Marching till one falls off the edge of the earth

One of the many March for Science scenes. (AP pix)

March for Science? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

You can march for peace, march for a candidate or march for the exercise, but marching for science is like marching for gravity. Science is. Science is a systematic study of stuff. Marching doesn’t change anything, doesn’t accomplish anything.

And it was just a bit ironic when the AP story on the various marches for science quoted an Earth Day founder as saying the event in Washington was “magical.”

It was also a bit odd that the headline on the story and a cutline used the phrase “march for science,” but the story never did.

Maybe the label was just shortened, because the real purpose seemed to the summed up by one self-identified “scientist,” who was quoted as saying:

“Most people don’t know how much funding for the sciences supports them in their lives every day. Every medical breakthrough, their food, clothing, our cellphones, our computers, all that is science-based. … So if we stop funding scientific discoveries now, in 10 years, whatever we might have had won’t be; we just won’t have it.”

So, it was really a march for science handouts from taxpayers. Never mind that vast majority of scientific breakthroughs throughout history were privately funded.

For a change, President Trump’s comment on the occasion actually made sense. His statement said that “rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.”

Settled science. Now there’s another oxymoron.




69 comments on “Marching till one falls off the edge of the earth

  1. robertleebeers says:

    Follow the money remains a truism. Nearly 20 years ago now a breakthrough in virus control was discovered in Cambridge. The end result was a potential cure for most common colds. Notice it has never been discussed much beyond that? How many billions in lost revenue would that cause if we stopped the common cold? Follow the money. It isn’t science they are marching for but greed.

  2. […] Marching till one falls off the edge of the earth March for Science? Isn’t that an oxymoron? […]

  3. Steve says:

    “Settled science” = politically preferred science.

  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    It’s beyond stupid, just how many legitimate, serious, educated, experienced, working scientists, would actually join in with this marching nonsense?

  5. deleted says:

    “Hey kid, get off my lawn”

  6. Steve says:

    Patrick, that should be “Hey kid, get off my environmentally friendly desert landscape”

    Get with the political program.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Many of us are not happy with those who are antiscience, which includes a majority of Conservatives and the protests are an attempt to slow the downward spiral being imposed on us by Conservative ideologues. Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity is not wanting to know. Those who believe science to be highly politicized are listening to highly politicized sources themselves.

    When it comes to government funding of science, consider that a great deal of valuable knowledge will never be found by private enterprise because there is no profit to be made. Preventing heart attacks and strokes with diet and exercise alone has paid us back enough to pay for government research by itself. It changed my life completely to my immense benefit. But that short changes the benefits. Proper diet and exercise prevent dozens of other diseases as well. I suspect many who read this can’t name more than 5 or 6. Check out this site for a list of 45:
    What company would ever have paid to find out that proper exercise and diet prevents disease in such a big way? Most food companies do the opposite, actively spreading misinformation.

    The Internet, Google, and GPS all originated with government funded research. NASA famously provided dozens of important spinoffs, but the biggest is just beginning. Do you really think our private space industry would be where it is without the foundational knowledge provided by NASA?

    Most of us are ignorant of the knowledge that stems from government funded research. A partial list: The optical digital recording technology behind all music, video, and data storage; fluorescent lights; communications and observation satellites; advanced batteries now used in electric cars; modern water-purification techniques that make drinking water safe for millions; supercomputers used by government, industry, and consumers every day; more resilient passenger jets; better cancer therapies; and the confirmation that it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Ffunding has also been instrumental in the development of new technologies and companies in nearly every major industry, including advanced electronics, computing, digital communications, environmental resource management, lasers, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and higher education. Critical tools to help identify, treat, and prevent causes of disease—and huge opportunities for the high-growth American biotechnology industry, which accounts for more than three-quarters of $1 trillion in economic output, or 5.4 percent of GDP, in 2010, and now depends heavily on these advances in genetics

    I just saw a lecture by a U of Chicago researcher regarding the human microbiome (try Googling it), which has opened a whole new branch of medicine and biology in the last 10 years or so, courtesy of government funding. It seems that it wasn’t just our DNA that has been evolving. Our resident bacteria have too and we have become highly dependent on them. Although still in its infancy, the results from the U of Chicago are phenomenal. They are also creating a new branch of forensics. Nevertheless, they are on a slow track because their government funding is drying up. Since they are studying the bacteria in our bodies, which are difficult to patent, there are no companies likely to carry on this promising field and its importance probably would have been unrecognized for decades more.

