|
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. |
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency halved the number of staffers attending an annual Anchorage forum on issues like climate change in response to a request from President Donald Trump's transition team.
Trump transition official Doug Ericksen told Alaska's Energy Desk in an email that the EPA was directed to limit staff at the conference to save money on travel. "This is one small example of how EPA will be working cooperatively with our staff and our outside partners to be better stewards of the American people's money," Ericksen wrote.
Alaska Forum on the Environment Director Kurt Eilo says even some Anchorage-based EPA employees were pulled, as were some who would have traveled from Seattle and Washington, D.C.
Climate change is a major issue in Alaska. One town has had to move further back from its shoreline position because of rising seas caused by climate change.
"We got a phone call from the local office of EPA, and we were informed that EPA was directed by the White House transition team to minimize their participation in the Alaska Forum on the Environment to the extent possible," Eilo said.
Eilo said he was given three days' notice that 17 instead of 34 staffers would attend.
One session had to be canceled as a result.
He said there is concern about what the halved EPA delegation foreshadows.
"There's a lot of uncertainty among folks here at the forum," Eilo said. "There's concern about the tribal programs, there's concern about how we're going to address things like climate change in the next upcoming administration."
Source
|
Really? Mr. Opulence is worried about cost? It seems like the EPA isn't quite as important as having another golden toilet or another grandiose self-portrait. Talk about a lack of priority.
|
On February 13 2017 03:51 LegalLord wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had a Bradley effect going on.
One ongoing theory from pollsters is that many Trump supporters didn't respond in the last month of the election. That claiming the polls were rigged simply meant they would be misrepresented. It is similar to the Bradley effect.
|
On February 13 2017 05:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Really? Mr. Opulence is worried about cost? It seems like the EPA isn't quite as important as having another golden toilet or another grandiose self-portrait. Talk about a lack of priority.
I'm pretty sure its more along the lines of "climate change isn't actually real so lets not spend too much money on things related to it". Should be seeing this all across the board in the EPA.
|
On February 13 2017 06:46 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 05:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Really? Mr. Opulence is worried about cost? It seems like the EPA isn't quite as important as having another golden toilet or another grandiose self-portrait. Talk about a lack of priority. I'm pretty sure its more along the lines of "climate change isn't actually real so lets not spend too much money on things related to it". Should be seeing this all across the board in the EPA.
Yeah I agree. This move kills two birds with one stone for him: He gets to start defunding things that are actually important and scientific, and also gets to say that he's cutting costs/ trimming fat and being fiscally responsible.
|
seems like an oddly specific request, which indeed feeds the suspicion of an anti-climate administration.
a more generic request like cutting down on all staff travelling to fora might make sense though. but that's not what we got.
|
On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... Show nested quote +(In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events.
All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position).
|
|
|
On February 13 2017 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... (In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events. All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position).
When you ask a non-question you shouldn't expect anything more than a non-answer in reply.
If you want opinions on what the Democrats can learn from the 2016 election then read this thread, those opinions are a dime a dozen here. I wasn't trying to give one of those - merely advancing the point of view that the fact that the Democrats/Clinton lost the election doesn't necessarily mean that they must have made absolutely catastrophic mistakes, or that wild and extreme changes are necessary for the Democrats to win elections in the future.
I'm not learning anything nor enjoying myself in having this conversation with you, so I think I'm done with it.
|
On February 13 2017 08:36 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... (In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events. All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position). When you ask a non-question you shouldn't expect anything more than a non-answer in reply. If you want opinions on what the Democrats can learn from the 2016 election then read this thread, those opinions are a dime a dozen here. I wasn't trying to give one of those - merely advancing the point of view that the fact that the Democrats/Clinton lost the election doesn't necessarily mean that they must have made absolutely catastrophic mistakes, or that wild and extreme changes are necessary for them to win elections in the future. I'm not learning anything nor enjoying myself in having this conversation with you, so I think I'm done with it.
They lost the election to Trump, pretty sure they spent most of the campaign telling us that would be a catastrophic mistake. So yeah, I'd say they made at least one catastrophic mistake.
Also there's nothing "wild" or "crazy" about joining the rest of the first world and providing healthcare as a right to our citizens. Not that most of the Democrats will say that.
|
There is part of me that believe this is all conspiracy theories because these people can't be this stupid.
|
On February 13 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 08:36 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... (In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events. All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position). When you ask a non-question you shouldn't expect anything more than a non-answer in reply. If you want opinions on what the Democrats can learn from the 2016 election then read this thread, those opinions are a dime a dozen here. I wasn't trying to give one of those - merely advancing the point of view that the fact that the Democrats/Clinton lost the election doesn't necessarily mean that they must have made absolutely catastrophic mistakes, or that wild and extreme changes are necessary for them to win elections in the future. I'm not learning anything nor enjoying myself in having this conversation with you, so I think I'm done with it. They lost the election to Trump, pretty sure they spent most of the campaign telling us that would be a catastrophic mistake. So yeah, I'd say they made at least one catastrophic mistake.
