US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7208
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
LightSpectra
United States1529 Posts
GOP Makes Good On 2009 Promise To Block President’s Healthcare Bill WASHINGTON—Telling Americans this was the kind of leadership and accountability they could expect from the GOP, congressional Republicans held a press conference Monday to celebrate making good on their 2009 promise to block the president’s healthcare bill. “Eight years ago, our party made a solemn pledge to do everything in our power to ensure that a healthcare bill put forth by the president of the United States did not become law, and through our actions last week, that is exactly what we have done,” said Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who declared that Republican leaders had never forgotten the vow they made almost a decade ago and noted that, when presented earlier this month with a comprehensive healthcare reform plan championed by the White House, they quickly stopped it in its tracks and refused to relent until it was dead. “True to our word, we successfully prevented the executive branch from pushing through a sweeping bill that would have completely remade the U.S. healthcare system. When we said in 2009 that we would not let the president enact a plan that would affect tens of millions of Americans, that was not just empty rhetoric, and on Friday, we stood up and put an end to the president’s bill for good. Voters will not forget our resolute action.” McCarthy went on to add that throughout the remainder of this term, the American people could count on their Republican representatives to uphold the vows they made repeatedly between 2008 and 2016 to obstruct the president’s agenda at every turn. Source: http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-makes-good-2009-promise-block-presidents-healt-55630 | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of President Trump, will be questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of the panel's investigation into Russia’s interference during the 2016 election. "Mr. Kushner has volunteered to be interviewed as part of the committee's investigation into the Russian activities surrounding the 2016 election," senators Richard Burr (R, N.C.) and Mark Warner (D, Va.), the committee's chairman and vice chairman, told the New York Times in a statement. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42775 Posts
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
America’s biggest coal boss is hopeful that his industry will soon be freed of “fraudulent” green legislation that has hampered his industry, but warned Donald Trump to “temper” expectations about a boom in mining jobs. Robert Murray, founder and chief executive of Murray Energy, the largest privately held coalminer in the US, is confident Trump will follow through with campaign plans to reinvigorate the coal industry and will start by scrapping Barack Obama’s clean power plan (CPP), Obama’s signature climate change plan. The CPP was designed to cut the power sector’s carbon emissions by 32% by 2030, and Trump may move as soon as this week to overturn it. Murray blames it for shuttering coal-fired power plants and freezing new constructions during the Obama presidency. Repeal would be a major victory for Murray Energy, which filed a lawsuit against the CPP in 2015 that is now backed by more than two dozen states. Murray, who met with Trump last month, also expects the president to end the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the US, a classification brought in under the Obama administration. “We do not have a climate change or global warming problem, we have an energy cost problem,” Murray told the Guardian. Murray met Trump in February when the president signed repeal of the Stream Protection Rule, Obama-era legislation that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris in streams and which Murray called an “unlawful and destructive” attempt to “destroy our nation’s underground coalmines and put our nation’s coalminers out of work” . It was the 77-year-old Murray’s first visit to the White House and, he hopes, the first of a series that will help push coal’s agenda. Trump pledged to bring back coal jobs during his presidential bid and repeated those promises last week. “As we speak, we are preparing new executive actions to save our coal industry and to save our wonderful coalminers from continuing to be put out of work. The miners are coming back,” Trump told a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. While Trump did not provide specific details, he did reiterate plans to defang the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now led by Trump appointee and longtime EPA critic Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma. Trump said this week he would transform the EPA from “a job killer into a job creator”. Murray has presented Trump with a plan, part of which would overturn many of the protections brought under Obama in by the EPA, including the 2009 classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant – a ruling known as ‘the “endangerment finding”. “Carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act of 1971 was never a pollutant,” said Murray. “That endangerment finding needs to be overturned. It’s on my list of what needs to be done, because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” During the campaign Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax”, said Obama’s regulation of carbon dioxide was “an overreach that punishes rather than helps Americans”. Trump’s election has been a boon to coal, said Murray, after what he sees as Obama’s attempts to destroy the industry. But he has also warned the president he should “temper” expectations for jobs growth in the industry. “I would not say it’s a good time in the coal industry. It’s a better time,” he said. “Politically it’s much better. Barack Obama and his Democrat supporters were the greatest destroyers the United States of America has ever seen in its history. He destroyed reliable electric power in America, he destroyed low-cost electric power in America, and he attempted to totally destroy the United States coal industry.” Murray said Democrats had failed to defeat Trump because they had failed to listen to people like his workers. “I live among these people. These are the people who fought the wars and built our country and they were forgotten by Democrats who had gone to Hollywood characters, liberal elitists and radical environmentalists. That’s all they represent today. They lost these quiet Americans. This was a victory for the working people,” he said. When Obama came to power, coal provided 52% of US electricity; now it is closer to 30%. The fall is down to competition from cheap, shale gas and the closure of 411 coal-fired power plants under Obama’s administration as more than 50 coalmining companies went bankrupt. While Murray said new plants using “clean coal” technologies could soon be built, he doesn’t expect that coal’s share of the market will rise significantly in the future. Source | ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The delusion train has moved on to pro-fracking politics. Coal is yesterday's trashy energy source. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I would rather regulate and fight with the new fracking industry than deal with those dinosaurs. On March 28 2017 06:44 LegalLord wrote: Obama did back in 08-12. Was as stupid then as it is now. But we all have our delusions. The delusion train has moved on to pro-fracking politics. Coal is yesterday's trashy energy source. Fracking has a ton of problems, all which need to be addressed. But its not coal mining, which has been a shit industry since its inception. And its new, so it hasn’t gotten its political hooks in as deep. | ||
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 28 2017 06:53 Buckyman wrote: A hostile regulatory environment can put anyone out of business, no matter how sound their finances and business practices are. You understand there is a reason we don't use wood to heat our homes anymore, right? Technologies age and become straight up worse. Coal is not a good form of energy from a technical perspective. It is being overrun by technologies that are downright superior and are on their way to becoming much cheaper. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 06:48 Plansix wrote: Fracking has a ton of problems, all which need to be addressed. But its not coal mining, which has been a shit industry since its inception. And its new, so it hasn’t gotten its political hooks in as deep. Coal is worse than fracking, that is true. Fracking is still pretty bad though, and it's the New Hot Shit for getting out of realiance on energy imports based on rather bullshit arguments that ignore environmental concerns. Problem really lies with the fact that for most countries, the environment is just a distraction that gets in the way of money. If only it would just piss off so we could do what we want. | ||
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
http://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/florida/2017/03/22/florida-fracking-ban-supporters-rally-bill-faces-trouble/99486110/ | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 28 2017 06:53 Buckyman wrote: A hostile regulatory environment can put anyone out of business, no matter how sound their finances and business practices are. That argument is compelling. But also the coal industry wasn't exactly slammed with a ton of regulations in the last 8 years. They were mostly slammed by a new energy producer coming to the market and communities being more than happy to shut down their coal fire plants. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 28 2017 07:13 ShoCkeyy wrote: Idk if it's worse when they're trying to frack on our water aquifers and say it's completely safe... http://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/florida/2017/03/22/florida-fracking-ban-supporters-rally-bill-faces-trouble/99486110/ That is as bad as the coal industry, for sure. But I would rather fight with them than the entrenched interests of the coal industry. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23248 Posts
On March 28 2017 07:13 ShoCkeyy wrote: Idk if it's worse when they're trying to frack on our water aquifers and say it's completely safe... http://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/florida/2017/03/22/florida-fracking-ban-supporters-rally-bill-faces-trouble/99486110/ Yeah, coal was a bit more obviously bad. I mean you come out of the mine (most of the time) and when you do you're covered in black shit, your lungs feel like shit, and it's been around long enough to kill tens of thousands of people just from working with it (not counting collapsing mines and such). Some well in the middle of BFE leaking massive methane clouds doesn't have the same immediately obvious drawbacks as say, a mine collapsing, even though it's obviously a larger long term concern. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote: The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much. I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. It would've helped if there wasn't a hefty dose of partisanship obscuring the issues every time they're brought up. Like the Trump-wiretap story, one write-up: Partisanship has a way of coloring views of the news, especially of highly-charged stories involving Trump campaign and transition officials turning up in government surveillance. This week, CNN reported: “The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN.” Righties, particularly those of the anti-anti-Trump bent, focuses on the “supposed” and the “possibly” to conclude the story was No Big Deal. The story is certainly qualified, but the dismissal tends to ignore the fact that it’s a report on an ongoing investigation and that unless some sort of charge is brought, it’s a fair bet the evidence will be below the level needed to bring charges. Conversely, the same basic group of righties thought this week’s press event by Rep. Devin Nunes — chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — (helpfully transcribed by Lawfare) was a Very Big Deal. Nunes initially claimed that: “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked. And fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.” [...] Nunes, however, further raises the serious allegation that Trump or members of his transition team were “unmasked” (i.e., their identities were not redacted as would usually be the case for U.S. citizens in cases of incidental collection) in cases without foreign intelligence value, and that said reports were widely disseminated. This is precisely the concern civil libertarians have raised about our foreign surveillance efforts during the post-9/11 era. Warren Henry | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 07:13 ShoCkeyy wrote: Idk if it's worse when they're trying to frack on our water aquifers and say it's completely safe... http://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/florida/2017/03/22/florida-fracking-ban-supporters-rally-bill-faces-trouble/99486110/ It's not so much that fracking is not so bad as much as it is that coal is just a really bad energy source from an environmental perspective. Bad shit from coal: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=coal_environment | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote: The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much. I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. | ||
| ||