    It’s hard to communicate the importance of government funded research to nonscience people. As Dick Cheney said, they don’t know what they don’t know.

  8. Rincon says:

    I’m anonymous, in case you didn’t recognize me. Somehow, my computer forgot me.

  9. Bill says:

    I really don’t think that the evil Conservatives are “anti-science” Rincon, unless of course you think that is so because many conservatives believe in an anti-scientific concept called God.


  10. Steve says:


    try to boil the spin down to something comprehensible

  11. Rincon says:

    My basis for calling Conservatives antiscience: A good example is lead. We knew it was poisoning hundreds of thousands if not millions in the 1930’s, but it wasn’t banned in paint until 40 years later, blocked repeatedly by the political conservatives at the time. As a matter of fact, conservatives rarely meet a toxin they don’t like. They denied the toxicity of many, many substances such as DDT, PCB’s, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, asbestos, coal dust, dioxin, nuclear waste, bisophenol, neonicatinoids in honeybees, etc., etc., although they did believe that marijuana would rot your brain. Conservatives also stalled the fight to reduce smoking rates and in the early days, denied that smoking is unhealthy. Same with trans fat, saturated fat, refined carbohydrates, etc.

    As an aside, the story with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons continues today. They make up a large portion of coal tar based asphalt sealants (you guys don’t have to worry about it. Western states all use asphalt based sealers, proving that a good alternative exists). In the 1990’s, Conservatives pushed to have them exempted from environmental regulations, so they were. This creates the ridiculous situation where a cleanup was ordered in Oak Park, Illinois because levels of PAH from industry reached 10 ppm in a large volume of soil, but when 9600 ppm were found in the dust vacuumed from parking lots in Lake in the Hills, nothing was done. Levels similar to this are common. The tires from vehicles wear the sealer from the surface where it becomes dust. These sealers are often used in suburban driveways, playgrounds, and apartment complex parking lots. Germany banned them in 1990. In Australia, regulations require workers breaking up pavement containing these sealers to wear protective gear including full face gas masks, but we let children play on that kind of pavement. There are reasons why everybody in the civilized world lives longer than us. This illustrates one. There is now a bill in the Illinois legislature to ban coal tar sealers. It was defeated last year by Conservatives and faces stiff opposition this year.

    Sorry, Steve. I’m not done yet. Conservatives deny the only proposed mechanism for bacterial antibiotic resistance and have successfully allowed the farm industry to continue feeding 70% of all antibiotics in this country to healthy animals with no signs of disease. The evidence is strong that this breeds antibiotic-resistant organisms. Conservatives deny it.

    Very few liberals believe in creationism, but many Conservatives do. Same with the Earth being 9,000 years old. Global warming and the ozone hole are also obvious issues where Conservatives deny science.

    When Obamacare tried to deny coverage for PSA prostate screening (studies show it does more harm than good), Conservatives managed to force payment for it in the name of free choice.

    I could go on, but I’m sure you’re bored already. You can agree with Conservatives, but calling them antiscience is pretty accurate.

  12. Rincon says:

    I forgot my favorite one. Who was the Congressman that said a woman’s body has a way of preventing pregnancy in cases of legitimate rape? Was he a liberal? I don’t think so!

  13. Steve says:

    More of the same old “Conservatives bad Liberals good” mantra from Rincon.
    I am certain you will find there was a lot of “bi” partisan support for much of those items you listed with the very laughable ACA claim.

    Conservatives had ZERO input on that. ACA belongs to Liberals and leftists, lock, stock and barrel.
    All anyone could do with ACA was fight it later, in court. And with very limited results. See Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A.

  14. Rincon says:

    To paraphrase: More of the same old claims without evidence. We could argue about the Obamacare for a long time because its hardly a slam dunk; therefore, I’ll withdraw it. How about all of the others?

  15. Steve says:

    I bet you could find as many links supporting your claims as I could for the opposing view.

