|
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. |
|
|
You wouldn't know it by looking at Congress or the White House, but the GOP isn't in complete lockstep when it comes to climate change denial. The deniers just happen to be the ones who hold all the political power within the party. They drown out the other side—the conservatives who are urging their party to actually do something about global warming.
The contrast was especially clear this week. Just a day after Republicans on the House science committee accused government scientists of fabricating climate research, a group of Republican luminaries who don't currently hold public office held a press conference calling for climate action. Specifically, they released a report—titled "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends"—in which they advocated a tax on carbon emissions.
The report, which was published by the Climate Leadership Council, calls for a tax on carbon starting at $40 per ton and rising over time, with revenue returned to taxpayers in the form of quarterly Social Security dividends. The authors include James Baker, who served as secretary of state and secretary of the treasury in the Reagan and first Bush administrations; Henry Paulson, who served as treasury secretary in the second Bush administration; Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz; and Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the President's Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively. They see the tax as a replacement for the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on greenhouse gases, including the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The proposal would also include a border adjustment designed to tax products from countries that do not have a similar carbon price.
For these conservatives, a carbon tax would be like insuring against the worst risks of climate change—and they see it as a more efficient solution than EPA regulations. They describe their plan as "win-win"—even if some of them still claim to quibble with the science.
"For too long, we Republicans and conservatives haven't occupied a real place at the table during the debate about global climate change," Baker said at a Wednesday press conference. "Instead, we have tended to dispute the fact of climate change and particularly the extent to which man is responsible for any changes in the Earth's climate. Now I need, in the interest of full disclosure, to tell you that I was and remain somewhat of a skeptic about the extent to which man is responsible for climate change. But I do think that…the risks are too great to ignore, and that we need some sort of insurance policy."
None of the report's authors currently hold public office. But Baker was scheduled to meet Wednesday with Vice President Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner (who serves as a presidential adviser), and Trump adviser Gary Cohn to discuss the recommendations.
There's a very different conversation underway in the House, where Republicans are obsessed with finding a smoking gun that would expose global warming as a myth. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the science committee, held a hearing yesterday titled "Making EPA Great Again," during which he and his colleagues accused federal agencies of falsifying data and pushing a climate hoax.
Smith cited allegations made by former NOAA data scientist John Bates that the agency mishandled data used in a 2015 study challenging the belief that global warming had "paused" in recent years.
"Everything I have read suggests that NOAA cheated and got caught," Smith said. At another point, he said NOAA scientists wanted to "falsify data to exaggerate global warming." (Bates, for the record, told the Associated Press that his concerns don't undermine the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet and that his NOAA colleagues had done "nothing malicious." He said the controversy is "really a story of not disclosing what you did. It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form.")
For the conservatives behind the Climate Leadership Council report, the debate about science isn't the point. Benefits of a carbon tax "accrue regardless of one's views on climate science," the paper's authors write.
But this message has hardly gotten anywhere with GOP politicians in the past. And even Baker cautioned against optimism that Trump's White House will reverse course. "We have no assurance at all that this is going to be something that the administration will grab hold of," he said. "We happen to believe that this will help make America great again, but that's our view."
Source
|
On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
that's a cop out. the inability to deliver does not absolve one of guilt when one fails and, that one in there is not a single person but an entire side.
on a macro level there are no scapegoats with which one can whitewash an entire side. the guilt trickles down to an individual level.
|
Pretty good explanation of why some reasonable and good people voted for Trump:
How to Reason with a Trump Voter
- People voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
- People voted for Trump because they thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
- People voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he's taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
- People voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the "stamina" to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
- People voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that many people voted for Trump because they got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there's no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that people know the score, they need to quit insisting the conman is on their side.
|
On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
I always find this argument to be overly simplistic... she was the most popular candidate in the Democratic primary, and the most popular candidate in the general election. More people voted for Hillary than any other presidential candidate in this election, period. To shrug and just say "eh, she didn't get enough support" doesn't really tell the whole story, in my opinion, because the reason why she lost is due to the electoral college. She got plenty of support- more than enough, in theory- it's just that the support wasn't distributed across certain ideal locations throughout the country. The people backed her, but the people's locations backed Trump.
