|
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. |
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.com
While I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries
|
On July 17 2017 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 02:44 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 02:01 mozoku wrote:On July 16 2017 22:12 Nevuk wrote:On July 16 2017 20:34 FuzzyJAM wrote:On July 16 2017 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 16 2017 19:27 FuzzyJAM wrote:
[quote]
If you think the Obama administration didn't do anything because of bribery ("donations") then you're horribly naive. If you think the military industrial complex didn't impact Obama's foreign policy then you're horribly naive.
Maybe Obama didn't get direct personal financial gain, idk, but he sure as hell played the pay-for-power game which allows business to undemocratically control governments. And of course being ex-president he now can flagrantly use his contacts and position to earn money, which honestly is about the same, just a little smarter. I love the cynicism, but I don't think you can compare an administration ran by a billionaire who clearly is there to promote his business interest and takes a foreign policy approach directly related to where his buildings and golf course are located and the Obama administration, which was certainly "corrupt" to a certain level as this is structural to american politics but was not ran by people who had direct private financial interest in what they were doing. Obama is no billionaire, and was certainly not there primarily to make money. Or if so, he was really shit at it. It's good not to be naive and to be critical, but that's not a reason to become blind. This shit, at that level, is unprecedented. Trump is awful and by far worse than Obama. Of course. If you see what I was replying to, you'd see I wasn't contradicting that, only the idea that Obama (or indeed any major politician, at least in the US) wasn't ever corrupt. But Trump will eventually be gone. The massive structural issues which make corruption and buying votes an inherent and entirely pervasive part of American politics likely won't because the only people who could change it are those who benefit from that corruption. I actually question whether or not he will eventually be gone. So far he's been able to flagrantly ignore the rule of law, I see nothing preventing him from declaring himself winner of the next election before the votes are counted and refusing to leave the white house after his second term. Can you give any examples of Trump "flagrantly ignoring the rule of law?" He hasn't passed any legislation and his travel bans have had legal issues since their rollout. His use of executive order has been no more expansive than Obama's was (and Obama actually did expand EO usage relative to his predecessors). In addition, he's being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to his presidency. If anything, the rule of law is slaughtering Trump I think Trump is incompetent and a pretty terrible president so far imo, but you sound like you're getting your lines from some liberal equivalent of Fox News. In general, the amount of hyperbole about Trump as a president in this thread (and the left in general) isn't that different from Fox News during the Obama era. Even attempting comparisons to other Presidents is an exercise in failure. We don't know how Fox News would've reacted if Obama fired the FBI Director, then joked about it in a private Oval Office meeting with the very people the FBI Director was investigating, while claiming, "This will help". You know, we (the media, the public, the government) are looking into the legality of various actions. But this investigation should be happening under a different President. To make a different comparison: You have a soldier. Let's put him in the ww2 era, for simplicity. That soldier is constantly talking about how good and misunderstood the German and Japanese are. He even says they're better than some of these American soldiers who've served in the past. You even catch him laughing with some Germans while they make fun of some American soldiers. He even argues that Germany didn't really invade Poland. It's fake news. "Maybe Russia is in Ukraine, I don't know. Maybe Russia hacked us, I don't know". You can argue about legality, but the bottom-line is, if I were that soldier's superior, I would not order him into battle with other soldiers. I would do everything I can to keep him out of fighting with other men. He should not be there. And Donald Trump should not be Commander-in-Chief. In any other day, he'd be gone. Go back some generations, a man who has behaved similarly would not just be impeached, he'd be in much worse problems. Don't compare this to Obama -- literally none of it fits. There is no basis. Obama didn't have personal lawyers speaking for him on Sunday morning talk shows, about why we should just ignore our President's disgusting lack of loyalty, and other inappropriate behaviors. The irony here is that we started with the rule of law. Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something. But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof. Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines. I don't recall much hyperbole about Obama that even smells like many of the genuine claims that can be leveraged against Trump. Also remind me who started the birther nonsense? What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole. Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right: "Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with. "Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means. Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality: The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect." Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised. "The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over. There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview). Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect. According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you. http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html This is what I'm looking at from reading your link: Show nested quote +Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. I'd dare to say we have that now.
So there's conflicting views, but a precedent and public understanding that impeachment = crime. Furthermore, language in the Constitution is framed in legal terms.
