|
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. |
Americans overwhelmingly believe that global warming is happening, and that carbon emissions should be scaled back. But fewer are sure that the changes will harm them personally. New data released by Yale researchers gives the most detailed view yet of public opinion on global warming.
A majority of adults in every congressional district in the nation support limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. But many Republicans in Congress (and some Democrats) agree with President Trump, who this week may move to kill an Obama administration plan that would have scaled back the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Nationally, about seven in 10 Americans support regulating carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants – and 75 percent support regulating CO2 as a pollutant more generally. But lawmakers are unlikely to change direction soon.
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, warned that committed activists — like the Tea Party — can shape politicians’ approaches to issues like climate change. “Those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary,” he said. He lost his primary in 2010 to Trey Gowdy, a Tea Party candidate who attacked his climate views.
Most people know climate change is happening, and a majority agree it is harming people in the United States. But they don't believe it will harm them.
Part of this is the problem of risk perception.
Global warming is precisely the kind of threat humans are awful at dealing with: a problem with enormous consequences over the long term, but little that is sharply visible on a personal level in the short term. Humans are hard-wired for quick fight-or-flight reactions in the face of an imminent threat, but not highly motivated to act against slow-moving and somewhat abstract problems, even if the challenges that they pose are ultimately dire.
In Florida, the effects of climate change, including sunny-day flooding, are being felt across the state. But the state shows a distinct north-south split in the level of concern over global warming, and it is not a simple Democrat-versus-Republican distinction, said State Representative Kristin D. Jacobs, a Democrat. Four southeast Florida counties — Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe and Palm Beach — stand out because of their concerted effort to work on climate issues together and to discuss it in nonpartisan terms.
South and West Texas, as well as the state’s Gulf Coast, are more worried about climate change than the rest of the state — and politics alone cannot explain it. South Texas favors Democrats, West Texas is decidedly more mixed, and the Gulf Coast in November 2016 was solid Trump territory.
One thing is shared by those disparate parts of the state: They have felt the brunt of shifting weather patterns, including rising temperatures, coastal hurricanes and western droughts so long and severe that some West Texas towns now recycle wastewater for drinking.
The state’s highest concentrations of Latinos can be found in the south and west, which may also partly explain the difference in climate views. Roberto Suro, a professor of public policy and journalism at the University of Southern California, suggested age as a possible factor. Latinos are “a young population with the median age significantly younger than the white population, and younger still than the African-American population,” he said, noting that young people have embraced climate science to a greater extent than their elders.
Just 33 percent of Americans surveyed said they discuss global warming at least occasionally with friends and family – and 31 percent said they never do. But there are distinct regional patterns.
In the American West, much of which has been affected by drought and wildfires, residents are more likely to talk about climate change. New England states, and not just the liberals of Massachusetts and Vermont, talk more about climate, as well, along with coastal South Carolina, which lies in the path of many hurricanes.
But aside from Southeast Florida, which has put so much effort into making discussion of climate change a priority, much of the rest of the Atlantic Coast is less likely to engage in climate discussions, despite recent increases in tidal flooding.
Source
|
With Manafort getting caught red handed by accepting payments from Russia, does that make it easier to start the impeachment process? Or is that still another step?
|
Hypothetically, if Trump does get impeached and then is convicted (or Trump volunteers to resign from office), does Pence become president due to him being second in command? I'm guessing yes, as long as he also isn't found guilty of the same illegal activities? I believe this was the protocol for Gerald Ford becoming president after Nixon resigned.
|
On March 21 2017 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:
With Manafort getting caught red handed by accepting payments from Russia, does that make it easier to start the impeachment process? Or is that still another step?
Technically his payments were from Ukraine and Russian intelligence agents don't wear Russian intelligence uniforms so Manafort just didn't know (sarcasm).
|
On March 21 2017 23:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol Nixon never went below 40% approval.
Yes but the Democrats had both Congress chambers all throughout Watergate.
On March 21 2017 23:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hypothetically, if Trump does get impeached and then is convicted (or Trump volunteers to resign from office), does Pence become president due to him being second in command? I'm guessing yes, as long as he also isn't found guilty of the same illegal activities? I believe this was the protocol for Gerald Ford becoming president after Nixon resigned.
If Pence is dragged down with the ship, Paul Ryan becomes president. (God help us all.)
|
On March 21 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Rand Paul is at it again.
It’s not enough for the Kentucky Republican to try to tank House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Obamacare repeal bill. He’s also driving his Senate colleagues crazy by holding up the one thing the Senate could do to quickly rebuke Russian President Vladimir Putin: pass a popular treaty ratifying Montenegro’s membership in NATO.
The dispute exploded on the Senate floor this month as Paul blocked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) from bringing up the treaty. McCain said Paul is “working for” Putin; Paul responded that McCain is “past his prime.” But the anger toward Paul goes much deeper than just McCain — nearly the entire Senate wants to pass the treaty immediately.
“It’s a minority position, yeah,” Paul conceded with a smile.
That’s an understatement.