I think there's a fundamental issue with the electoral college, but I don't think we'll be getting rid of/ changing the EC any time soon, because with the way that America is becoming more liberal (especially as the newer, younger generation slowly replaces the older one), it'll become harder and harder for Republicans to win presidencies based on popular vote alone. Democrats should push to remove/ change the EC (and Ginsberg and some others are already supporting this) and Republicans should be wanting to hold on to the undemocratic EC for dear life.
In the last 5 elections, Democrats won the popular vote 4 times yet only became president twice, thanks to the EC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin ).
GWB lost to Gore in the popular vote, but won the EC.
GWB beat Kerry in both the popular vote and the EC.
Obama beat McCain in both the popular vote and the EC.
Obama beat Romney in both the popular vote and the EC.
Trump lost to Clinton in the popular vote, but won the EC.
In fact, GWB being more popular than Kerry is the only time in the past ~30 years (since Bush Sr.) that a Republican presidential candidate has been more popular than the Democratic presidential candidate. And I'd be astonished, especially with all of the fearmongering and hatemongering that has been going on in the Republican party (even before Trump ran for president) if they ever become overall "more popular" than the Democratic party for any serious length of time... unless they actually focus on substance and policy again, rather than just hating Democrats and calling everyone a terrorist or criminal.
|
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly says the U.S. needs to "do a better job to vet" residents of seven majority-Muslim countries that the Trump administration has temporarily banned from entering the U.S.
In an interview with Morning Edition host Rachel Martin, the retired Marine Corps general said the ban, which has been blocked by a district court order that is now being reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, "is not based on religion in any way."
He said the seven countries — Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — are unable to vet their citizens and "provide us with information that we're comfortable with."
Kelly said the administration is considering requiring residents of the seven countries to provide lists of the websites they've visited and their passwords, to enable officials "to get on those websites to see what they're looking at."
Kelly said some of the other "ballpark things" that his department is considering is looking at applicants' social media use "to see what they tweet," as well as financial information and cellphone contacts so that officials can check the numbers against databases kept by the U.S. and the European Union.
Kelly took the blame for the rocky rollout of the travel ban, and as he said in a hearing on Tuesday, he admitted he should have prepared congressional leaders ahead of the policy's implementation. He told NPR that in the future he will tell administration officials, "OK, give that to me and I will roll it out and I will tell you how I'm going to do it." Kelly said the rollout will include notification to select members of Congress and the press.
Kelly showed a willingness to work with the news media that has not been evident from some other members of the Trump administration. It is "very important to engage the press," he told NPR, "because if you engage the responsible press, they will help you write an accurate story." It may "not be the story you want," Kelly said, "but it will be an accurate story."
Kelly said "the great success" of the U.S. has been people from diverse backgrounds coming here "following every kind of religion," or "not following any religion at all."
Asked about President Trump's comments that his promised border wall was "getting designed right now," Kelly said he is traveling to the southwest this week to speak with Customs and Border Protection agents. He said those he has spoken with so far have asked for a barrier they can see through so they can react quicker.
Source
|
Hast anyone ever done the math on what the smallest percentage of voters could be to still win the election with the EC?
E.g. win 51% of the states with 51% of the votes and win with 26% of the total votes or something like that?
|
|
|
On February 09 2017 20:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +You wouldn't know it by looking at Congress or the White House, but the GOP isn't in complete lockstep when it comes to climate change denial. The deniers just happen to be the ones who hold all the political power within the party. They drown out the other side—the conservatives who are urging their party to actually do something about global warming.
The contrast was especially clear this week. Just a day after Republicans on the House science committee accused government scientists of fabricating climate research, a group of Republican luminaries who don't currently hold public office held a press conference calling for climate action. Specifically, they released a report—titled "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends"—in which they advocated a tax on carbon emissions.
The report, which was published by the Climate Leadership Council, calls for a tax on carbon starting at $40 per ton and rising over time, with revenue returned to taxpayers in the form of quarterly Social Security dividends. The authors include James Baker, who served as secretary of state and secretary of the treasury in the Reagan and first Bush administrations; Henry Paulson, who served as treasury secretary in the second Bush administration; Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz; and Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the President's Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively. They see the tax as a replacement for the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on greenhouse gases, including the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The proposal would also include a border adjustment designed to tax products from countries that do not have a similar carbon price.