  16. Rincon says:

    Many more, but what’s the point? You’ll implicitly call it a massive conspiracy, as you have in the past. For Conservatives, the world is upside down. Nobel prize winners are evil plottters while Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levin, et al should be trusted implicitly. Oh, wait, O’Reilly’s gone. Who’s next in line?

  17. Steve says:

    I don’t subscribe to cable TV. So no FOX NEWS. No Bill. I don’t even like the morning FM talk/laugh fest’s on FM so no AM Radio for me either.

    Also, I refer to substantive site after substantive site to support what I say, but you mock all of them, even when they are Huff and Slate!

    I maintain, for each and every one sided link you find, I could find one as substantive and one sided in opposition for each of the claims you made, Rincon.

    So, yes, what is the point? The point, as usual is somewhere in the middle, that place you claim to be but usually find yourself well to the urban left. It’s not you in particular, it’s the fact you LIVE in a city where being liberal and left IS the middle. But the truth is you live in what Politico (there is another one of my conspiracy links, according to you. Politico!) calls the media bubble.
    You NEED to read this, it applies to the population you live in as well as the media it describes.
    IT explains why you THINK you are centrist when you are really far left.

  18. Rincon says:

    And you live in a Conservative bubble. Unfortunately, there is no longer any penalty for distorting the truth in this country. Followers tend to dismiss the deceptions of their team, excusing it by thinking that the other side does it too. The fact that a certified serial liar like Trump was elected President and still has many supporters confirms this. Anyone caught in as many lies as him deserves condemnation by all. Yes, this also applies to Hillary. I don’t think she’s even near Trump’s level of deceit, but either way, how did these two misfits get nominated? Answer that and you will find out what is wrong with America.

  19. Bill says:

    Rincon, I agree with some of your observations but not necessarily your conclusions. As for lack of penalties for distortion of the truth in this country, that is substantially a true statement but what remedies do you suggest in a free society. And, who defines truth? On college campuses today the Alt-Left are defining falsehood as any conservative or other view that they do not believe is fit to be heard. The religious define “truth” as their dogma or their God and all others are not only untrue but may even be punishable by death or enslavement. Bill Nye, the TV entertainment personality host of a kiddie science program finds it in the new religion of “Science” while his present girlfriend seemingly has found it in her vagina. On the news tonight an interviewer recited Obama’s first 100 days to college students and attributed the events to Trump. All of the clueless Respondents were outraged.

    Perhaps these two “misfits” are reflective of our society, as you seem to suggest.

  20. deleted says:

    “Follow the money”

    Ironically, in light of the fact that doing so would revel PTHS precise reason why conservatives are so anti-science in so many of the instances you appropriately cited above Rincon, when it comes to global warming, it is the “conservatives” that ignorantly claim “following the money” will lead to some truth. I say ignorant, even though intentionally ignorant is more accurate. I mean, do they NOT realize that “the money” when it comes to global warming, is the energy industry? For some odd reason, the “conservatives” that want to “follow the money” when it comes to global warming want to follow some tin grant money paid to scientists doing research all while they ignore the TRILLIONS of dollars that the energy interests have to protect.

    Follow the money through the lies about lead poisoning, and DDT effects, and PCBs eating the ozone, and coal dust, and tobacco, and pesticides, and the litany of other scientific issues you cited.

    Follow the money, and you will find the purveyors of the lies.

  21. Steve says:

    Rincon, the media lives in the bubble. Everyone else has no representation, no media outside the bubble that happens to surround you.

  22. Rincon says:

    Bill, your question of, “who defines truth?” is critical. There is great danger in merely giving way to authority without question or recourse, but as we are seeing, there is also great danger when truth becomes whatever someone wants it to be. Although there is a need for trusted authority, it also has to be subject to essentially unlimited challenge.

    I believe we already have the answer. We have slander and libel laws to protect a target from fraudulent claims against them, but essentially no protection if the target is a large group or even the whole society as was the case when industry fought laws limiting lead exposure. We also have laws against fraud for profit, but none if a direct profit motive cannot be proven. As I’ve said before, make false statements to induce one person to give you money, it’s called fraud; do the same to hundreds of millions and it is called free speech.

