The only person to blame for the timing of the FBI investigation was Hillary, who destroyed government emails, wiped copies of those emails from all computers, stonewalled the investigation having the techs take the 5th, and ignoring the Congressional subpoena for a year.

WikiLeaks released the bulk of their Podesta emails earlier, not later.  The FBI and State Sept also dumped emails for public viewing, which again took too long because of the Clinton/State Dept reviewers taking forever.

I doubt the few WikiLeaks dumps near the election had that much impact on voters if the previous mountain of dumps did not.

Trump did not have a lot of last minute conversions, either, no more than Reagan did.  The polls then did the same thing.  They created a wide margin with the Democrat leading to manipulate voters .  Then as election week arrived, the polls magically stated to narrow.  That narrowing was to ensure the pollsters didn't get caught being too far off when the election doesn't end as they predicted/tried to influence it.

Yup.  Super tired of hearing about how she was a victim of this, timing of Comey's that, timing of whatever.  At minimum, she was likely the beneficiary of a smear campaign against Sanders. 

Sometimes I wondered if all of those polls showing Clinton winning by a landslide backfired.  As in HRC supporters who figured it was in the bag, didn't turn out and vote and inspiring more pro-Trump or anti-HRC to get out and vote and be more vocal and active and rally support against HRC.  Who knows.  All we know is that Trump won.  He's the 45th President of the United States of America.  At least give the guy a chance to see what he can offer.  I used to think that any one President couldn't do that much wrong/damage to this country.  Whoa, I don't think that now. 

To me, polls are practically meaningless.  However, I do see them as a tool that can be used to sway people, both educated and not-so-educated.  Yeah, there are some truly unbiased polls, but the vast majority ask questions that are at minimum biased toward supporting a hypothesis going in, to at times practically leading someone into a given answer.

Given the following options, which would you choose?

A) Do you want a broken down Chevy Silverado?
B) Do you want a brand new Ford F-150?

Well, I can still see some Chevy diehards going for A, but I would think most would go for B.   

I've seen some pretty biased polls.  Even ones that are seemingly unbiased can end up with results that contain a high level of doubt.  One example was a poll on sexual assault on campus.  The study was probably an honest attempt at getting data, but what it also tried to account for was how many incidents go unreported.  In the end, even the researchers had serious doubts in the data as how could you reliably say whether or not someone who wouldn't report an incident would respond as such on a poll.  Essentially, the poll gave some good data, but still not really conclusive on many points. 

snipped

Really?  I posted NINE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS over the last 40 years, and you post a meme going back to the 15th Century?  LOL!!

Aren't you the one who said "that was before my time" to dismiss anything you don't understand?

 

Really?  I posted NINE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS over the last 40 years, and you post a meme going back to the 15th Century?  LOL!!

Aren't you the one who said "that was before my time" to dismiss anything you don't understand?

 

i wonder what else he is "at heart"?

Defund NASA.  yay or nay?
Stop exploring space. yay or nay?
The earth is flat. yay or nay?

Defund NASA.  yay or nay?
Stop exploring space. yay or nay?
The earth is flat. yay or nay?

Defund NASA : No, but Allow USA resources to be used for a private/public partnership so company's can make use of NASA tech and facility's
Stop exploring space  : Yes sort of, How about we do something useful instead of sending billions of dollars to take photos of shit that dont matter. 
Flat earth : Show me an accurate map to scale of country's locations and sizes, show me a picture of earth from space that is not photoshoped Show me a photo of the north pole

Defund NASA.  yay or nay?
Stop exploring space. yay or nay?
The earth is flat. yay or nay?

I don't think we should defund NASA. But we can stop giving them money to study the environment. And let them concentrate on what they are best at.

I believe we need to keep exploring space. I think we need to learn to live in space and explore our solar system. Our natural resources are limited, though vast at this point. We need to figure out how to obtain the resources we need from the other planets. And we need to expand our strangle hold on the Earth and start populating other planets. Plus I believe that the U.S. needs to be at the forefront of the exploration. We are the most technology advanced country for one reason and one reason only. And that is due to our space program. We have allowed China to catch up and if they take over the lead in space exploration we will be behind them in technology. I believe it is of the utmost importance to take the lead again in this area.

Flat as a pancake! 

"Flat earth : Show me an accurate map to scale of country's locations and sizes, show me a picture of earth from space that is not photoshoped Show me a photo of the north pole"
"Flat as a pancake!  "
"Stop exploring space  : Yes sort of, How about we do something useful instead of sending billions of dollars to take photos of shit that dont matter. "

hmmm so the technology of getting into space is useless?  Who needs satellites anyway. Who wants to explore?  You probably disapprove the explorers ever leaving europe. Who wants to further the human species and secure our survival by spreading out.  Who cares bout science....

