|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 27 2016 00:32 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:
A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters.
so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. (1) I do understand some substantial differences between the two positions. (2) They are both closer to me on some issues I consider very important (e.g. fourth and fifth amendment rights) than either Clinton or Trump. (3) Except for their flagship issues, the details of their platforms won't matter next year.
(2) is actually a reasonable position when it comes to policing and surveillance stuff. okay.
(3) is basically shifting the blame on legislative inaction to the candidates, while also dismissing a ton of impact coming out of the executive and judicial branches alone.
basically a single issue voter? i wouldn't condemn you for this but you are devaluing a lot of other policies besides civil liberty stuff.
|
On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change: Show nested quote +
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
|
On October 27 2016 00:41 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:33 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Dems cover it all the time, so not sure what you're talking about. agree that more leadership on the issue would be nice. In a very poor fashion - didn't you see Obama on Fallon summarizing one of his talking points with 'climate change is real' ? The Breitbart-ian view that the IPCC is rigged and climate change is a hoax is mainstream in the US, it's called the Republican party. Nationwide you are still debating existence rather than the best way to deal with the issue, and are the only large industrialized country to do that - a US idiosyncracy. It's not like there is a high quality 2-way debate on how to solve it.
yes, it's bad and we know it. the point is, I was disputing your claim that both main parties aren't covering it, by syaing that the Dems are. That the republicans are failing on it doesn't change the validity of my point that the Dems are covering it. That the Dems have to say such basic things as it's real doesn't change the fact that they're working on it.
basically, the issue here is exactly what claim you're making and I'm objecting to.
|
On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
This is a valid criticism of American voters, not the candidates.
|
On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
I mean, she can't control what the moderators ask. She did bring up that Trump thinks climate change is a chinese hoax during the debates. Not much more she could really do by herself on that.
|
On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
because its one of the topics where it would show trump is hopelessly out of his depth and the republican party line is bullshit. clinton is more than happy to talk about climate change, clean energy and carbon emissions (and to comment on what to do for coal communities) and the general state of our energy production if she's asked. trump will throw out some markov generated nonsense about how he loves pipelines and we have the best gas. its up to the moderators or the audience in town halls to choose the topics.
|
On October 27 2016 00:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:41 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 00:33 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Dems cover it all the time, so not sure what you're talking about. agree that more leadership on the issue would be nice. In a very poor fashion - didn't you see Obama on Fallon summarizing one of his talking points with 'climate change is real' ? The Breitbart-ian view that the IPCC is rigged and climate change is a hoax is mainstream in the US, it's called the Republican party. Nationwide you are still debating existence rather than the best way to deal with the issue, and are the only large industrialized country to do that - a US idiosyncracy. It's not like there is a high quality 2-way debate on how to solve it. yes, it's bad and we know it. the point is, I was disputing your claim that both main parties aren't covering it, by syaing that the Dems are. That the republicans are failing on it doesn't change the validity of my point that the Dems are covering it. That the Dems have to say such basic things as it's real doesn't change the fact that they're working on it. basically, the issue here is exactly what claim you're making and I'm objecting to.
I understand your logic. I'm saying it's not really a debate as long as one of the parties isn't acknowledging it. It's a controversy. And it's unhealthy to have a single party's view on it. A constructive 2-way would possibly yield overall better policies. I think we agree.
|
On October 27 2016 00:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:32 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:
A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters.
so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. (1) I do understand some substantial differences between the two positions. (2) They are both closer to me on some issues I consider very important (e.g. fourth and fifth amendment rights) than either Clinton or Trump. (3) Except for their flagship issues, the details of their platforms won't matter next year. (2) is actually a reasonable position when it comes to policing and surveillance stuff. okay. (3) is basically shifting the blame on legislative inaction to the candidates, while also dismissing a ton of impact coming out of the executive and judicial branches alone. basically a single issue voter? i wouldn't condemn you for this but you are devaluing a lot of other policies besides civil liberty stuff.
I'm not single issue in general, but civil liberties are a lot more important than normal this time because of the vacant Supreme Court seat and the likelihood of other Supreme Court seats becoming open.