For these conservatives, a carbon tax would be like insuring against the worst risks of climate change—and they see it as a more efficient solution than EPA regulations. They describe their plan as "win-win"—even if some of them still claim to quibble with the science.
"For too long, we Republicans and conservatives haven't occupied a real place at the table during the debate about global climate change," Baker said at a Wednesday press conference. "Instead, we have tended to dispute the fact of climate change and particularly the extent to which man is responsible for any changes in the Earth's climate. Now I need, in the interest of full disclosure, to tell you that I was and remain somewhat of a skeptic about the extent to which man is responsible for climate change. But I do think that…the risks are too great to ignore, and that we need some sort of insurance policy."
None of the report's authors currently hold public office. But Baker was scheduled to meet Wednesday with Vice President Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner (who serves as a presidential adviser), and Trump adviser Gary Cohn to discuss the recommendations.
There's a very different conversation underway in the House, where Republicans are obsessed with finding a smoking gun that would expose global warming as a myth. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the science committee, held a hearing yesterday titled "Making EPA Great Again," during which he and his colleagues accused federal agencies of falsifying data and pushing a climate hoax.
Smith cited allegations made by former NOAA data scientist John Bates that the agency mishandled data used in a 2015 study challenging the belief that global warming had "paused" in recent years.
"Everything I have read suggests that NOAA cheated and got caught," Smith said. At another point, he said NOAA scientists wanted to "falsify data to exaggerate global warming." (Bates, for the record, told the Associated Press that his concerns don't undermine the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet and that his NOAA colleagues had done "nothing malicious." He said the controversy is "really a story of not disclosing what you did. It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form.")
For the conservatives behind the Climate Leadership Council report, the debate about science isn't the point. Benefits of a carbon tax "accrue regardless of one's views on climate science," the paper's authors write.
But this message has hardly gotten anywhere with GOP politicians in the past. And even Baker cautioned against optimism that Trump's White House will reverse course. "We have no assurance at all that this is going to be something that the administration will grab hold of," he said. "We happen to believe that this will help make America great again, but that's our view." Source
I just found it scary that Republicans seems to be so anti science. I mean sure fighting climate change will cost alot of money, but if you do nothing and just let it happen the cost today will seem like nothing. Just feels kinda dumb to gamble on climate change being fake when the consequence of you being wrong are terrible for everyone. But I guess that's what happens when only the next 2/4 years are what matters.
|
On February 09 2017 23:07 BigO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 20:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:You wouldn't know it by looking at Congress or the White House, but the GOP isn't in complete lockstep when it comes to climate change denial. The deniers just happen to be the ones who hold all the political power within the party. They drown out the other side—the conservatives who are urging their party to actually do something about global warming.
The contrast was especially clear this week. Just a day after Republicans on the House science committee accused government scientists of fabricating climate research, a group of Republican luminaries who don't currently hold public office held a press conference calling for climate action. Specifically, they released a report—titled "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends"—in which they advocated a tax on carbon emissions.
The report, which was published by the Climate Leadership Council, calls for a tax on carbon starting at $40 per ton and rising over time, with revenue returned to taxpayers in the form of quarterly Social Security dividends. The authors include James Baker, who served as secretary of state and secretary of the treasury in the Reagan and first Bush administrations; Henry Paulson, who served as treasury secretary in the second Bush administration; Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz; and Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the President's Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively. They see the tax as a replacement for the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on greenhouse gases, including the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The proposal would also include a border adjustment designed to tax products from countries that do not have a similar carbon price.
For these conservatives, a carbon tax would be like insuring against the worst risks of climate change—and they see it as a more efficient solution than EPA regulations. They describe their plan as "win-win"—even if some of them still claim to quibble with the science.
"For too long, we Republicans and conservatives haven't occupied a real place at the table during the debate about global climate change," Baker said at a Wednesday press conference. "Instead, we have tended to dispute the fact of climate change and particularly the extent to which man is responsible for any changes in the Earth's climate. Now I need, in the interest of full disclosure, to tell you that I was and remain somewhat of a skeptic about the extent to which man is responsible for climate change. But I do think that…the risks are too great to ignore, and that we need some sort of insurance policy."