    Libel and slander laws already provide us with the mechanism for deciding whether claims are fraudulent or intentionally misleading. Truth is an absolute defense. So we already have a fair method of determining whether someone has been deceitful, but we rightly fear using it for society wide issues because it places a great deal of power regarding truth into the hands of a few. It could also have an inhibitory effect on free speech because of the fear of bringing on an expensive lawsuit.

    The answer is to have a small number of courts at the federal and state levels that would specifically entertain accusations along these lines and limit the number of cases they see. A mechanism to protect against David and Goliath situations would need to be in place, but when numbers of cases are limited, there would probably be very few Davids.

    There would be no punishment per se for guilty parties. The pronouncement of the court would be publicized and perhaps be required, for a time, to be revealed whenever a party found guilty communicates via mass media. If the courts are respected, this would be a potent motivator for those using mass media to avoid fraud. If the courts became untrustworthy, people would not respect their judgements, nullifying their power.

    Not perfect, but I believe better than allowing truth to beaten into an unrecognizable pulp, as we are seeing today. For evidence of this, see Steve’s words. If I understand him correctly, He distrusts the entire media. Apparently nobody to trust except a few Web sites – and how does he figure out which ones can be trusted?

  23. Steve says:

    “For evidence of this, see Steve’s words. If I understand him correctly, He distrusts the entire media.”

    Making shit up again.

    The media is left, and you live in one of it’s cores.
    You are left too, even though you claim to be center….

  24. Truth is for each person to determine, and the only way to get the truth is free access via free speech.

  25. deleted says:

    Facts are opinions? No universal truths?

    And how can many voices be the way to truth if truth is only what an individual thinks?

    I don’t get it.

  26. Bill says:

    It is almost impossible to slander or libel someone these days and that is probably both a good and bad thing depending on whether you are the speaker or the subject.

    It is good to remember that perhaps there are no absolute or final truths nor any absolute or perfect means to identify truth from falsehood.

    In the final analysis, truth depends on who has the power to dictate what truth is.

    As for me, while I cannot always define it with precision, like the Supreme Court says about obscenity, I think I know it when I see it.

  27. deleted says:

    Powerless people are incapable of determining truth?

    Conservatives are strange people man.

  28. Rincon says:

    “It is almost impossible to slander or libel someone these days and that is probably both a good and bad thing depending on whether you are the speaker or the subject.” Money and a lack of ethics translates into great power in this country.

    “It is good to remember that perhaps there are no absolute or final truths nor any absolute or perfect means to identify truth from falsehood.” The statement itself says that it may not be true, so should we ignore it? Anyone who takes it seriously will give up and go with the flow. There is certainly absolute truth. Facts, at least, are either true or false, but ascertaining which is which is beyond many of us, especially with the handicap of having no means to find out who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. Doesn’t matter anyway. We just knowingly elected the greatest liar of all Presidential candidates in history. Oh wait, he’s only presenting alternative facts. It’s obvious that truth isn’t very valuable to the American people. Maybe we’ve decided that we can’t tell truth from falsehood anyway, so why try?

    “In the final analysis, truth depends on who has the power to dictate what truth is.” Hard to disagree. In our society, money is power, so we know who’s got control of truth.

    “As for me, while I cannot always define it with precision, like the Supreme Court says about obscenity, I think I know it when I see it.” Well phrased. When there is no absolute truth, we only think we know. It’s all an illusion.

    BTW, According to the Economist (4/22-28/2017, p. 11, this country spends $1854.00 per person each year on defense – close to $5,000.00 for the average family of 2.6 people, but Trump says it’s not enough, even though it’s close to half of world defense spending. He might be right. Killing the Trans Pacific Partnership and declaring to the world that our world strategy now includes only us and our interests has created enough uncertainty in many of our Asian allies to drive them towards China. We can no longer be relied upon. He’s your idiot, not mine.

    You guys used to gripe about Obama constantly. Why no comment about Trump? You must like what he’s doing.

  29. Steve says:

    “You guys used to gripe about Obama constantly. Why no comment about Trump? ”

    I said it once, no need to say it again except as a response to this challenge.

    I didn’t vote Trump, I don’t consider myself a Trump supporter and most of the things Trump says are wrong.