Senators and aides said the treaty could be passed easily if Paul would release his hold, sending a swift message to Russia that the United States isn’t stepping away from Eastern Europe, even with a NATO skeptic like Donald Trump as president. While Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is demanding a roll-call vote rather than passing the treaty with a quick request to do so unanimously, Paul is far more implacable and doesn’t want it to move forward at all.
“Montenegro doesn’t add a great deal to the national security of the United States,” Paul said in an interview. “For people who want Montenegro [in NATO], many of them want Ukraine and Georgia in there. And I think if you do that you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.”
Due to Senate rules, Paul can single-handedly force the chamber to spend days on the measure, an impossible feat in the short term since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is prioritizing a Supreme Court nominee and Obamacare repeal this spring.
That leaves the treaty stalled indefinitely and his colleagues steamed.
“It’s not a stunt. I disagree with him. But these are things he really believes,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who champions a more interventionist foreign policy.
“He knows the vote will be 99-1,” added one angry Republican senator who requested anonymity to speak candidly about his colleague. “He could hold the floor for days. I just think it’s typical.”
Notably, McCain’s charge that Paul is a Putin lapdog could have been a violation of Senate rules — but only if raised by another senator. No one came to his defense last week.
But Paul is unmoved, and said his message is in line with Trump’s: Adding another country to “overextended” NATO is unproductive when other countries aren’t meeting their defense spending obligations. Trump hasn’t commented publicly on the issue, but his administration may be lining up against Paul.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fully support Montenegro’s accession into NATO. Sources said Vice President Mike Pence is also close to issuing a recommendation. Ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn was close to backing Montenegro’s entrance into NATO before he resigned.
An administration official said no final decision has been made. However, a Senate source said some White House officials have indicated support for Paul’s move to block NATO expansion because it is in line with Trump’s campaign platform.
“It was very useful what Sen. McCain did,” said Montenegrin Foreign Minister Srdjan Darmanović, who is in Washington meeting with Senate Foreign Relations Committee members and administration officials. “Sen. McCain exposed Sen. Paul being a very stubborn obstacle in the ratification.”
For Paul, it’s just one more example of him against the world. And these days it’s hard to keep track of his simultaneous fights.
Republicans close to GOP leaders in both chambers are highly annoyed at Paul’s high-profile quest to sink Ryan’s health care bill, which Paul calls “Obamacare-lite” every chance he gets. And while Democrats are entertained by his criticism of the Obamacare repeal efforts, they’re less enthused with his position on NATO.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) is also frustrated over the treaty’s delay, sources said, but is trying to work with Paul and declining to call out the senator publicly. Paul has also been blocking several international tax treaties with other countries favored by his colleagues for years. Source
I saw Rand Paul state on MSNBC that only 40% of the population of Montenegro actually want to join NATO, so I did some minor investigation, finding this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Montenegro_to_NATO#Opinion_polls
It kind of swings back and forth, but it's interesting how there's an actual fluctuation rather than unanimous support.
|
On March 21 2017 23:00 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
The thing about the odds and statistics is people can rationalize them away. More people killed by falling vending machines? That is fine I can stay away from vending machines or not rock vending machines over and problem solved for me, I can't however control when and where a terrorist strike happens.
I think a large part of the fear and why the news networks have been able to so easily sell it stems from the lack of control and the unknown factor of Terrorist vs say vending machine etc. It's unfortunate but big news companies have had decades of brainwashing impact on the general population so that isn't going to go away by just stating a few percentages at people.
It is probably easier to stay away from crowded areas (where terrorist attacks usually take place) than it is to stay away from traffic. Nonetheless, you are probably right. Irrational fear for the reason of not feeling in control is quite common (e.g. traveling in plane). I don't think news are in the wrong for reporting on terrorist attacks or plane crashes for that matter, but they certainly fail to provide information on the actual threat level.
|
On March 21 2017 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:
With Manafort getting caught red handed by accepting payments from Russia, does that make it easier to start the impeachment process? Or is that still another step?
to impeach, you'd need to have Trump committing a crime, in this scenario, what crime did trump himself commit?
I just don't see one. some of trump's people can be compromised without trump himself having committed a criminal act.
in practice a lot depends on trump's support level of course.
plasma -> yes, the VP Pence would then become president, unless he's also impeached and removed.
then it goes to the speaker of the house, then the president pro tempore of the senate, then it goes through the cabinet.
|
On March 21 2017 23:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol Nixon never went below 40% approval.
Ok? Don't understand the point here.
|
On March 21 2017 23:43 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:31 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol Nixon never went below 40% approval. Ok? Don't understand the point here.
That president that was force to resign due to his unpopularity never really dipped much below 40%. That you are correct that it will be hard to get lower than 30%.
Edit: zlefin is correct that even if it is found that Trumps managers were working with Russians to in an effort to obtain assistance with the election, that isn’t the silver bullet. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that Trump knew about it, it won’t rise to the level of removal.