Another important issue is executive overreach, which is far more likely to be addressed in a third party presidency for obvious reasons :p.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. it would be a mistake to reduce climate policy down to support for/against of very macro level policies like carbon tax/straight up bans.
clinton team's approach is to treat each industry separately, and identify the big polluters where there are low hanging fruit improvements.
for example, coal powered plants. replacing those with some gas and renewables would be really impactful, while stating that you'll ban gasoline in 30 years would not really actually lower carbon emissions, and produce a ton of political resistance. in a green crazy country like germany, the political cost is shifted the other way. if you talk about banning cars in the u.s., you'd be sabotaging the global warming issue.
the other pillar seems to be getting to technological and scale maturity for alternative energy sources. she's also untrustworthy as an advocate for nuclear power, but whatever.
the basic criticism about hillary is that with all the strategery jumping around on policy stances based on polls, there is no grand master vision. you'll definitely have good people in charge of various areas, but the risk aversion with respect to political downsides can hamper development of a strategic vision. in this respect her refusal to advocate for the tpp is most problematic.
|
On October 27 2016 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. This is a valid criticism of American voters, not the candidates.
Correct. And that has been shaped by debate points in previous election years ( count it as a decade+ phenomenon ), which directly stems from one side's refusal to acknowledge it as a valid subject. Put it this way, I think the outline would be vastly different today had Cheney not been so linked with big oil, but that's just me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 27 2016 00:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:20 LegalLord wrote:
So why do so many people prefer to vote on Election Day? Besides all these voter suppression issues, I find that it's much harder to make an informed decision on the candidates that I never really heard of if I don't have a chance to look at their campaign materials, which really can't be done while standing in line or something. it is hard to figure out who to vote for while standing in line, but would'nt the same apply if you went to an early polling location? I try to look up what's on the ballot beforehand, so I can research anything I don't know enough about. I vote on election day, partly out of habit; but also because, until fairly recently, you were only allowed to vote on election day unless you had a good reason not to (i.e. will be out of town, disability) I think there should be a supply of material on the candidates/issues on site, so if I find something I don't know enough about, I can take a look on-site to make a decision. at the very least I'd like a resume and a 1page statement from each candidate. All too often in local elections for minor positions it's just a vote between people I know nothing about. It'd be raelly nice to have onsite info on them.
I vote by mail, so I spend a few hours looking up all the candidates before voting. Is that not available to everyone in the country?
Usually I get a pamphlet that describes the laws that intend to be passed, with pro/con arguments, with my ballot papers. But I'd also prefer to have position papers for each of the candidates who are running; I have to go online to find those. Those should really be included with the ballot itself.
For local positions, it's usually a very clear-cut choice though. There are a certain number of open positions, and an about equal number of people who display the minimum competence to do those jobs.
|
On October 27 2016 01:00 Buckyman wrote:
Another important issue is executive overreach, which is far more likely to be addressed in a third party presidency for obvious reasons :p.
I would argue that executive overreach is the only way that a 3rd party president would ever hope to actually get anything done in office. A 3rd party presidency would result in either an expansion of executive overreach or an ineffective president that accomplishes nothing in office.
The presidency isn't an office that exists in a vacuum. If you aren't aligned with congress in any fashion, you just aren't going to be able to accomplish anything.
EDIT: Likewise with the issue of Supreme Court justices--if a 3rd party candidate expects to get an appointee onto the Supreme Court, they'd ultimately have to work with at least one of the major parties anyway if they want their appointee to be approved by the Senate.
|
On October 27 2016 01:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. it would be a mistake to reduce climate policy down to support for/against of very macro level policies like carbon tax/straight up bans. clinton team's approach is to treat each industry separately, and identify the big polluters where there are low hanging fruit improvements. for example, coal powered plants. replacing those with some gas and renewables would be really impactful, while stating that you'll ban gasoline in 30 years would not really actually lower carbon emissions, and produce a ton of political resistance. in a green crazy country like germany, the political cost is shifted the other way. if you talk about banning cars in the u.s., you'd be sabotaging the global warming issue. the other pillar seems to be getting to technological and scale maturity for alternative energy sources.