  30. deleted says:

    Rincon you can expect the guys on the right to keep saying they don’t like Trump all the while they have dreamed of the day when the country would get rid of public schools, the EPA, National Parks, “the liberal media”, abortion rights, taxes on the wealthy, and increase military spending, national land giveaways to the wealthy, changes in all rules that limit the theft of little peoples money by the wealthy and more to come.

    You can expect when all these conservative ideas cause the ruin of the country, that the guys on the far right will say “hey…I didn’t vote for him” as they bring in the next conservative with hopes of finishing the destruction that Trump has begun anew.

  31. Steve says:

    Oh, yeah.
    In Patrick’s universe, no one voted for Trump.

  32. deleted says:


    You’ll remember that, after the fall, republicans claimed that bush wasn’t “their” president. Even though they “elected him” for two terms.

    Expect the same after orange ball falls.

  33. Bill says:

    Not my idiot, rather someone who is our President. I was not crazy about Trump and was not crazy about his predecessor. In both cases, once elected, they became my President and as such I wished them well. The office and the person holding it should be accorded the respect that the office deserves.

    History has been replete with small and mediocre men who have risen to greatness within the Presidency, my personal favorite being Harry Truman, a former haberdasher, who gained the Senate by backing by the Missouri Pendergast machine which in turn was backed by the Binaggio crime family. When selected as a compromise VP candidate he was little more than a back bench non descript senator.

  34. deleted says:

    Rich it is to hear those on the right speak of “respecting the office” or giving the “office” the respect it deserves after listening to their heinous words about President Obama since before he took office. Questioning his birth, his race, his loyalty, his name, his wife, his family, his religion and not just questioning but blaspheming all of the above. And not just the fringe, this came from all quarters including, notoriously, the man the right elected to this country’s highest office.

    Save the pap for AM talk shows hosts that want to preface their remarks condemning anyone that so much as questions orange balls motives for giving himself tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks, and uses the government, paid for by taxpayers, to hawk his daughters cheap trinkets.

  35. Steve says:

    He’s your President, Patrick.

  36. Steve says:

    If you are a citizen of the republic,
    he’s your president, Patrick.

  37. Rincon says:

    I agree, Bill and Steve. And I hope he can rise to the occasion a la Harry Truman. It’s unfortunate that the thought of respecting the Presidency apparently never occurred to the majority here when Obama was President. Being my President does not mean you and I cannot disagree with him nor should we ignore their obvious shortcomings, but I hope I don’t stoop to the level that I saw on these pages regarding Obama. I have called Trump a liar, but that’s an established fact. I have not used the Fascist label so far though…

    Deleted is right. Trump is doing pretty much exactly what you want so far as I can tell. If things go bad, I wash my hands (and if they go well, then of course, I’ll say Hillary would have done better 🙂

  38. Steve says:

    Who says I respect Trump?
    I didn’t vote for him.
    But, I am willing to allow for improvement if it happens.
    With Obama, sadly, improvement never happened.

  39. Bill says:

    Rincon. I too hope that you, and others will not “stoop to the level…on these pages regarding Obama, if by that you mean simply calling names and repeating erroneous or slanted information. I for one did not see a lot of vicious vitriol about Obama and certainly saw nothing about defamatory or even critical about his wife or children in these pages,

    As for the media, they were universally praising someone who really had never held any leadership post and while a gifted orator, really had not accomplished much as a legislator.

    What struck me the most about Obama was that the media never questioned his bona fides. Perhaps they all had a “thrill” running up their leg like Chris Matthews. Of course, his candidacy and subsequent election was a historic milestone. Nevertheless, in a perfect world with an unbiased media, questions should have been raised or when raised, not simply ignored or derogated. For instance, the many untruthful statements contained in his biography some of which were even chronicled even by the New York Times.

    How a about O’s statements on Obamacare? “If you like your doctor you can keep him” being just one. Had those statements been made by an insurance executive to get you to buy a policy, chances are you would have a successful suit for fraud at a minimum and a potential criminal indictment.

    How about the recently released study of news on Trump that indicates 90% of the coverage has been negative.

