EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 300
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:07 aksfjh wrote: If by "metropolitan areas" you mean downtown Dallas, some of Austin (the students that stick around UT), and half of San Antonio, then sure. Even then, the liberal-ness of those areas mainly support very modest upward adjustments to education and Medicaid (and maybe tax policy). Gun control, economic reforms, and "social issues" are still red throughout. The blue threat is coming from those south and southwest counties, and San Antonio, so next chance to gerrymander will likely target those areas, and create voting laws that discriminate against "natural opponents" to the GOP (young people, immigrants, and minorities). Nothing as outright racist as the 100 years after the civil war. Thinking about it more though, and I think a modern update to the act they are now exempt from would take into account large amounts of immigration. Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, New York, and maybe Washington state would be a part. I would need to see some general immigration numbers to know for sure. I'm talking international immigration, illegal or legal. Dallas county went blue in the last presidential election. Fort Worth still went red but it's a really small city and it's redneck enough that cars driving by scream "faggot" at me and my friends when we walk down the streets downtown. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
I guess we'll see tomorrow. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:21 NovaTheFeared wrote: Is anyone else concerned that either Roberts or Scalia is most likely authoring the opinion in at least one of the two gay marriage cases? This is based on http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/. 3 cases left, including the 2 gay marriage cases, and the 3 likely authors are Kennedy, Roberts, and Scalia. If Scalia, definitely concerned. If Kennedy or Roberts, slightly less so, as both have shown an occasional proclivity for actually rendering reasonable decisions  | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
bypLy
757 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Anyone else find it ironic that Obama mentioned Third Party in his address regarding the Climate? I find it strange that climate people are excited about this talk at all. It's pretty obvious that anything Obama tags will be opposed by the House. I imagine this is why his comments on immigration reform have been near nonexistent. Also, as far as executive action goes, with domestic cutbacks, the regulatory structure is going to be hell even maintaining current procedures. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Not to mention, recently American voters have shown a tendency to rise up when the cards are stacked against them (no better motivation than anger). This may drive Democratic turnout up. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:42 aksfjh wrote: I find it strange that climate people are excited about this talk at all. It's pretty obvious that anything Obama tags will be opposed by the House. I imagine this is why his comments on immigration reform have been near nonexistent. Also, as far as executive action goes, with domestic cutbacks, the regulatory structure is going to be hell even maintaining current procedures. I think it's mainly through executive action (the EPA will just impose CO2 limits from what I've read), so there's not much the House can do about it. It's a huge blow to coal, for sure, and the economies that rely on coal mining. Something will need to be done to help those areas make whatever transition they need to make. Increased access to export markets would certainly help. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Know another awesome economic use for Coal? Steel. Who da thunk it? SHUTUP WITH YOUR SCIENCE! It doesn't fit the political narrative we want to create!! | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think it's mainly through executive action (the EPA will just impose CO2 limits from what I've read), so there's not much the House can do about it. It's a huge blow to coal, for sure, and the economies that rely on coal mining. Something will need to be done to help those areas make whatever transition they need to make. Increased access to export markets would certainly help. And again, budget constraints. I would like to believe the EPA will have the ability to impose these regulations, but with discretionary spending taking massive hits recently, how are they going to go forward with any meaningful CO2 limitation (without some major cutbacks elsewhere)? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Know another awesome economic use for Coal? Steel. Who da thunk it? Steelmakers :p I think that's mainly coking coal though. And the US mainly uses recycled steel anyhow... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:17 aksfjh wrote: And again, budget constraints. I would like to believe the EPA will have the ability to impose these regulations, but with discretionary spending taking massive hits recently, how are they going to go forward with any meaningful CO2 limitation (without some major cutbacks elsewhere)? I honestly don't know how much the imposition of those regulations will cost. I thought they just say "here's the new rules kids, now play nice." I mean, they're already inspecting / regulating the plants for other reasons. Beats me how it really works though... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:17 aksfjh wrote: And again, budget constraints. I would like to believe the EPA will have the ability to impose these regulations, but with discretionary spending taking massive hits recently, how are they going to go forward with any meaningful CO2 limitation (without some major cutbacks elsewhere)? Possibly allow states to take others, their neighboring states, to court in regards to waste etc. Heck the cases would pop up overnight. | ||
|
bypLy
757 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:05 Souma wrote: Indeed. This may turn out better for Democrats than expected. Up until now, these states had an excuse when feds called their voter policies "racist," citing historical events as unrepresentative of the current state of affairs. Now, if these states do enact such policies and are once again officially labeled as racist, that's a giant slap to the face. Not to mention, recently American voters have shown a tendency to rise up when the cards are stacked against them (no better motivation than anger). This may drive Democratic turnout up. agree | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