I can't speak for the whole country, but, in addition to the above, I'd prefer that Congress be required to have a legal basis to remove one of the checks on their power. Probably more importantly, I'm envisioning all kinds of interesting impeachable "bad acts" a single party supermajority in Congress might come up with to get rid of a president of the opposing party.
|
On July 17 2017 11:00 Buckyman wrote:
Re: American Coal (from several pages ago)
Given how long it takes to build coal plants, I would expect actual coal mining to take about five years to recover even if Trump rolls back ALL the Obama-era rules related to coal. On the other hand, I expect coal exports to recover sooner, largely driven by pathfinder electrification in Africa (extending a reliable grid to places that don't have it) and increased demand in India. Call it 3 years until coal mining returns to 2015 levels.
Even assuming you are right and that the entire world suddenly decides to move away from the direction that it has headed which does not involve coal, it wont actually help anyone other then coal executive.
However reality flies in the face of that happening because while solar and wind currently have more jobs those jobs will not last as they are merely building the infrastructure to set them up for generations but even if that were not the case and I really want a fossil fuel why would I not go with much cheaper natural gas and just ignore coal altogether. Basically coal is not going to recover and even if it has a slight bump the jobs from it wont ever recover and are gone for good and pretending otherwise does more to screw over the people actually doing those jobs then any of these fake attempts to give them there jobs back.
The sooner the new reality is accepted and they are started with training towards new careers that will actually exist the better off both they and there families will be long term.
|
On July 17 2017 11:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.comWhile I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries
If one of the biggest promoters are dissenting and leaving, then that shows that what is going on in the federal government isn't working. The people gave the GOP a chance to back up their words since 2010. They still haven't done anything about it. Now they control all three levels and still can't do anything about it.
On July 17 2017 11:37 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 02:44 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 02:01 mozoku wrote:On July 16 2017 22:12 Nevuk wrote:On July 16 2017 20:34 FuzzyJAM wrote:On July 16 2017 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I love the cynicism, but I don't think you can compare an administration ran by a billionaire who clearly is there to promote his business interest and takes a foreign policy approach directly related to where his buildings and golf course are located and the Obama administration, which was certainly "corrupt" to a certain level as this is structural to american politics but was not ran by people who had direct private financial interest in what they were doing. Obama is no billionaire, and was certainly not there primarily to make money. Or if so, he was really shit at it.
It's good not to be naive and to be critical, but that's not a reason to become blind. This shit, at that level, is unprecedented. Trump is awful and by far worse than Obama. Of course. If you see what I was replying to, you'd see I wasn't contradicting that, only the idea that Obama (or indeed any major politician, at least in the US) wasn't ever corrupt. But Trump will eventually be gone. The massive structural issues which make corruption and buying votes an inherent and entirely pervasive part of American politics likely won't because the only people who could change it are those who benefit from that corruption. I actually question whether or not he will eventually be gone. So far he's been able to flagrantly ignore the rule of law, I see nothing preventing him from declaring himself winner of the next election before the votes are counted and refusing to leave the white house after his second term. Can you give any examples of Trump "flagrantly ignoring the rule of law?" He hasn't passed any legislation and his travel bans have had legal issues since their rollout. His use of executive order has been no more expansive than Obama's was (and Obama actually did expand EO usage relative to his predecessors). In addition, he's being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to his presidency. If anything, the rule of law is slaughtering Trump I think Trump is incompetent and a pretty terrible president so far imo, but you sound like you're getting your lines from some liberal equivalent of Fox News. In general, the amount of hyperbole about Trump as a president in this thread (and the left in general) isn't that different from Fox News during the Obama era. Even attempting comparisons to other Presidents is an exercise in failure. We don't know how Fox News would've reacted if Obama fired the FBI Director, then joked about it in a private Oval Office meeting with the very people the FBI Director was investigating, while claiming, "This will help". You know, we (the media, the public, the government) are looking into the legality of various actions. But this investigation should be happening under a different President. To make a different comparison: You have a soldier. Let's put him in the ww2 era, for simplicity. That soldier is constantly talking about how good and misunderstood the German and Japanese are. He even says they're better than some of these American soldiers who've served in the past. You even catch him laughing with some Germans while they make fun of some American soldiers. He even argues that Germany didn't really invade Poland. It's fake news. "Maybe Russia is in Ukraine, I don't know. Maybe Russia hacked us, I don't know". You can argue about legality, but the bottom-line is, if I were that soldier's superior, I would not order him into battle with other soldiers. I would do everything I can to keep him out of fighting with other men. He should not be there. And Donald Trump should not be Commander-in-Chief. In any other day, he'd be gone. Go back some generations, a man who has behaved similarly would not just be impeached, he'd be in much worse problems. Don't compare this to Obama -- literally none of it fits. There is no basis. Obama didn't have personal lawyers speaking for him on Sunday morning talk shows, about why we should just ignore our President's disgusting lack of loyalty, and other inappropriate behaviors. The irony here is that we started with the rule of law. Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something. But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof. Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines. I don't recall much hyperbole about Obama that even smells like many of the genuine claims that can be leveraged against Trump. Also remind me who started the birther nonsense? What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole. Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right: "Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with. "Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means. Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality: The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect." Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised. "The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over. There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview). Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect. According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you. http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html This is what I'm looking at from reading your link: Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. I'd dare to say we have that now. So there's conflicting views, but a precedent and public understanding that impeachment = crime. Furthermore, language in the Constitution is framed in legal terms. I can't speak for the whole country, but, in addition to the above, I'd prefer that Congress be required to have a legal basis to remove one of the checks on their power. Probably more importantly, I'm envisioning all kinds of interesting impeachable "bad acts" a single party supermajority in Congress might come up with to get rid of a president of the opposing party.