    I could go on to cite more but chances are it will not do anything to change anyone’s mind. We tend to see things through our own lenses and interpret them accordingly.

    So much for truth.

    But, hope springs eternal and so I, and perhaps Steve will hold you to your word.

  40. Rincon says:

    I notice that you mention many negative observations about Obama, but not a peep about Trump. Does this mean that you think Obama was a poor President but that Trump is doing a pretty good job so far?

    “How about the recently released study of news on Trump that indicates 90% of the coverage has been negative.” I note the study was by, so I looked them up: “In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched the NewsBusters, a website “dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias,”

    Now THERE’S a neutral source. Nevertheless, is it true that if the news is negative, it should be reported that way? The truth sometimes hurts. My own common sense rejects the 90% claim as stated because they are claiming only 10% of the stories are either slanted in Trump’s favor (Fox News, anyone?) or neutral. I’ve read many, many stories. The majority are neutral in my opinion.

    Doesn’t it ever occur to any of you that it’s just barely possible that the venerable news media is less biased than their billionaire funded critics? For that matter, we can’t even define bias. Is it the media’s job to parrot propaganda or should they exclude coverage of well funded propaganda campaigns on both sides? Since most of us agree that the truth depends on who’s telling the story, how can you even tell if someone is biased? Maybe they are just seeing “alternative facts.” Face it, none of us can be sure of what’s true or who’s biased when there’s no agreement on much of anything or universally trusted information sources.

    For those with short memories, here’s a similar complaint regarding coverage of Obama by the LA Times:

    But that’s not bias because Obama’s not on your team.

    This space has had barely a peep about Trump, but I saw railing about Obama and Clinton at least several times every week for almost a decade. Bias in the extreme.

  41. Steve says:

    Say what you will about Trump, but ask yourself this, how often did they fund the government via stop gaps instead of full years?

    Trump’s sleight of hand with the Civil War this weekend kept the congressional sausage grinder out of the media cross hairs and Congress finally sat down and talked for a change.
    This budget is bi partisan, and Trump is delaying or giving up on much of the campaign rhetoric while getting a lot of things conservatives have always wanted and making it appear the Democrats “won” battles along the way.

    Oh look, the Civil War! And a squirrel too!
    Never mind that fully funded fiscal budget for the first time in what seems to be 8 years.

    Trump has turned 180’s on at least 6 things in his first 100 days.

    Yup, Trump is ending up doing things I think are proper and not the things his campaign extolled.
    Every president is OJT, it’s just some are faster learners than others.

  42. Steve says:

    Interestingly, Politico notes the Tyndall Report appears to support the overall tone of this years campaign coverage and adds to the Media Research Center study findings.

    I guess Politico is a right wing nut job now.

  43. Rincon says:

    But you don’t like Trump, right? Sure, Steve. The Republicans have ironclad control of Congress, but it’s to Trump’s credit that Congress adopted an, as you term it, bipartisan budget? The only thing bipartisan thing about it is that the Republicans have noted the hazard of running roughshod over the American majority that voted for Hillary. I am glad to see it, though. I tend to credit the left wing protests, with my tongue partly in my cheek.

    Crediting Trump with the Congressional budget seems a stretch. Congress overrode Trump repeatedly, providing additional funding for several departments when Trump’s budget request specifically asked for cuts. Too bad they threw plenty of money at the military though, as if to say, “it needs to be just a little bigger”. No wonder much of the world considers us an imperialist power.

    Trump turned 180 degrees on six issues because he was lying about them in the first place – like almost everything else. Thank goodness, for the most part. He’s done a lot of damage, but it could have been much worse.

    BTW, I went to NBC to look for all of those biased stories by the media. Didn’t find much, except a headline that quoted Trump saying that he would be “honored” to meet with N. Korea’s dictator, if that counts. Mostly, they appeared to be reporting facts. When they quoted an opinion from his opponents, they also included a quote from supporters. Instead of believing these Conservative propaganda sheets, try checking out things for yourself. THAT’s how you find bias. I now know that Newsbusters cannot be trusted.

  44. deleted says:

    Channeling the entire repblican party and conservative movement. There are no words for this.

    “Asked for clarification by ABC News’ Cecilia Vega on the claim that he still believes President Obama is an evil guy,” Spicer answered unequivocally.