The Democrats didn't vote Trump into power. They made mistakes, and some of them might have been catastrophic, but actually putting Trump into power just isn't one of them.
Also there's nothing "wild" or "crazy" about joining the rest of the first world and providing healthcare as a right to our citizens. Not that most of the Democrats will say that.
Oh, I quite agree with you there. Your country and its government has some serious issues.
|
On February 13 2017 08:36 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... (In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events. All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position). When you ask a non-question you shouldn't expect anything more than a non-answer in reply. If you want opinions on what the Democrats can learn from the 2016 election then read this thread, those opinions are a dime a dozen here. I wasn't trying to give one of those - merely advancing the point of view that the fact that the Democrats/Clinton lost the election doesn't necessarily mean that they must have made absolutely catastrophic mistakes, or that wild and extreme changes are necessary for the Democrats to win elections in the future. I'm not learning anything nor enjoying myself in having this conversation with you, so I think I'm done with it.
I don't see how that was a non-question. You have overemphasized the structural disadvantages that Clinton had, and then you have told me that you wanted to learn from this election. I suspected that this was really an empty claim, and I wanted confirmation of that. I think that's a completely legitimate thing to ask you given what you had claimed so far.
|
On February 13 2017 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:...You have overemphasized the structural disadvantages that Clinton had...
That's an opinion you're entitled to hold, I suppose. I see no purpose in going to any effort to convince you otherwise, or discuss this with you in general. I'd prefer to talk with somebody else.
|
On February 13 2017 08:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2017 08:36 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2017 05:35 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 23:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 12 2017 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
You need to go back to before the election when you were all smug and making ban bets because you thought she was going to win super easily. ...yeah, I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe me at all. Then you need to question how much these structural factors like the pendulum swings and whatever kwiz can throw at us really matter a whole lot. I guess that depends whether you're just coming here to score points, or to learn something. So what do you think we should learn? Some respect for other people and their opinions, for starters... (In other words, do you not realize that you're on the side of learning nothing from this?) I'm on the side of learning the correct lesson, which involves not only acknowledging the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign but also not over-correcting based on a flawed perspective on events. All right so what is the correct lesson? Cause that was a non-answer (and besides, not really something that you learn from looking at Clinton's structural disadvantage, I'm sure it stays the same no matter how much I respect your position). When you ask a non-question you shouldn't expect anything more than a non-answer in reply. If you want opinions on what the Democrats can learn from the 2016 election then read this thread, those opinions are a dime a dozen here. I wasn't trying to give one of those - merely advancing the point of view that the fact that the Democrats/Clinton lost the election doesn't necessarily mean that they must have made absolutely catastrophic mistakes, or that wild and extreme changes are necessary for them to win elections in the future. I'm not learning anything nor enjoying myself in having this conversation with you, so I think I'm done with it. They lost the election to Trump, pretty sure they spent most of the campaign telling us that would be a catastrophic mistake. So yeah, I'd say they made at least one catastrophic mistake. The Democrats didn't vote Trump into power. They made mistakes, and some of them might have been catastrophic, but actually putting Trump into power just isn't one of them. Show nested quote +Also there's nothing "wild" or "crazy" about joining the rest of the first world and providing healthcare as a right to our citizens. Not that most of the Democrats will say that. Oh, I quite agree with you there. Your country and its government has some serious issues.
Selling government mandated and managed healthcare has been a huge struggle. It is going to be a slow grind even after the ACA. If we get to single payer by the time I am 50, it will be an accomplishment.
|
On February 13 2017 08:53 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:...You have overemphasized the structural disadvantages that Clinton had... That's an opinion you're entitled to hold, I suppose. I see no purpose in going to any effort to convince you otherwise, or discuss this with you in general. I'd prefer to talk with somebody else.
Thanks for allowing me to hold this opinion. However I can't return the favor and allow you to hold your opinion unchallenged, cause I think your opinion is factually wrong. Those disadvantages were already there before Trump was elected, and everyone still thought Clinton was going to win. 538 got praised because it only said Clinton was going to win 70% of the time instead of 98% of the time. You could get excellent odds on betting sites betting for Trump despite all of these structural advantages that he had. Closer to us, people made ban bets on this forum despite all of those structural disadvantages. I don't see how you can come out of this election and seriously expect reasonable people to go "Well, you know, let's temper the surprise of Trump winning because Americans tend to elect the candidate from the other party every 8 years".
