Thursday, December 07, 2017

Perplexing Questions


I am perplexed by the following conundrums:

How do all the carbon emissions emanating from all the massive California wildfires compare with those saved by this state's very tough exhaust emissions standards?

How could Donald Trump, a man with so many obvious flaws, win the presidency?

What did ex-President Obama discuss with the leaders of China, India and France when he met with them recently? Were these meetings in violation of the Logan Act?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe is shifting from Russian collusion to obstruction of justice, is this a problem for his investigation? If there were no underlying crimes, how can anyone be obstructing justice?

Since the Obama-Clinton tag team did so much to forward Russian interests (Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, Uranium One, Iran, emasculate missile defense, etc.), why would Putin have preferred Trump over Hillary in the last election?

Why did the dollar drop relative to the yuan over 6% earlier this year and has now returned to near parity? Is China playing trade games with Trump?

Are womens' accusations of sexual predation enough to produce recriminations on the presumed predictors? Does not there need to be some corroborating evidence too?

If none of the global warming predictions or computer models have been validated, how can these alarmists still be believed or their very expensive remedies be endorsed by governments?

With probably hundreds of thousands of strapping young men and women who are indolent and mischief-makers, why can't they be organized into a Civilian Conservation Corps to destroy all the combustible material in all the critical areas of California ... in order to eliminate the devastating wildfires there?

2 comments:

DEN said...

Biggest conundrum of all: Why do middle class retirees support plutocrat-friendly tax cuts, which will burden their own grandchildren another trillion.

George W. Potts said...

The trillion dollar increase in national debt over 10 years from new tax proposals assumes GNP growth of 1.8%. If we get 3%+, we will work down that $10 trillion increase that your buddy B.O. left us with. Capeesch?