We agree : I'm saying exactly that the US is late to the party when it comes to the complexity of climate change policies, and that in fact, said debate is in such an infancy stage that willing politicians need to tiptoe around it. This is exactly what I'm saying. We can then also agree it would be much better to get to the next level of discussion, and have both parties engaging in the 'how' of mitigating climate change factors, rather than having a simple minded and polarized 'It's real / It's not' talk. I view HRC and Obama's efforts in those regards as a good *first step*. I feel like we can expect more from America.
|
On October 27 2016 01:09 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 01:00 Buckyman wrote:
Another important issue is executive overreach, which is far more likely to be addressed in a third party presidency for obvious reasons :p. I would argue that executive overreach is the only way that a 3rd party president would ever hope to actually get anything done in office. A 3rd party presidency would result in either an expansion of executive overreach or an ineffective president that accomplishes nothing in office. The presidency isn't an office that exists in a vacuum. If you aren't aligned with congress in any fashion, you just aren't going to be able to accomplish anything.
It is imo what makes the parliamentary system superior. You vote for the House and whoever gets a majority gets to pick someone to be president, guaranteeing they can actually implement the will of the people.
|
On October 27 2016 01:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2016 00:29 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 23:12 oneofthem wrote:On October 26 2016 11:40 Buckyman wrote:On October 26 2016 11:25 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses? This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened. I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms. A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters. so this is just really quality stuff. not only do you think hrc policies are worse than either stein or johnson, but you somehow think stein/johnson is a single pole of policy when they are on different planets. your idea of good policy is the problem, and this extends to the electorate in general. But Stein and Johnson are really, really different! That resonates with my childish "fuck the system" worldview. Just look at this platform item by Jill Stein and tell me that doesn't just get you fired up:
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Imagine how cool it would be if 88% of corn in the US was suddenly removed from our market. Now THAT would be change I can believe in! Woo boy all this talk just gets me so fired up! In fairness though, both main parties have opened a vacuum with how little they cover climate change, so they're vastly responsible for enabling Stein. There was not even a single environment-related question during Wallace's debate, and it's arguably the most important question ( in terms of the scale of its putative consequences, I'm not taking a stand on future scenarios & probabilities ) facing the human race. I would say the US is top 3 in the world in terms of ability to lead and curb world environmental policy, along with China and Germany, and the lack of leadership we are seeing in that regard is simply stunning. Clinton's section on climate change:
Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.
On day one, Hillary Clinton will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within 10 years of taking office:
Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.
As president, Hillary will:
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.
Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Read the fact sheet here.
Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations. Read the fact sheet here.
Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force. Read the fact sheet here.
Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy. Read the fact sheet here.
Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ I'm with you and very glad to see that on her website - what I'm saying is, it's not even deemed to be important enough to the public that it'd be debated on TV. I support her and her effort with respect to climate. But for instance not a single question on Keystone XL on national TV ? It is not a lie to say that the US's environmental leadership compared to that of say Germany looks pretty weak and divisive, largely due to the harm years of Bush family-induced denialism have done to public debate. The US doesn't have a structurally strong Green party like die Grunen, and I can't imagine a headline such as 'the US looks to ban all petrol cars by 2030 *nationwide*' hitting any time soon. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. it would be a mistake to reduce climate policy down to support for/against of very macro level policies like carbon tax/straight up bans. clinton team's approach is to treat each industry separately, and identify the big polluters where there are low hanging fruit improvements. for example, coal powered plants. replacing those with some gas and renewables would be really impactful, while stating that you'll ban gasoline in 30 years would not really actually lower carbon emissions, and produce a ton of political resistance. in a green crazy country like germany, the political cost is shifted the other way. if you talk about banning cars in the u.s., you'd be sabotaging the global warming issue. the other pillar seems to be getting to technological and scale maturity for alternative energy sources. she's also untrustworthy as an advocate for nuclear power, but whatever. the basic criticism about hillary is that with all the strategery jumping around on policy stances based on polls, there is no grand master vision. you'll definitely have good people in charge of various areas, but the risk aversion with respect to political downsides can hamper development of a strategic vision. in this respect her refusal to advocate for the tpp is most problematic.
