The issue isn’t Trump’s vice president choice. It doesn’t matter who he picks. It’s his policies that are scary

Some of his proposals and comments and parts of his record don’t go away because  of his vice president choice

His economic record as president wasn’t as great as his supporters like to claim. Obama supporters used to claim the same thing when it came to his economic record

Trump wants to take more control over the federal reserve in controlling interest rates. He wants to devalue our currency. He wants more more dangerous, protectionist tariffs. He wants to expand the federal government and the federal debt and a time that we’re already experiencing crushing inflation

And Trump, unlike his first run as president, won’t have the luxury of Low interest rates and relatively low inflation and easy money

And Trump so-called fantastic economic was already being downgraded before the pandemic.

Why do his supporters believe that Americans won’t be disgusted with his economic wrecking policies as they are with Biden’s?


What would follow a Trump reelection is an Elizabeth Warren type getting elected. Then we’d have some real problems


Until Trump admits the mistakes he made in his first term and start sounding like Javier Milei, I don’t care who he picks for vice president. But there’s no chance of that. This was a guy who had Tulsi Gabbard on his list for vice president


So we’re gonna be in for four more years of pain, regardless of who wins

Thanks, Pookie. Have a lovely weekend.

Texas Scorecard by  Brandon Waltens   | May 2, 2024

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

AUSTIN—City Council Members have approved a resolution making the state’s capital a sanctuary for gender-mutilation procedures and chemical castration, though the actual effect of the move may be limited.

The resolution was sent to the council by the city’s LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission. It states that the policy of the city will be that no city personnel, funds, or resources will be used to investigate, criminally prosecute, or impose administrative penalties on gender-confused individuals seeking gender-mutilative procedures or an individual or organization attempting to assist the individual to receive the procedures.

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

One of those activists was Soren Aldaco, a destransitioner who, as a minor, was given cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. Shortly after her 19th birthday, she underwent a double mastectomy that nearly killed her.

Now, she has filed a lawsuit against doctors who allegedly pressured her into adopting a transgender identity beginning at the age of 15.

“After experiencing no dearth of complications related to these treatments, I chose to make peace with my sex instead of fighting it,” said Aldaco. “I now have filed one of the first lawsuits of its kind, designed to hold the practitioners who transitioned me accountable.”

Aldaco also noted that state law—the recently enacted Senate Bill 14—prohibits gender mutilative procedures from being performed on minors, making the city’s actions largely moot.

More: https://texasscorecard.com/local/austin-council-passes-resolution-making-the-city-a-sanctuary-for-child-gender-mutilation/

Topics merged

The Case Against Net Zero
BY ROBIN GUENIER 30 APRIL 2024 1:00 PM

In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/30/the-case-against-net-zero/