|
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. |
On November 10 2016 09:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:29 Nyxisto wrote:On November 10 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 09:07 Blisse wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/God damn it's starting.. Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.
The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign.
Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.
Ebell, who was dubbed an “elegant nerd” and a “policy wonk” by Vanity Fair, is known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change “alarmism.” He appears frequently in the media and before Congress. He’s also chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of nonprofits that “question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies.” What was it that Obama said in 2008? Something like "Elections have consequences?" I'm all for Trump putting a leash on the EPA on these carbon emission issues. Well we can just hope that the sea level recognises and respects the democratic will of the American people Well, let's remember the people voted for Hillary. The electorate elected Trump.  That might bear a lot of repeating the next 4 years.
While I absolutely agree with the sentiment regarding that difference, I also believe that the reality of the situation is that the American people support the electorate. If they did not, they would work to change it either by protesting or voting en masse for someone who might work to change it. Thus, I think it is still fair to say that the American people - by democratic will - elected Trump. As far as I'm concerned, it's either that, or you have to agree with Trump that the system is rigged.
|
On November 10 2016 09:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:01 Sermokala wrote:
Joe Biden 2020 the return of the firewall?
Also look up George p bush. You want to talk about a guy who looks like he should run for president here he is. Guy go t 49% of the Hispanic vote his first election, served in the current war, and now looks like the perfect next generation of Texas republican. I'd aim at 2036 maybe for the first Hispanic president. If he changes his last name he might have a chance. Not sure the people will welcome a 4th Bush trying to run for President. Something about dynasties and not liking the establishment.
yeah but this'll be in 20 years when people get tired of the constant anti establisment and want some contninuity and stability.
And look at this smuck
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Trump wasting no time stocking his transition team with lobbyists in the employ of major corps...but his low info dummies aren't aware of course.
|
On November 10 2016 09:21 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:17 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Can someone explain to me how proposition 61 in California failed? All I can offer is this http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/61/the cons section of it. basically, it was assumed that drug manufacturers would simply raise the price on medicine for veterans to offset the cost they were gonna lose elsewhere.
Didn't anyone wonder why big pharma, when they could just offset the cost if prop 61 passed, spent $100+ million campaigning against this?
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the VA has PRICE CONTROL. a critical element of controlling medical cost. they are price setters because they have more of a will to control cost + the size for leverage.
as much as people bash the va hospital system it has a lot of features that should be emulated widely, price and service control is one of these.
|
On November 10 2016 08:59 Slaughter wrote:
We all saw how effective the Occupy movement was.
youre still talking about it arent you? pretty effective id say
|
Fighting climate change was never easy. But with America electing Bush over Gore and Trump over Clinton makes it almost impossible.
Let's see first how the markets react and what policies trump will really enact before calling another recession.
I doubt Trump will / can even start a stupid (nuclear) war.
Sure, the USA may lose years of social progress, but that's "hopefully" something mostly Americans have to deal with.
But electing a climate change denier... thanks I guess?
|
On November 10 2016 09:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 08:59 Slaughter wrote:
We all saw how effective the Occupy movement was. youre still talking about it arent you? pretty effective id say
1 talk = 1 upvote? Making laws and appointing judges is effective, and it's not occupy who is going to make them for the next few years
This crappy slacktivism is why Trump governs now. The Evangelicals didn't care that Trump had like fifteen wives, they still turned out to vote.
|
On November 10 2016 08:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 08:34 farvacola wrote:
Kelly Ayotte officially lost her NH Senate Seat, leaving the post-election Senate balance at 51 R, 48 D. She shoulda hopped on the Trump Train. She may have pulled it out if she showed some solidarity with Trump. Hell, she may have been able to flip the state for him.
Like almost every (every?) senate candidate, she got more votes then he did. Unlikely that anyone was riding Trump's coattails.
|
On November 10 2016 09:51 Keniji wrote:
Fighting climate change was never easy. But with America electing Bush over Gore and Trump over Clinton makes it almost impossible.
Let's see first how the markets react and what policies trump will really enact before calling another recession.
I doubt Trump will / can even start a stupid (nuclear) war.
Sure, the USA may lose years of social progress, but that's "hopefully" something mostly Americans have to deal with.
But electing a climate change denier... thanks I guess?
Both he and the boomers who elected him will probably die off before the real consequences hit.
|
On November 10 2016 09:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:50 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2016 08:59 Slaughter wrote:
We all saw how effective the Occupy movement was. youre still talking about it arent you? pretty effective id say 1 talk = 1 upvote? Making laws and appointing judges is effective, and it's not occupy who is going to make them for the next few years This crappy slacktivism is why Trump governs now. The Evangelicals didn't care that Trump had like fifteen wives, they still turned out to vote.
ah right the great anti-trump occupy movement of 2011 failed to win "us" the election this year. the rust belt occupiers didnt get to the polls. complete failure of the slacktivists.
oh wait what you said had no connection to Occupy. nevermind.
|
On November 10 2016 09:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump wasting no time stocking his transition team with lobbyists in the employ of major corps...but his low info dummies aren't aware of course.