None of the report's authors currently hold public office. But Baker was scheduled to meet Wednesday with Vice President Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner (who serves as a presidential adviser), and Trump adviser Gary Cohn to discuss the recommendations.
There's a very different conversation underway in the House, where Republicans are obsessed with finding a smoking gun that would expose global warming as a myth. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the science committee, held a hearing yesterday titled "Making EPA Great Again," during which he and his colleagues accused federal agencies of falsifying data and pushing a climate hoax.
Smith cited allegations made by former NOAA data scientist John Bates that the agency mishandled data used in a 2015 study challenging the belief that global warming had "paused" in recent years.
"Everything I have read suggests that NOAA cheated and got caught," Smith said. At another point, he said NOAA scientists wanted to "falsify data to exaggerate global warming." (Bates, for the record, told the Associated Press that his concerns don't undermine the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet and that his NOAA colleagues had done "nothing malicious." He said the controversy is "really a story of not disclosing what you did. It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form.")
For the conservatives behind the Climate Leadership Council report, the debate about science isn't the point. Benefits of a carbon tax "accrue regardless of one's views on climate science," the paper's authors write.
But this message has hardly gotten anywhere with GOP politicians in the past. And even Baker cautioned against optimism that Trump's White House will reverse course. "We have no assurance at all that this is going to be something that the administration will grab hold of," he said. "We happen to believe that this will help make America great again, but that's our view." Source I just fund it scary that Republicans seems to be so anti science. I mean sure fighting climate change will cost alot of money, but if you do nothing and just let it happen the cost today will seem like nothing. Just feels kinda dumb to gamble on climate change being fake when the consequence of you being wrong are terrible for everyone. But I guess that's what happens when only the next 2/4 years are what matters.
Republicans have this conspiracy theory that most scientists are far-left ideologues trying to shut down Christianity/capitalism by promoting evolution/climate change/dietary advice/whatever else.
|
On February 09 2017 22:43 karazax wrote:Pretty good explanation of why some reasonable and good people voted for Trump: How to Reason with a Trump VoterShow nested quote +- People voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
- People voted for Trump because they thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
- People voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he's taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
- People voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the "stamina" to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
- People voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that many people voted for Trump because they got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there's no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that people know the score, they need to quit insisting the conman is on their side.
I didn't go out on election day, the choice was too nauseating. But I'll tell you why I didn't vote for Clinton: she made it clear she was going to use the full power of government to persecute pro-life groups, she was going to give as much taxpayer money as she could to Planned Parenthood, she called the CEO of Planned Parenthood a hero and made regular public appearances with her, etc.
If Democrats went back to their pre-Obama position of "abortion should be rare but legal", maybe I could've voted for Clinton. But so long as pro-abortion extremists like Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Cecile Richards are running the party, hell no. Even Trump is better than that.
|
So you're a single issue voter then? Many would call that a luxury.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 09 2017 19:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Trump administration is considering a bold and controversial vision for the U.S. space program that calls for a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon by 2020, the construction of privately operated space stations and the redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space," according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.
The proposed strategy, whose potential for igniting a new industry appeals to Trump’s business background and job-creation pledges, is influencing the White House’s search for leaders to run the space agency. And it is setting off a struggle for supremacy between traditional aerospace contractors and the tech billionaires who have put big money into private space ventures.
"It is a big fight," said former Republican Rep. Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, who drafted the Trump campaign's space policy and remains involved in the deliberations. "There are billions of dollars at stake. It has come to a head now when it has become clear to the space community that the real innovative work is being done outside of NASA."
The early indications are that private rocket firms like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and their supporters have a clear upper hand in what Trump's transition advisers portrayed as a race between "Old Space" and "New Space," according to emails among key players inside the administration. Trump has met with Bezos and Musk, while tech investor Peter Thiel, a close confidant, has lobbied the president to look at using NASA to help grow the private space industry.
Charles Miller, a former NASA official who served on Trump's NASA transition team after running a commercial space cargo firm, is pushing for the White House to nominate a deputy administrator who foremost "shares the same goal/overall vision of transforming NASA by leveraging commercial space partnerships," according to a Jan. 23 communication. That deputy would run the space program’s day-to-day operations.