Removing a president from office is a huge deal, even one as openly terrible as Trump. Like once in a life time, huge threat to American democracy and dangerous to do levels of big deal. People need to get a grip of the gravity that act. The only way it happens is when congress is in full agreement and has a path forward.
|
On March 21 2017 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:31 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol Nixon never went below 40% approval. Yes but the Democrats had both Congress chambers all throughout Watergate. Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hypothetically, if Trump does get impeached and then is convicted (or Trump volunteers to resign from office), does Pence become president due to him being second in command? I'm guessing yes, as long as he also isn't found guilty of the same illegal activities? I believe this was the protocol for Gerald Ford becoming president after Nixon resigned. If Pence is dragged down with the ship, Paul Ryan becomes president. (God help us all.)
I think pence would at least be a respectable and predictable lame duck until 3 years go by
But I seriously doubt trump would go due to one of his staffers making a problem on his own unless it's connected to him somehow
Damm my edit wasn't fast enough
|
Manafort was one campaign leader among several and was fired. Trump could easily say something vague about suspicions before firing, and it would be back to the partisan divide. It would take direct Trump emails or notes carried over to Putin's gang and money changing hands. All this is not to say Manafort's career in America isn't over, it likely is.
Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are not errant, conspiring aides, should they exist and I legitimately doubt it. Flynn certainly exercised poor judgement, but understandable given the media circus. I'm waiting on Comey to complete his investigation so we can return to the investigative side and not guilt by association jumbled seven ways. I'll even hand out an olive branch: It's perfectly natural to be troubled by allegations that the President's associates had contact with suspected Russian operatives. Just when you find zero evidence of collusion, back off a little. Just like if any turns up, the intelligence community will look more like patriots and not a destabilizing force in democratic institutions for partisan purposes.
|
On March 21 2017 23:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On March 21 2017 23:31 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol Nixon never went below 40% approval. Yes but the Democrats had both Congress chambers all throughout Watergate. On March 21 2017 23:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hypothetically, if Trump does get impeached and then is convicted (or Trump volunteers to resign from office), does Pence become president due to him being second in command? I'm guessing yes, as long as he also isn't found guilty of the same illegal activities? I believe this was the protocol for Gerald Ford becoming president after Nixon resigned. If Pence is dragged down with the ship, Paul Ryan becomes president. (God help us all.) Friendo Paul Ryan is a congressman how is he third in line? Orrin hatch would be next after pence if he's somehow also going But I seriously doubt pence would go to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
Speaker of the House comes after Vice President. That's Paul Ryan. Hatch comes after him as President pro tempore of the Senate.
Whether or not Pence goes depends on what the impeachment charge is and if it can be demonstrated that Pence was aware of it and colluded.
On March 21 2017 23:49 Danglars wrote:
Flynn certainly exercised poor judgement, but understandable given the media circus.
lol
|
Yea, I'm waiting on the final verdict for the investigation, and I was just assuming since Manafort dealt directly with Trump as well.
|
On March 21 2017 23:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Yea, I'm waiting on the final verdict for the investigation, and I was just assuming since Manafort dealt directly with Trump as well.
They need overwhelming evidence. Like five smoking guns that say “sole property of Donald Trump”. Anything less will not be enough.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 21 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Paul said in an interview. “For people who want Montenegro [in NATO], many of them want Ukraine and Georgia in there. And I think if you do that you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.” Source
Does Rand Paul know the purpose of NATO? It exists as an embodiment of the preparedness to go to war with Russia.
|
On March 21 2017 23:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Paul said in an interview. “For people who want Montenegro [in NATO], many of them want Ukraine and Georgia in there. And I think if you do that you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.” Source Does Rand Paul know the purpose of NATO? It exists as an embodiment of the preparedness to go to war with Russia.
I thought it existed as an embodiment of preparedness to go to war with the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. Neither of which exist any longer.
|
On March 22 2017 00:00 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:55 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 19:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Paul said in an interview. “For people who want Montenegro [in NATO], many of them want Ukraine and Georgia in there. And I think if you do that you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.” Source Does Rand Paul know the purpose of NATO? It exists as an embodiment of the preparedness to go to war with Russia. I thought it existed as an embodiment of preparedness to go to war with the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. Neither of which exist any longer.
It is an evolving alliance, since it has lasted for half a century. But Kwark is right as to why it was created and its role though the majority of its history.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Knowing what is public at the moment, I would say that Trump's inner circle being a complete circus is more likely than a vast Russian conspiracy. The connections are mostly of the "kinda-sorta knew this guy who knew this guy who works closely with Putin" form. And there is plenty of grounds upon which to question the competence of Trump's retainers.
|
On March 21 2017 23:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:
With Manafort getting caught red handed by accepting payments from Russia, does that make it easier to start the impeachment process? Or is that still another step? to impeach, you'd need to have Trump committing a crime, in this scenario, what crime did trump himself commit? I just don't see one. some of trump's people can be compromised without trump himself having committed a criminal act. in practice a lot depends on trump's support level of course. plasma -> yes, the VP Pence would then become president, unless he's also impeached and removed. then it goes to the speaker of the house, then the president pro tempore of the senate, then it goes through the cabinet.
This is all assuming people are willing to go down for Trump. I find myself doubting the idea that many of these people are particularly loyal to Trump. If one of the big guys is offered a way out, things are going to keep rolling out of control. I think it is very possible that some of these people have contingency plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