You are still thinking in black and white term "class" oriented concepts.
Stop that.
It is 100% possible for the employers and employees collaborating together.
The reason why people are disgruntled is because of lack of jobs.
And you can't coordinate a plan to increase jobs without the "major corps".
Obviously American democracy wants to see this strategy of decreasing taxes for the employers so that they are able to expand their industries and thus create jobs.
And obviously Obama's administration didn't exactly help with the job creation department, which is why the DNC lost.
|
On November 10 2016 09:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 08:59 Slaughter wrote:
We all saw how effective the Occupy movement was. youre still talking about it arent you? pretty effective id say
I pretty much only see lefties lament what they think it could have been.
Edit: With the exception of you, apparently.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this trump sellout to corporate interests is the foundation of how the dems can win this thing back in a hurry.
make the betrayal stick, and connect it to the bad consequences.
but the messenger has to be very strong on nationalist/culture credentials, or the focus will be on the culture aspect rather than the economic policies.
|
On November 10 2016 09:28 Kickstart wrote:
You see no problem with appointing a climate 'skeptic' to that office when the scientific consensus is that man made climate change is an issue? Or do you not think such a scientific consensus exists?
No, I don't see a problem with appointing a skeptic to head the EPA. I don't have time to address it all, but I see numerous problems with the current scientific consensus and advocates of man-made climate change theories, not the least of which are significant conflicts of interest, potential corruption, improprieties with handling the data, numerous self-contradictions, and problems with historical climate alarmism in the face of empirical data. The sum of all of this makes me suspect that people are pushing an agenda for their own selfish reasons as opposed to promoting the welfare of the planet. And then of course there's the problem of figuring out how the US can sufficiently alter the natural variances of global climate and any deviations from those natural variances that may be created by other countries, all while not severely harming the US economy. Let's be clear -- fighting manmade climate change, to the extent that it is even possible, carries a real cost.
|
On November 10 2016 09:59 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump wasting no time stocking his transition team with lobbyists in the employ of major corps...but his low info dummies aren't aware of course. You are still thinking in black and white term "class" oriented concepts. Stop that. It is 100% possible for the employers and employees collaborating together. The reason why people are disgruntled is because of lack of jobs. And you can't coordinate a plan to increase jobs without the "major corps". Obviously American democracy wants to see this strategy of decreasing taxes for the employers so that they are able to expand their industries and thus create jobs. And obviously Obama's administration didn't exactly help with the job creation department, which is why the DNC lost.
Please tell me how the mighty Trump will undo globalization?
He cannot bring back the jobs because no one in the US is willing to work for the wages required for that
|
On November 10 2016 10:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:59 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 10 2016 09:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump wasting no time stocking his transition team with lobbyists in the employ of major corps...but his low info dummies aren't aware of course. You are still thinking in black and white term "class" oriented concepts. Stop that. It is 100% possible for the employers and employees collaborating together. The reason why people are disgruntled is because of lack of jobs. And you can't coordinate a plan to increase jobs without the "major corps". Obviously American democracy wants to see this strategy of decreasing taxes for the employers so that they are able to expand their industries and thus create jobs. And obviously Obama's administration didn't exactly help with the job creation department, which is why the DNC lost. Please tell me how the mighty Trump will undo globalization? He cannot bring back the jobs because no one in the US is willing to work for the wages required for that
He is not going to undo globalization.
He have never said that.
So stop spreading that.
He said that he will negotiate better deals.
He even said that he will keep on trading.
With DNC more in power, you will simply hemorrhage jobs out of the country.
At least Trump recognize this problem, which the DNC doesn't even acknowledges that. So he will think about a plan to fix that.
Whether or not Trump will succeed, nobody knows.
But at least be like President Obama to have an open mind on this.
Be open minded, be a classical liberal.
|
On November 10 2016 10:00 oneofthem wrote:
this trump sellout to corporate interests is the foundation of how the dems can win this thing back in a hurry.
make the betrayal stick, and connect it to the bad consequences.
but the messenger has to be very strong on nationalist/culture credentials, or the focus will be on the culture aspect rather than the economic policies.
If the "sellout to corporate interests" turns out jobs its not a betrayal its just doing what they asked.
|
On November 10 2016 10:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 09:28 Kickstart wrote:
You see no problem with appointing a climate 'skeptic' to that office when the scientific consensus is that man made climate change is an issue? Or do you not think such a scientific consensus exists? significant conflicts of interest, potential corruption, improprieties with handling the data, numerous self-contradictions, and problems with historical climate alarmism in the face of empirical data. The sum of all of this makes me suspect that people are pushing an agenda for their own selfish reasons as opposed to promoting the welfare of the planet.
Dear god, the extent of people's distrust of the sources of information they receive through the media. Hopefully down the road, you remember the views you espoused in this day (ala the Iraq War in 2003 which I'm more than certain you supported).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.P9N0ljsaKyWWysGZ92lhQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9NDcx/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/6d7dea712a53af188f2d49feabed4ea1)