Trump has yet to name a NASA director, but the documents confirm that Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot who ran the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, is a top contender.
"Fingers crossed," Miller writes of Bridenstine’s candidacy, according to a one email.
he White House and Miller did not respond to requests for comment.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another commercial space evangelist with close ties to Trump, is also pushing the White House to embark on a major effort to privatize U.S. space efforts.
"A good part of the Trump administration would like a lot more aggressive, risk-taking, competitive entrepreneurial approach to space," Gingrich said in an interview. "A smaller but still powerful faction represents Boeing and the expensive old contractors who have soaked up money with minimum results.
"No NASA program dominated by bureaucrats could take the risks, accept the failures and create a learning curve comparable to an entrepreneurial approach," he added. "Just think of the Wright brothers’ 500 failures in five summers at $1 per failure. Ask how long NASA would have taken and how much it would have cost."
The more ambitious administration vision could include new moon landings that "see private American astronauts, on private space ships, circling the Moon by 2020; and private lunar landers staking out de facto 'property rights' for American on the Moon, by 2020 as well," according to a summary of an "agency action plan" that the transition drew up for NASA late last month. Source
This is troubling. It seems to put the interests of a few key confidants ahead of reality. It almost reminds me of a monarch's court, where the nobles come to curry favor with the president, and get a grant that benefits them at the cost of everyone else.
|
On February 09 2017 23:25 farvacola wrote:
So you're a single issue voter then? Many would call that a luxury.
I don't want to be, believe me.
|
On February 09 2017 23:23 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 22:43 karazax wrote:Pretty good explanation of why some reasonable and good people voted for Trump: How to Reason with a Trump Voter- People voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
- People voted for Trump because they thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
- People voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he's taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
- People voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the "stamina" to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
- People voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that many people voted for Trump because they got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there's no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that people know the score, they need to quit insisting the conman is on their side. I didn't go out on election day, the choice was too nauseating. But I'll tell you why I didn't vote for Clinton: she made it clear she was going to use the full power of government to persecute pro-life groups, she was going to give as much taxpayer money as she could to Planned Parenthood, she called the CEO of Planned Parenthood a hero and made regular public appearances with her, etc. If Democrats went back to their pre-Obama position of "abortion should be rare but legal", maybe I could've voted for Clinton. But so long as pro-abortion extremists like Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Cecile Richards are running the party, hell no. Even Trump is better than that.
I think you're misrepresenting the position here. Nobody wants abortion to happen. It's not something that anybody is happy about. But the decision to abort should be the hard part, not jumping through all the hoops government puts in your way. If you have made the hard decision not to carry your baby to term, then that should be it. It should be easy to find a clinic and have the procedure performed responsibly.
|
You wouldn't know it by looking at Congress or the White House, but the GOP isn't in complete lockstep when it comes to climate change denial.
Anti-carbon faction lumps all opposition into one category, surprised by differences within that category.
This proposal reminds me of the initiative in Washington that was shot down by the local Green coalition. In that case, they rejected a 'fair' carbon tax scheme because it specified what to do with the revenue (cut taxes on the poor) and didn't do what they wanted with it (payouts to minority and labor interests). This proposal is similar to the Washington Green agenda in that it uses the tax as a pretext for what they actually want:
The proposal would also include a border adjustment designed to tax products from countries that do not have a similar carbon price.
|
Hes not even a voter so realistically we can now just ignore his opinion and blame everything bad that happens on him.
Also I would support Planned Parenthood and give all the money I could to them as well. they probably save tax payers and the people they serve billions of dollars. I just wish people could get over on the fact that they fund-raise off the abortion issue and stop conflating fighting PP with fighting everything that they do.