And here is when i facepalm.  I now realize there is no point in arguing about science with you.   I mean if you actually think the earth might be flat........

"Flat earth : Show me an accurate map to scale of country's locations and sizes, show me a picture of earth from space that is not photoshoped Show me a photo of the north pole"
"Flat as a pancake!  "
"Stop exploring space  : Yes sort of, How about we do something useful instead of sending billions of dollars to take photos of shit that dont matter. "

hmmm so the technology of getting into space is useless?  Who needs satellites anyway. Who wants to explore?  You probably disapprove the explorers ever leaving europe. Who wants to further the human species and secure our survival by spreading out.  Who cares bout science....

And here is when i facepalm.  I now realize there is no point in arguing about science with you.   I mean if you actually think the earth might be flat........

A lot of technology that we use today can be directly traced back to the space projects.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847

And I will add Velcro and Tang. 

"Flat earth : Show me an accurate map to scale of country's locations and sizes, show me a picture of earth from space that is not photoshoped Show me a photo of the north pole"
"Flat as a pancake!  "
"Stop exploring space  : Yes sort of, How about we do something useful instead of sending billions of dollars to take photos of shit that dont matter. "

hmmm so the technology of getting into space is useless?  Who needs satellites anyway. Who wants to explore?  You probably disapprove the explorers ever leaving europe. Who wants to further the human species and secure our survival by spreading out.  Who cares bout science....

And here is when i facepalm. I now realize there is no point in arguing about science with you.   I mean if you actually think the earth might be flat........

LOL!!   

LOL!!   

he's just looking for an excuse to quit while he's behind...

he's just looking for an excuse to quit while he's behind...

You said "behind" 

An oldie but goodie, which may prove something, but I'm not sure what, exactly...:

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
 
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago!

* * * * *
The full article is a little longer... and... yes, it's true... even hard-Left Snopes acknowledges it's true (they even have an image of the actual article). http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Of course just because all the global warming and global cooling "scientific" forecasts of the past 100 years have been wrong so far, does not mean that the current predictions will also be wrong ("Past performance is no guarantee of future returns"), but it does give one pause...

An oldie but goodie, which may prove something, but I'm not sure what, exactly...:

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
 
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago!

* * * * *
The full article is a little longer... and... yes, it's true... even hard-Left Snopes acknowledges it's true (they even have an image of the actual article). http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Of course just because all the global warming and global cooling "scientific" forecasts of the past 100 years have been wrong so far, does not mean that the current predictions will also be wrong ("Past performance is no guarantee of future returns"), but it does give one pause...

This is known as the "Stopped-Clock Theory of Climate Change".  Make enough dire predictions, and chances are you'll eventually be right someday .... maybe next century .... or the next ....  But, ONE DAY, someone will be able to read the inscription on Omni's gravestone:  "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Sorry, disregard.

Those are narrow, limited exemptions that require proof of religious or medical reasons.  Simply opting out because you don't want to risk side effects is NOT an option.

And how easy do you think it would be for someone to skirt around that requirement? Simply say you identify with religion X. How do you prove participation? How do they prove you aren't a participant? The requirement is there but for practical reasons it is unenforceable.

Yup we live in a free market state everyone wants to make money.  It does appear the co2 polluting companies are desperate to deny climate change.  Its why they are in the minority of credible scientists backing them up.

Exactly, basic investigation would suggest this. I mean sure, it is possible a bunch of scientists are being bribed by solar companies and wind power companies. It would be extremely expensive and would require the majority of climate scientists to throw away their integrity but it is theoretically possible. Having said that, it is also very unlikely.

What is much more likely is that the science just is what it is and those who stand to lose because of what the science says find ways of casting doubt so they don't lose. You don't have to bribe all the scientists to create doubt, just a few. That is much more probable and plausible.

I figured out a more concise way to put this. I think for the most part politics follows science. People with political agendas that go against the science would like us to believe that the science is following the politics instead because they can more easily cast doubt. I can imagine their frustration as well. Imagine you were a scientist, and not particularly political. Now imagine you made a significant discovery about something harmful. Your only desire is to share this information with the public so they can know about the danger but this information threatened the livelihood of certain areas of the economy. They attack you, your work, the science, etc. Then others join in but not because they are scientists who disagree but because they fall in political lines and that party happens to align with the particular business whose livelihood is threatened.

And how easy do you think it would be for someone to skirt around that requirement? Simply say you identify with religion X. How do you prove participation? How do they prove you aren't a participant? The requirement is there but for practical reasons it is unenforceable.

An affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the parent/patient.

An affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the parent/patient.

It is impossible to prove one's participation in a religion, therefore a claim is as good a proof as any. Thus it is unenforceable on anyone who plays the rules.

You say there is no way to get around the requirement, I showed there is. I don't think anything more can be said that would change our minds so I will leave it at that and return to the climate topic of this thread.