It sounds like a bad public relations move, but it doesn't deserve 24/7 coverage. My guess is that Cruz has been so squeaky clean that once the media found a fault or a lie, they have exploited it to the max. It still doesn't interest me much more than celebrity gossip so I'll leave the rest of the discussions to you guys.

I hear anecdotally that Texas ignored warnings about their electrical infrastructure, so that could be right. It still has little to do with Ted Cruz.

He signed a bill. He is not providing relief himself. Cruz does not have the power to sign relief bills. What exactly do you think Cruz could have done to provide relief for the people who have lost their power? I've never heard once, anybody criticizing Diane Feinstein or Alex Padia for not providing relief for Californians who don't have water or electricity, and this has been going on for decades. It is not a one-time weather event.

This all strikes me as the kind of news that you see in grocery store celebrity magazines. It has very little important substance and isn't much worth my time.

It's incredible that this is what counts for "News" these days. You guys waste your time watching television so you can keep track of gossip about Republicans. Meanwhile thousands of residents in Portland Oregon have been without electrical power for more than one week. This on top of recent r**ts by Black L***s M****r. And Governor Andrew Cuomo is being investigated by his own people for having k**led thousands of nursing home residents, perhaps the biggest scandal in the whole C***d P******c world-wide .

If this is what Cruz did then he is guilty of nothing more than caving to public opinion. Senators are not in charge of relief operations for state governments. It sounds like he was giving relief to his neighbors instead, like every good citizen should do. You might as well blame Joe Biden for not arranging relief efforts.

That's what this is about? I don't see anything wrong with fleeing the State if they don't have electricity. I'll bet thousands of others did the same thing. Cruz is a Senator. He has practically nothing to do with public utilities. That is all controlled by the State and local government. As far as the C***d test, maybe he did flout the restrictions, but I don't care very much. C***d has been blown way out of proportion and I think they should loosen a lot of the restrictions. The politicians who put them in place have often flouted the restrictions, too. They don't really believe they are that necessary.

I don't care much for "breaking news." Most of it is just trivial gossip. This story is beginning to confirm my view. Now you cause me more questions. What travel ban is there for going to Mexico? And why is it a bad thing to leave Texas when the power is out? And what is the advantage of lying that the power was on at his home if it was really out?

I don't understand what Ted Cruz did to get people so bent out of shape. Can you explain it to me?

Apparently you didn't see my other link to the Wikipedia page on The Antarctic Ice Sheet that currently reads:

"Satellite measurements by NASA indicate a still increasing sheet thickness above the continent, outweighing the losses at the edge. The reasons for this are not fully understood, but suggestions include the climatic effects on ocean and atmospheric circulation of the ozone hole, and/or cooler ocean surface temperatures as the warming deep waters melt the ice shelves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

If you want to dispute it by showing some source that can demonstrate that the ice is shrinking in Antarctica, I will be glad to read it. The link you posted, which is the same one that lady posted days ago, is a speculative article talking about "what happens if the temperature rises 2 degrees." And so far it has risen 6/10ths of one degree in 140 years.

All those links you posted about moving the Lighthouses give the reason as being erosion and tourists destroying the sands. Only one mentioned C*****e C****e in passing. The rise in Sea Level has been about seven inches in 100 years, not much concern to cause one to move his lighthouse. Same goes for your beach erosion links. The articles are saying that Atlantic Storms are what is causing the erosion, not rising seas. Also high tides are not caused by rising seas, they are caused by gravitational forces from the Moon in combination with oceans naturally sloshing around in its deep cratered terrain.

You seem like a nice lady and worth conversing with. I'll give you my take on those questions.

Conservatives have a generally negative knee-jerk reaction to Environmentalists because so many of them bombard us with these doomsday scenarios that are exaggerated beyond ridiculous. Democrats Alexandria Occasio Cortez and p**********l candidate Beto O'Rourke predicted that the World will end in 12 years. In 2009 Al Gore predicted that Arctic Sea Ice would disappear by 2014. Going back 50 years to the start of Environmentalism, they have been predicting a coming ice age, massive starvation, nuclear winter, the death of the oceans, the rationing of food and water, the depletion of oil, and on and on. But none of the predictions ever come true, in fact mostly the opposite happens.

Its not that Conservatives are against environmentalism, they want to live on a healthy planet, too, but they take things in stride. Remember that the Clean Air Act was signed by President Nixon, who also declared April 22nd to be "Earth Day." President Bush the younger constructed a state-of-the art environmentally friendly home in Texas while Al Gore lived in a totally energy inefficient big carbon footprint home in Tennessee.

A big thing I see with radical environmentalists is that environmentalism seems to be a kind of substitute for having religious beliefs. When people don't believe in God they tend to gravitate toward grand causes that give meaning to their life. It has been noted that right after the fall of c*******m in the late 1980's, many supporters of C*******m in the West turned into "Greenies."

My evidence that it is treated with religious fervor is that anytime there is good news about the environment, environmentalists are not happy because they need for there to be something to fight against in order to feel needed. For instance, in the early 2000's the air quality in the U.S. became better than it had been before the start of the Industrial Revolution. Was there celebration? Cheering? No, only crickets chirping. The ozone layer has recovered. There are more trees in the U.S. today than before the Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth Rock. The Earth as a whole has been "greening" for the last 40 years due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and the advent of nitrogen fertilizers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

This stuff should be headline news but instead is sloughed off to the side in favor of apocalyptic stories. We hear instead about a "Green New Deal" that seeks to totally eliminate f****l f**ls and achieve a zero output of carbon emissions. Any sensible person realizes that this would entail eliminating most t***sportation by car, train, or airplane. Even if you have some cars and trains that run on electricity, it is impossible with planes. As far as zero carbon emissions, the average person exhales 800 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. You can't light a match without emitting CO2. It is no wonder that Conservatives look to the loss of jobs and the costs of conversion when confronted with these ludicrous proposals. Why can't they ever propose something moderate?

The U.N. estimates that if all countries of the World were to follow the guidelines of the Paris Climate Accord, then by 2100 the temperature of earth would be reduced by two one-hundredths of one degree. Its stuff like that that causes Conservatives to balk at the enormous money costs involved.

The article you provided was based on a "what if the ice starts melting" scenario. Any look at satellite measurements shows that Antarctic ice has been growing, and is still growing. Just look at the current Wikipedia page on the Antarctic Ice Sheet. One of the first sentences on the page says this:

"Satellite measurements by NASA indicate a still increasing sheet thickness above the continent, outweighing the losses at the edge. The reasons for this are not fully understood, but suggestions include the climatic effects on ocean and atmospheric circulation of the ozone hole, and/or cooler ocean surface temperatures as the warming deep waters melt the ice shelves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

Environmentalists like to pretend that Antarctica is melting, because the real story throws a big monkey wrench into their theories. They like to cherry-pick a few examples around the coastline or in the Antarctic Peninsula, but don't believe them. Look at the actual measurements that come from NASA. They are even promoting the G****l W*****g theories but admit to measurements that contradict it.

Antarctica is seven times the size of Greenland and its ice mass is increasing.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

This is still the greatest place to live in the World. People don't like Trump because he is rude, belligerent, boastful, and narcissistic. It has nothing to do with his handling of the p******c. They make that stuff up because they're not satisfied with just calling him rude, belligerent, boastful, and narcissistic.

The guy did say there was no hope for this country. If I actually thought that I would consider going somewhere else. Thing is, I don't think he really believes it.