    “He clearly stands by that,” said Spicer. “That’s something he made clear if you look at the entire back and forth.”

  45. Steve says:

    Rincon, reminder.

    I didn’t vote for him.
    But, I am willing to allow for improvement if it happens.
    With Obama, sadly, improvement never happened.

    Where does this say I like Trump?

    “The Republicans have ironclad control of Congress” RAWNG
    Nothing even approaching the veto proof numbers Obama had in 08.
    Then you say “Congress overrode Trump repeatedly” C’mon! You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

    “The only thing bipartisan thing about it is that the Republicans have noted the hazard of running roughshod over the American majority that voted for Hillary.”
    Tell that to those Democrats in the House and Senate whose votes are required to get this budget bill passed. The very definition of bi partisan is in the story…..the one you didn’t read.
    NPR: (from that link you ignored)
    The budget negotiations provided Democrats with a rare opportunity for leverage and clout, since Democratic votes will be needed to advance the spending plan through the Senate — and possibly the House if enough members of the conservative Freedom Caucus vote against it.

    And you failed to read the other story, the one detailing the six items (and counting) he campaigned on and flipped once in office for a few months.
    But, never mind, the only thing you look at the squirrel being dangled in front of your nose….and you fall for it every time.

  46. Steve says:

    OH yes!
    This budget is most definitely NOT one sided. In fact the AP calls it much the same thing as would have been produced by the Obama administration…except this one goes to September, not next month.


    __Military. The bill includes $593 billion for the military, including $15 billion of Trump’s $30 billion emergency request from earlier this year. The Pentagon would receive a $26 billion increase over last year, a 4 percent increase. Military personnel would get a 2.1 percent pay hike.

    __Planned Parenthood. The women’s health organization will continue to receive federal funding despite repeated Republican efforts to deny the group money over the abortion services it provides.

    __Puerto Rico. The budget includes $295.9 million to alleviate an emergency budget shortfall in the cash-strapped commonwealth.

    __Retired miners. The deal includes $1.3 billion to extend health insurance benefits for more than 22,000 retired mine workers and their widows.

    __National Institutes of Health. The deal rejects Trump’s proposal to slash spending at the National Institutes of Health, instead giving NIH a $2 billion boost for cancer research and other programs supported by lawmakers from both parties.

    __College students. The bill restores eligibility for year-round Pell Grants for college students. The measure would provide 1 million students with an average award of $1,650 a year to take classes year-round.

    __Opioid funding. The bill provides a $150 million increase for programs to address prevention and treatment of opioid and heroin abuse. The money is in addition to $500 million authorized last year to address the nation’s ongoing opioid addiction crisis.

    __Great Lakes. The bill rejects Trump’s call to cut $50 million in Great Lakes funding to support fishing, boating, hunting and stopping invasive species.

    __Medical marijuana. The bill extends a policy that prohibits the Justice Department from using federal money to interfere with states’ medical marijuana laws. The prohibition has been in place since 2014.

    __Local law enforcement. The bill includes $68 million to reimburse law enforcement agencies in New York City and Florida that have borne substantial costs to protect Trump and his family. Trump frequently travels to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, while first lady Melania Trump and the Trumps’ son, Barron, require around the clock protection as they live at their home in Manhattan until the end of school year.



    __Border wall. Trump said at nearly every campaign stop last year that Mexico would pay for the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border wall, a claim Mexican leaders have repeatedly rejected. The administration sought some $1.4 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for the wall and related costs in the spending bill, but Trump later relented and said the issue could wait until after September. Trump, however, obtained $1.5 billion for border security measures such as 5,000 additional detention beds, an upgrade in border infrastructure and technologies such as surveillance.

    __Policy riders. GOP leaders backed away from language to take away grants from “sanctuary cities” that do not share information about people’s immigration status with federal authorities. Trump’s request for additional immigration agents was denied and the IRS budget would be frozen at $11.6 billion instead of absorbing cuts sought by Republicans.

    __Yucca Mountain. The bill includes no money to revive the dormant Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Trump has proposed $120 million to restart the licensing process for Yucca Mountain in the budget year that begins in October. Nevada lawmakers strongly oppose the plan.