And I agree. We have to wait for Mueller to do his job and present his findings. But every day that goes by, it's not boding well for this administration.
|
United States42568 Posts
There are remarkably few coal jobs anyway. The degree to which it weighs on the public consciousness vs the importance of coal to the national economy is crazy. It's as if we're deciding elections based upon the declining importance of beets within the modern American diet and how to best to support the struggling beet farmers. Energy is important, as is agriculture, but coal is becoming increasingly unimportant to the energy sector as a whole and there just aren't that many coal miners anyway.
|
On July 17 2017 11:37 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 02:44 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 02:01 mozoku wrote:On July 16 2017 22:12 Nevuk wrote:On July 16 2017 20:34 FuzzyJAM wrote:On July 16 2017 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I love the cynicism, but I don't think you can compare an administration ran by a billionaire who clearly is there to promote his business interest and takes a foreign policy approach directly related to where his buildings and golf course are located and the Obama administration, which was certainly "corrupt" to a certain level as this is structural to american politics but was not ran by people who had direct private financial interest in what they were doing. Obama is no billionaire, and was certainly not there primarily to make money. Or if so, he was really shit at it.
It's good not to be naive and to be critical, but that's not a reason to become blind. This shit, at that level, is unprecedented. Trump is awful and by far worse than Obama. Of course. If you see what I was replying to, you'd see I wasn't contradicting that, only the idea that Obama (or indeed any major politician, at least in the US) wasn't ever corrupt. But Trump will eventually be gone. The massive structural issues which make corruption and buying votes an inherent and entirely pervasive part of American politics likely won't because the only people who could change it are those who benefit from that corruption. I actually question whether or not he will eventually be gone. So far he's been able to flagrantly ignore the rule of law, I see nothing preventing him from declaring himself winner of the next election before the votes are counted and refusing to leave the white house after his second term. Can you give any examples of Trump "flagrantly ignoring the rule of law?" He hasn't passed any legislation and his travel bans have had legal issues since their rollout. His use of executive order has been no more expansive than Obama's was (and Obama actually did expand EO usage relative to his predecessors). In addition, he's being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to his presidency. If anything, the rule of law is slaughtering Trump I think Trump is incompetent and a pretty terrible president so far imo, but you sound like you're getting your lines from some liberal equivalent of Fox News. In general, the amount of hyperbole about Trump as a president in this thread (and the left in general) isn't that different from Fox News during the Obama era. Even attempting comparisons to other Presidents is an exercise in failure. We don't know how Fox News would've reacted if Obama fired the FBI Director, then joked about it in a private Oval Office meeting with the very people the FBI Director was investigating, while claiming, "This will help". You know, we (the media, the public, the government) are looking into the legality of various actions. But this investigation should be happening under a different President. To make a different comparison: You have a soldier. Let's put him in the ww2 era, for simplicity. That soldier is constantly talking about how good and misunderstood the German and Japanese are. He even says they're better than some of these American soldiers who've served in the past. You even catch him laughing with some Germans while they make fun of some American soldiers. He even argues that Germany didn't really invade Poland. It's fake news. "Maybe Russia is in Ukraine, I don't know. Maybe Russia hacked us, I don't know". You can argue about legality, but the bottom-line is, if I were that soldier's superior, I would not order him into battle with other soldiers. I would do everything I can to keep him out of fighting with other men. He should not be there. And Donald Trump should not be Commander-in-Chief. In any other day, he'd be gone. Go back some generations, a man who has behaved similarly would not just be impeached, he'd be in much worse problems. Don't compare this to Obama -- literally none of it fits. There is no basis. Obama didn't have personal lawyers speaking for him on Sunday morning talk shows, about why we should just ignore our President's disgusting lack of loyalty, and other inappropriate behaviors. The irony here is that we started with the rule of law. Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something. But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof. Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines. I don't recall much hyperbole about Obama that even smells like many of the genuine claims that can be leveraged against Trump. Also remind me who started the birther nonsense? What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole. Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right: "Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with. "Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means. Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality: The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect." Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised. "The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over. There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview). Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect. According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you. http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html This is what I'm looking at from reading your link: Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. I'd dare to say we have that now. So there's conflicting views, but a precedent and public understanding that impeachment = crime. Furthermore, language in the Constitution is framed in legal terms. I can't speak for the whole country, but, in addition to the above, I'd prefer that Congress be required to have a legal basis to remove one of the checks on their power. Probably more importantly, I'm envisioning all kinds of interesting impeachable "bad acts" a single party supermajority in Congress might come up with to get rid of a president of the opposing party.