I think it's okay to be pragmatic. It makes her look bad but it's wiser for a politician to 'when things change, change their mind' as Keynes would have it. Angela Merkel in Germany's been governing by the polls for three terms now, and even if she has her eff-ups ( refugees come to mind ), she's made her country into Europe's powerhouse with her no-nonsense competent and boring approach. Notice the difference with the US : Frauke Petry, the inflammatory populist leader of AfD, wouldn't dream of quipping 'because you'd be in jail' at her.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i mean if you want to defend the constitutional ideal of balance of powers, making that ideal work would be a start. the primary obstacle to functional government would be militarized legislative obstruction.
it's nice to mythologize the american constitutional structure and project various virtues onto a rather arbitrary design, but when it doesn't actually work you should be more careful in assigning blame. the president is not always the one to blame.
|
On October 27 2016 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 01:09 TheYango wrote:On October 27 2016 01:00 Buckyman wrote:
Another important issue is executive overreach, which is far more likely to be addressed in a third party presidency for obvious reasons :p. I would argue that executive overreach is the only way that a 3rd party president would ever hope to actually get anything done in office. A 3rd party presidency would result in either an expansion of executive overreach or an ineffective president that accomplishes nothing in office. The presidency isn't an office that exists in a vacuum. If you aren't aligned with congress in any fashion, you just aren't going to be able to accomplish anything. It is imo what makes the parliamentary system superior. You vote for the House and whoever gets a majority gets to pick someone to be president, guaranteeing they can actually implement the will of the people.
Except that a majority of votes for the house and a majority of seats are different things, unless you institute a German-style system.
|
On October 27 2016 01:09 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 01:00 Buckyman wrote:
Another important issue is executive overreach, which is far more likely to be addressed in a third party presidency for obvious reasons :p. I would argue that executive overreach is the only way that a 3rd party president would ever hope to actually get anything done in office. A 3rd party presidency would result in either an expansion of executive overreach or an ineffective president that accomplishes nothing in office.
I think the only way we get a legislative curb on executive power over a veto is if there's bipartisan support for it, which is orders of magnitude more likely if we have a 3rd party president.
|
On October 27 2016 01:19 Buckyman wrote:
I think the only way we get a legislative curb on executive power over a veto is if there's bipartisan support for it, which is orders of magnitude more likely if we have a 3rd party president.
Except what's more likely is that instead of forcing the issue until it comes to that, the 3rd party president caves under political pressure and works with one of the major parties anyway. So your end result is a "Democrat-minus" or "Republican-minus" presidency where the president establishes a suboptimal working relationship with one of the major political parties and is just a less effective version of having elected a Democrat or Republican in the first place.
The idea that a 3rd party president would just grind the gears until the system blows up in their face just seems like a pretty nonsensical evaluation of how people work in general.
|
On October 27 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 00:28 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 00:20 LegalLord wrote:
So why do so many people prefer to vote on Election Day? Besides all these voter suppression issues, I find that it's much harder to make an informed decision on the candidates that I never really heard of if I don't have a chance to look at their campaign materials, which really can't be done while standing in line or something. it is hard to figure out who to vote for while standing in line, but would'nt the same apply if you went to an early polling location? I try to look up what's on the ballot beforehand, so I can research anything I don't know enough about. I vote on election day, partly out of habit; but also because, until fairly recently, you were only allowed to vote on election day unless you had a good reason not to (i.e. will be out of town, disability) I think there should be a supply of material on the candidates/issues on site, so if I find something I don't know enough about, I can take a look on-site to make a decision. at the very least I'd like a resume and a 1page statement from each candidate. All too often in local elections for minor positions it's just a vote between people I know nothing about. It'd be raelly nice to have onsite info on them. I vote by mail, so I spend a few hours looking up all the candidates before voting. Is that not available to everyone in the country? Usually I get a pamphlet that describes the laws that intend to be passed, with pro/con arguments, with my ballot papers. But I'd also prefer to have position papers for each of the candidates who are running; I have to go online to find those. Those should really be included with the ballot itself. For local positions, it's usually a very clear-cut choice though. There are a certain number of open positions, and an about equal number of people who display the minimum competence to do those jobs.
might be available now where I am, I don't think it was in the past. To be more precise, it's not that ther'es no system for voting by mail, it's that the voting by mail system was only to be used by those with a genuine need for it, who would not be able to appear on election day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
