I just discovered, through one of those suggested links provided underneath posts, that Basil tackled this whole impeachment thing a decade ago.

.

Job Security
Posted by Basil on 26 July 2009, 9:12 pm

Every time a group of crazies doesn’t like the president, or something the president does, they call for his impeachment.

This is true for as long as I can remember. Well, almost.

I don’t remember Eisenhower (president when I was born) or much about Kennedy. And I don’t recall any “Impeach Johnson” movement. But, there was an “Impeach Nixon” movement. It went so far as to go to committee in the House of Representatives.

Some crazies called for the impeachment of Gerald Ford, following the Nixon pardon, but it was just crazy talk. Some crazy talk about Carter (particularly following the botched Iran hostage rescue attempt). Then, the crazies kicked it up when Reagan took office. Same with Bush the Elder.

Of course, Clinton was impeached, but acquitted.

And how can we forget the Impeach Bush movement. There are still some wanting him impeached. Told you they were nuts.

Now, there’s an Impeach Obama movement. Google it; you’ll get 2,210,000 results. At Bing, not as many, but still 217,000 results.

Let me state right now, in case you somehow missed it over the last several months, I think that Barack Obama is an incompetent oaf. He’s not qualified to work the cash register at Hardee’s, much less occupy the Oval Office. But impeach him?

Consider what would happen.

On the upside, we’d be rid of him. That’s a pretty big upside.

The downside? Who’s next in line? That’s right, Joe Biden. For crying out loud, no rational person would want him in the White House.

So, could they both be removed from office at one time?

Look what happens then: the Speaker of the House assumes the presidency. That’s Nancy Pelosi! Again, no rational person would want that.

Who’s next? The President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd.

Okay, it’s a mass impeachment then. It removes the president, vice-president, Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Who assumes the presidency then? The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Next? Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner.

Then?

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates
Attorney General: Eric Holder
Secretary of the Interior: Ken Salazar
Secretary of Agriculture: Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Commerce: Gary Locke
Secretary of Labor: Hilda Solis
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Shaun Donovan
Secretary of Transportation: Ray LaHood
Secretary of Energy: Steven Chu
Secretary of Education: Arne Duncan
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki
Secretary of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano

See what I mean? Remove one, another takes over. Okay, maybe Gates isn’t that bad. But the only other Republican, LaHood, ain’t no prize.

What then?

Nothing. We’re screwed.

Until the 2012 election.

Ah, bad news for you there.
— The future.

Unless we screw around like we did in 2008 and get our asses handed to us. Think about that next time you decide to bad-mouth a conservative.

Ah, some more bad news for you there.
— The future.

Except for Ron Paul. You can bad-mouth him. He’s nuts. And so are his supporters.

A Third of Africa’s Tropical Flora Threatened With Extinction
Phys.org / Nov. 20, 2019

A third of the species of tropical plants in Africa are potentially threatened with extinction, according to a preliminary estimate published Wednesday by the journal Science Advances.

Why? Did they get dirt on Hillary?

Climate Impacts “To Cost World $7.9 Trillion” by 2050
Phys.org / November 20, 2019/ Patrick Galey

That’s far less than Warren’s and Sanders’ plans to provide free college plus free healthcare.
Plus debt forgiveness.
Per year.

In perpetuity.

With government bureaucracies to administer them.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) . . .

Tee-hee!

Sorry. I’ll try to stop tittering at their laughable name, and pay attention.

Climate Change Resilience Index . . .

If it has a name, it must be respected.

measured the preparedness of the world’s 82 largest economies

Let’s face it, they really were interested in the #1 largest economy.
Or else why did they stop after 82?

and found that based on current trends the fallout

very objective nuclear bomb imagery

of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050.

“Found”?

There’s no debate concerning this model?

Are these the same economists who predicted the US economy would go into freefall if Trump was elected? Or are they other economists, who published opinions to the contrary?

I thought so.

Its analysis, which assesses each country’s direct exposure to loss as

“as”? Don’t you mean “if”?

Oh.

You don’t.

climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP in the balance.

Differing from today, how?

In general, developing nations faired poorer in terms of resiliency than richer ones.

Differing from today, how?

“Being rich matters,” John Ferguson, EIU country analysis director, told AFP.

Bears repeating.

. . .

Of the countries evaluated, Angola stood to lose the most—as much as 6.1 percent of gross domestic product.

[Laughter]

The study put this down to a mixture of a lack of quality infrastructure, as well as its geographical exposure to severe drought, soil erosion and rising sea levels.

… and that’s all they could blame? In . . . Angola?

. . .

The analysis said rising temperatures meant the global economy was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050, as opposed to $258 trillion with no climate impact.

I assumed the U.S. debt was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050. I’m confused.

While the United States —- still the world’s largest economy at market rates —- is forecast to be one of the least impacted, the EIU noted that President Donald Trump’s policies represented a “temporary setback” in the climate fight.

But a temporary set-forward for Americans…

Russia was predicted to lose five percent of GDP by 2050 and will “suffer more than most other countries in the world from the negative effects of climate change”, it said.

But you’d just said that “Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP” in the balance. So why didn’t you warn us that Russia, losing 5.0 percent, would suffer worse?

This held true even when potential benefits in increased agriculture were taken into account.

No, no. Go on. I believe you: Greenland, Canada, Siberia, and Iceland becoming arable . . . I’m listening.

Melting permafrost—threatening infrastructure such as hydrocarbon pipelines —

I’ve been turning that phrase over in my mind for several minutes now — it is verbatim from their report — and I’ll be damned if it . . . wait; there’s more:

was forecast to be among the biggest drags on Russia’s economy in the coming decades.

Nope. Can’t imagine Russia would make repairs.

Nations agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to limit temperature rises to “well below” two degrees Celsius, and 1.5-C if possible.

They agreed to limit temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius — but still agreeing to increases? Per year? Per decade? Per month? Per day? Per minute? Either poorly written; or not much to hang your hat on for the preservation of the human race, I’d say.

To do so, the global economy must rapidly decrease its greenhouse gas emissions — a source of controversy in developing nations which say their economic growth shouldn’t suffer after decades of fossil fuel use by wealthier countries.

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

“The global economy is going to suffer so it’s not really a case of act now or act later. We need to do both,” said Ferguson.

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

“Developing countries can’t do this on their own. There needs to be a coordinated global effort to deal with the impacts we are talking about.”

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

[Repeat]

Nov 21, 1976

Eric opens a bottle of Dom Perignon (a gift from Dark Horse Records for writing and directing a couple of promo films for George’s album 33 1/3 in the summer) . . .

He describes Stones business meetings — they have even more than Python — with Keith Richards, who sounds very eccentric, lying prostrate and apparently dead for much of the meeting, apart from the occasional devastating one-liner. Charlie Watts remains very silent until suddenly, out of the blue, coming up with an idea about plastic record covers.

His position as a relatively new member of the Stones is considered differently by the Stones and their ‘businessmen.’ As he puts it, the band are all very democratic, split everything equally, ‘but as soon as the businessmen come in it all changes.’

— Michael Palin, Diaries 1969 – 1979: The Python Years

Jewish Settlements No Longer Illegal – US
bbc.com | November 18, 2019

The US has shifted its position on Israel’s Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, no longer viewing them as inconsistent with international law.

Career bureaucrats in the U.S. State Dept. phoned each other in tears because this is not the way things have always been done. Several then leaked to their media contacts what they heard from each other, and vowed that they were totally going to snub Trump at the next party. And wondered bitterly why he uses “back channels” to conduct diplomacy.