US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1929

On May 05 2015 12:56 ticklishmusic wrote:


The EPA's mandate is human health, finances don't play any role in it IIRC? Whitman vs American Trucking.

On May 05 2015 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Not saying that's the case here, but the EPA does put out benefit estimates that are, to be kind, speculative.

On May 05 2015 13:00 oneofthem wrote:

well i don't really think their numbers are that tight given the wide range of their estimate, but the basic objective is sound, get coal out of the power grid, at least the worst types. it's pretty low hanging fruit as far as environemntal regulation is concerned.

On May 05 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Finances? I'm talking about their benefit estimates. You just cited some in your previous post.

On May 05 2015 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

In some cases it is low hanging fruit, in others it is high up the tree. The nature of the beast.

On May 05 2015 13:05 ticklishmusic wrote:


Wrong guy, first time chiming in on this issue

While I can accept that benefit estimates are probably off because the criteria for what is actually a benefit is so subjective, it's kind of a no brainer that reducing our reliance on coal is probably good for the environment.

It seems on one end the energy companies are using a number that only includes the bare benefits, like x less tons of carbon released times whatever the credit value per ton is, while the EPA does some estimate that includes x number of people don't get ill, their increased productivity, reduced medical costs, etc. The reality is hard to quantify, but going under the EPA's court approved mandate this is all just some finger waggling and semantics more or less. The reality is, far as I understand, as long as the EPA can pull out some scientific evidence that coal is bad (which is easy as making a pb&j), they don't necessarily need to quantify *how* bad it is (financially).

On May 05 2015 13:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


And Mike Huckabee lol.

Any more of these clowns and the Republican circus is going to need a bigger car.

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

“It’s like being in kindergarten,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who’s become the leader of the opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda. “You give back the toys at the end.”

For those out to sink Obama’s free trade push, highlighting the lack of public information is becoming central to their opposition strategy: The White House isn’t even telling Congress what it’s asking for, they say, or what it’s already promised foreign governments...

“My chief of staff who has a top secret security clearance can learn more about ISIS or Yemen than about this trade agreement,” Doggett said.

Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who supports giving Obama fast-track authority, says the division among Democrats is between members who are looking for a reason to say no and those that are actually trying to work on the deal.

“They’ve been very engaging with Congress and to members who want to be in the room and engaging them on the text … so we can ask questions but, more importantly, so we can provide input,” Kind said.

As for Froman, Kind said, “he’s very cordial, he’s very respectful and listening to other people’s opinion. … I don’t get a sense of condescension and arrogance.”

Kind says he expects several more Democrats to announce their support for the president’s efforts in the coming days, some of them because of what they’ve heard from Froman.

Doggett insisted that the outreach is costing the White House support.

“The more people hear Ambassador Froman but feel they get less than candid and accurate answers, I think it loses votes for them,” Doggett said.

On May 05 2015 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

whoops, my bad, it's late here.

I've read before that the epa will do things like extrapolate from what is known, into what is unknown. So pollution above x level is known to have a negative health effect. EPA lowers pollution below x and assumes the benefits are tangible, even though there is no scientific evidence that the benefit exists.

Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister who became Arkansas governor, announced Tuesday he'll run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Huckabee made the announcement in his hometown of Hope, Arkansas.

"I am a candidate for president of the United States of America," he said.

During his announcement, Huckabee said that he would "conquer Jihadism" and protect Social Security. He also criticized the Supreme Court for potentially overturning bans on same-sex marriage. He also said that he favored term limits for individuals in all branches of the federal government -- including the judiciary.

"The Supreme Court is not the supreme being," he said.

School officials have declared an outbreak of chlamydia at a high school in Crane County, Texas, where the only sex-ed course is legally required to emphasize abstinence.

School district officials sent out letters to parents last week warning that 20 of Crane High School's 300 students have come down with the disease, which afflicts males and females but can cause permanent reproductive damage in the latter if left untreated, the Express-News reports.

On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street.

On May 05 2015 22:08 Plansix wrote:
Does anyone know of those restrictions are by the request of Japan's government? It seems odd, but I wouldn't be shocked.

On May 06 2015 03:21 Chocolate wrote:
if you're a liberal is there any reason not to vote Sanders in the primary? Hillary seems way too centrist to be able to capture most of the democratic voting base and is basically just bankrolled by wall street.