And even then, let's pretend that this is really a relevant notion; then going for a progressive was even more important than I already think it was. Cause Americans tend to want change after 8 years, so the Democrats should have gone for the candidate who offered a program that was different from the last 8 years, as opposed to a continuation. That's a lesson to learn for 2028 (or 2032 I guess, since Trump is going to go two terms now)
But it looks like this conversation is ending. If you weren't consciously writing your answers in the most annoying way possible every time, I guess I apologize for how I reacted to you. It certainly looked like you were.
|
On February 13 2017 08:46 Plansix wrote:There is part of me that believe this is all conspiracy theories because these people can't be this stupid.
i'd like to refer you to the actions (and tweets) of the 45th administration thus far.
|
On February 13 2017 09:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 08:46 Plansix wrote:There is part of me that believe this is all conspiracy theories because these people can't be this stupid. i'd like to refer you to the actions (and tweets) of the 45th administration thus far.
There is that article out of the Observer that says the NSA and CIA believe the White House is completely compromised. I take it was a grain of salt, but at this point the entire house is filled with smoke.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol it is obviously compromised
but anyway i recommend this brookings event for some tidbits on the aca's current status. granular, empirical and mindful of very complex interactions between insurance, states, consumers and providers.
https://www.brookings.edu/events/what-worked-and-what-didnt-in-obamacare-insurance-markets/
but banning insurance from medical underwriting is really the transformative move, and uh, not really capitulating to insurance like some lazy posters claim
|
On February 13 2017 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 08:53 Aquanim wrote:On February 13 2017 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:...You have overemphasized the structural disadvantages that Clinton had... That's an opinion you're entitled to hold, I suppose. I see no purpose in going to any effort to convince you otherwise, or discuss this with you in general. I'd prefer to talk with somebody else. Thanks for allowing me to hold this opinion. However I can't return the favor and allow you to hold your opinion unchallenged, cause I think your opinion is factually wrong. Those disadvantages were already there before Trump was elected, and everyone still thought Clinton was going to win. 538 got praised because it only said Clinton was going to win 70% of the time instead of 98% of the time. You could get excellent odds on betting sites betting for Trump despite all of these structural advantages that he had. Closer to us, people made ban bets on this forum despite all of those structural disadvantages. I don't see how you can come out of this election and seriously expect reasonable people to go "Well, you know, let's temper the surprise of Trump winning because Americans tend to elect the candidate from the other party every 8 years". And even then, let's pretend that this is really a relevant notion; then going for a progressive was even more important than I already think it was. Cause Americans tend to want change after 8 years, so the Democrats should have gone for the candidate who offered a program that was different from the last 8 years, as opposed to a continuation. That's a lesson to learn for 2028 (or 2032 I guess, since Trump is going to go two terms now) But it looks like this conversation is ending. If you weren't consciously writing your answers in the most annoying way possible every time, I guess I apologize for how I reacted to you. It certainly looked like you were.
Well, now that you're saying something with substance, maybe there's a discussion to be had after all.
Before the election I'd have said Clinton was more likely to win, too - Trump looked and still looks profoundly unqualified for the job. However, I don't think that invalidates the point I was trying to make. I'm still somewhat surprised that Trump won - but as you put it, my surprise is still "tempered" by the overall political situation at the time. If Trump had beaten Clinton after eight years of a Republican presidency I'd have been flabbergasted.
If I recall correctly, my original statement was that it's not entirely fair to put this loss entirely on HRC being an absolutely terrible candidate (or the surrounding decisions by the Democrats), and I stand by that statement. That being said. the Democrats and the left will learn lessons from this loss, and that is indeed part of why in the next election or two (at the outside, three) I expect they will win again. There is some potential for fundamental political realities to change such that that is not true but I don't think that is especially likely.
I dont have a strong opinion on whether the Democrats would have had a greater chance of victory if they had nominated a progressive (i.e. Sanders.); I don't have sufficient data to justify a position on that point. (As an aside, do not mistake any of this for my personal positions on policy; I have far more in common with Sanders' policies than with Clinton's, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Also, to clarify; while I said that the pendulum always swings, I didn't say that it necessarily does so predictably or with precise regularity. There's a tendency in recent American politics for it to be approximately eight years, but it wouldn't especially surprise me if the Democrats won in 2020 - if the Trump administration becomes a complete dumpster fire, I can't picture that not having some effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