    __Trump. The president made concessions on the border wall and the White House backed off on a threat to withhold payments that help lower-income Americans pay their medical bills. Congressional negotiators rebuffed proposed cuts to domestic and foreign programs pushed by the administration earlier this year.

  47. deleted says:


    Remember this when anyone tries to disremember the “veto proof majorities” the “democrats” had when Obama was in office”

    It’s not only not true, it’s a lie.

  48. Steve says:

    Patrick, Trump doesn’t have any where near the number Obama had in 08.

    Obama had one Senate seat open. Without that he had the veto proof majority by virtue of the Vice President.

    It’s no lie, no matter how hard they try to spin it, Obama had control if he chose to use it.

    AND, Trump.
    It matters not how he did it, or even if he knows he did it.

    Congress, for the first time in a decade, is talking again.

  49. Bill says:

    In the same edition of the LA Times cited by Rincon there was also this story that he overlooked:

    Media more positive on Obama, but not as clearly as in 2008
    November 01, 2012|By James Rainey

    Anyone that believes that the mainstream media these days is more favorable to Trump than they were to Obama and that Conservative politicians get fairer or even as fair coverage by the majority of the media are looking through their own biased lenses.

    That is neither hype, spin or argument. Just demonstrable fact.

    So far, I still have trouble with what he says and some trouble about how he goes about implementing what he said he was going to do but I generally agree with what he is doing.

    So far.

  50. Steve says:

    My bad, VP only a tie breaker.

    Never the less, Patrick’s proves what I said. I never claimed two years. I said nothing even approaching the veto proof numbers Obama had in 08.
    08 was the first time in decades either party got that close to veto proof congressional majorities and Obama actually did have 60 votes for a while in his first term…as Patrick so kindly points out.

    All Obama needed to do was get one or two Republicans to vote with him….that is what a President is supposed to do, get Congress to talk.
    Obama admitted it himself on 60 minutes, he couldn’t translate his campaign success to dealing with congress.
    Obama had veto proof majorities if he wanted them, he simply didn’t do the work necessary to obtain the TWO votes needed from the opposing party.

  51. Steve says:

    Media at work, covering the President and Congress, keenly targeted on the subject….

  52. deleted says:


    Any idea how many votes, in each house, it takes to override a presidential veto?

    Here’s from a source almost anyone can understand:

    (Yep, that’s right, it’s 2/3 of each house which means 67 in the Senate and 290 in the House assuming all members vote)

  53. deleted says:

    As of February 11, 2008 there were 232 democratic members of the house, and 58 Demoratic members of the Senate although Sen. Kennedy died and shortly thereafter Sen. Byrd with Kennedy being replaced by a republican, and Byrd by…a guy who voted with republicans.

  54. Steve says:

    Look at this, Reuters uses the word “bipartisan”

    “The U.S. Congress, bitterly divided for years along party lines, may be mapping a bipartisan path forward that skirts around President Donald Trump when he refuses to engage constructively with lawmakers, Democrats and some lobbyists said on Monday.

    The path was discernible in a nearly $1.2 trillion federal spending deal carved out over the weekend to avert a government shutdown. It had Democratic fingerprints all over it, even though Republicans control Congress and the White House.”

    Patrick continues to prove the point, neither administration has the votes to get everything they wanted, but Obama had the best odds ever.
    All Trump (apparently) has is his sleight of hand. And the jury is still out on that in my opinion.

    Meanwhile, Patrick keeps dangling squirrels!

  55. Steve says:

    And, Patrick?
    You actually hinting Obama would have vetoed the ACA?

    Oh look!

  56. dave72 says:

    Anyone who denies scientific findings because of financial reasons simply has to call it a “hoax.” Then millions of conservatives will jump on their side. Like the preposterous idea of evolution. Churches would lose how much in donations?

  57. Steve says:

    Squirrel !

  58. Steve says:

    The reasons aren’t financial or science, Dave.

    The reasons are the politics driving the conclusions of the studies.

  59. Steve says:

    More on Trump’s find the pea game of misdirection and oh look! Squirrel!

    Media Bias fact check rates The Diplomat least biased.
    Happy reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s