!

Sure it is. ? What happens to humans ultimately is largely outside the purview of climate science. How we adapt and attempt to survive, and to what degree we are successful is the realm of futurists. What climate science can do is to study the data of climate, track the changes that are happening and attempt to model the ways in which climate change may disrupt ecosystems and habitats--including those upon which humans rely. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

You are unbelievably dumb. It beggars belief. Like, this can't be a real person. It's performance art, right? The planets of our solar system have been "discovered" and identified since ancient times.

You are wildly and willfully ignorant. Your Gish gallop of grade-school trivia means absolutely nothing. You're not even making arguments. Just randomly stating (often questionable) factoids, as if they should be compelling. It's something a child would do. It's like you're shouting at a doctor that overhydration can't exist because 60% of the human body is water! The total absence of logic and reason is still shocking, even though you've been posting here for some time now.

Sigh. This is going to be as fruitless and pointless as ever, but this person (the Chairman of these two companies) is listening to climate scientists specifically because he has multibillion dollar businesses to protect, nurture and grow. And make no mistake, climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their recognition of anthropogenic warming and climate change, and have been for decades. There is not a single scientific body on the planet that denies anthropogenic warming. The last group to abandon their dissent were the Petroleum Geologists, who stopped dissenting in 2007. That's it. Now just a few lonely voices in the scientific community offer dissent, and typically for questionable motivation. It is because of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that companies like Siemens and Maersk and literally every other major enterprise are investing millions if not billions in adopting sustainable business practices. Now, you are welcome to desperately search out some heterodox meteorologist or something who denies climate change, and you can say that this person is right instead of the overwhelming scientific consensus being right, but since you lack the ability to conduct any independent research it's clearly not a belief based in logic. It would be like going to 10 doctors who all tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high and you need to change your diet, and instead of listening to them, you look, and look, and look for just one doctor to tell you he thinks you'll be okay. You can choose to ignore scientific and medical advice because you simply love potato chips and petroleum, but there's nothing smart or honest about it. And for an individual actor with individual consequences (death by potato chip), fine with me, kettle-cook your arterieries into concrete tubes. But when it comes to a shared planet and shared consequences other people get to vote.