|
On February 09 2017 23:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 23:23 LightSpectra wrote:On February 09 2017 22:43 karazax wrote:Pretty good explanation of why some reasonable and good people voted for Trump: How to Reason with a Trump Voter- People voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
- People voted for Trump because they thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
- People voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he's taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
- People voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the "stamina" to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
- People voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
- People voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that many people voted for Trump because they got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there's no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that people know the score, they need to quit insisting the conman is on their side. I didn't go out on election day, the choice was too nauseating. But I'll tell you why I didn't vote for Clinton: she made it clear she was going to use the full power of government to persecute pro-life groups, she was going to give as much taxpayer money as she could to Planned Parenthood, she called the CEO of Planned Parenthood a hero and made regular public appearances with her, etc. If Democrats went back to their pre-Obama position of "abortion should be rare but legal", maybe I could've voted for Clinton. But so long as pro-abortion extremists like Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Cecile Richards are running the party, hell no. Even Trump is better than that. I think you're misrepresenting the position here. Nobody wants abortion to happen. It's not something that anybody is happy about. But the decision to abort should be the hard part, not jumping through all the hoops government puts in your way. If you have made the hard decision not to carry your baby to term, then that should be it. It should be easy to find a clinic and have the procedure performed responsibly.
No, you're wrong. Planned Parenthood recently announced that they would throw pizza parties for whichever employees met their "abortion quotas". CEO Cecile Richards is also on record saying that she needs more people to brag about their abortions in order to promote the industry.
|
On February 09 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 19:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Trump administration is considering a bold and controversial vision for the U.S. space program that calls for a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon by 2020, the construction of privately operated space stations and the redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space," according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.
The proposed strategy, whose potential for igniting a new industry appeals to Trump’s business background and job-creation pledges, is influencing the White House’s search for leaders to run the space agency. And it is setting off a struggle for supremacy between traditional aerospace contractors and the tech billionaires who have put big money into private space ventures.
"It is a big fight," said former Republican Rep. Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, who drafted the Trump campaign's space policy and remains involved in the deliberations. "There are billions of dollars at stake. It has come to a head now when it has become clear to the space community that the real innovative work is being done outside of NASA."
The early indications are that private rocket firms like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and their supporters have a clear upper hand in what Trump's transition advisers portrayed as a race between "Old Space" and "New Space," according to emails among key players inside the administration. Trump has met with Bezos and Musk, while tech investor Peter Thiel, a close confidant, has lobbied the president to look at using NASA to help grow the private space industry.
Charles Miller, a former NASA official who served on Trump's NASA transition team after running a commercial space cargo firm, is pushing for the White House to nominate a deputy administrator who foremost "shares the same goal/overall vision of transforming NASA by leveraging commercial space partnerships," according to a Jan. 23 communication. That deputy would run the space program’s day-to-day operations.
Trump has yet to name a NASA director, but the documents confirm that Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot who ran the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, is a top contender.
"Fingers crossed," Miller writes of Bridenstine’s candidacy, according to a one email.
he White House and Miller did not respond to requests for comment.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another commercial space evangelist with close ties to Trump, is also pushing the White House to embark on a major effort to privatize U.S. space efforts.
"A good part of the Trump administration would like a lot more aggressive, risk-taking, competitive entrepreneurial approach to space," Gingrich said in an interview. "A smaller but still powerful faction represents Boeing and the expensive old contractors who have soaked up money with minimum results.
"No NASA program dominated by bureaucrats could take the risks, accept the failures and create a learning curve comparable to an entrepreneurial approach," he added. "Just think of the Wright brothers’ 500 failures in five summers at $1 per failure. Ask how long NASA would have taken and how much it would have cost."
The more ambitious administration vision could include new moon landings that "see private American astronauts, on private space ships, circling the Moon by 2020; and private lunar landers staking out de facto 'property rights' for American on the Moon, by 2020 as well," according to a summary of an "agency action plan" that the transition drew up for NASA late last month. Source This is troubling. It seems to put the interests of a few key confidants ahead of reality. It almost reminds me of a monarch's court, where the nobles come to curry favor with the president, and get a grant that benefits them at the cost of everyone else.
I'm with you on the comparison but I don't think its necessarily a bad thing. Coordination between corporate and state interests is going to become a critical thing with space exploration and exploration. The last thing we need is corporations getting uppity and thinking that they can form their own nations in space. Getting all the ducks swimming in the same direction to get to mars would speed up the process of getting there by a decade at least. especially without the will to fund it publicly.
|
Hey Kwiz (or others who think the primary was fair and square), do you think Perez misspoke when he said:
We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.
And that he actually meant this?
Hillary became our nominee fair and square, and she won more votes in the primary—and general—than her opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3LsyOo0.png)