I think that drastic of a change would need to be handled via constitutional amendment to the impeachment process.
A supermajority removing a president of the opposing party seems pretty unlikely, mostly due to the fact that getting a supermajority combined with a president of the opposing party requires a very weird political environment (typically supermajorities happen in reaction to 1 party fucking up massively, ie 1929 or 2008, and that party loses the presidency anyways). Plus, it's not terribly effective at just removing a political party from power because the #2 in line is his vice president anyways.
It is tremendously effective at removing an incompetent or criminal president. That's pretty much all it's designed for.
|
On July 17 2017 11:46 KwarK wrote:
There are remarkably few coal jobs anyway. The degree to which it weighs on the public consciousness vs the importance of coal to the national economy is crazy. It's as if we're deciding elections based upon the declining importance of beets within the modern American diet and how to best to support the struggling beet farmers. Energy is important, as is agriculture, but coal is becoming increasingly unimportant to the energy sector as a whole and there just aren't that many coal miners anyway.
This can be attributed to the lack of education in America. Especially in rural areas where people don't see past the farm or the mine. They follow in family footsteps and don't venture out. Farmers are becoming more hip to the game now, though as they understand the politics aren't going to be in their favor always. Miners need to stop believing politicians when they say they'll get those jobs back. They're gone.
|
On July 17 2017 11:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:37 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 02:44 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 02:01 mozoku wrote:On July 16 2017 22:12 Nevuk wrote:On July 16 2017 20:34 FuzzyJAM wrote:
[quote]
Trump is awful and by far worse than Obama. Of course. If you see what I was replying to, you'd see I wasn't contradicting that, only the idea that Obama (or indeed any major politician, at least in the US) wasn't ever corrupt.
But Trump will eventually be gone. The massive structural issues which make corruption and buying votes an inherent and entirely pervasive part of American politics likely won't because the only people who could change it are those who benefit from that corruption. I actually question whether or not he will eventually be gone. So far he's been able to flagrantly ignore the rule of law, I see nothing preventing him from declaring himself winner of the next election before the votes are counted and refusing to leave the white house after his second term. Can you give any examples of Trump "flagrantly ignoring the rule of law?" He hasn't passed any legislation and his travel bans have had legal issues since their rollout. His use of executive order has been no more expansive than Obama's was (and Obama actually did expand EO usage relative to his predecessors). In addition, he's being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to his presidency. If anything, the rule of law is slaughtering Trump I think Trump is incompetent and a pretty terrible president so far imo, but you sound like you're getting your lines from some liberal equivalent of Fox News. In general, the amount of hyperbole about Trump as a president in this thread (and the left in general) isn't that different from Fox News during the Obama era. Even attempting comparisons to other Presidents is an exercise in failure. We don't know how Fox News would've reacted if Obama fired the FBI Director, then joked about it in a private Oval Office meeting with the very people the FBI Director was investigating, while claiming, "This will help". You know, we (the media, the public, the government) are looking into the legality of various actions. But this investigation should be happening under a different President. To make a different comparison: You have a soldier. Let's put him in the ww2 era, for simplicity. That soldier is constantly talking about how good and misunderstood the German and Japanese are. He even says they're better than some of these American soldiers who've served in the past. You even catch him laughing with some Germans while they make fun of some American soldiers. He even argues that Germany didn't really invade Poland. It's fake news. "Maybe Russia is in Ukraine, I don't know. Maybe Russia hacked us, I don't know". You can argue about legality, but the bottom-line is, if I were that soldier's superior, I would not order him into battle with other soldiers. I would do everything I can to keep him out of fighting with other men. He should not be there. And Donald Trump should not be Commander-in-Chief. In any other day, he'd be gone. Go back some generations, a man who has behaved similarly would not just be impeached, he'd be in much worse problems. Don't compare this to Obama -- literally none of it fits. There is no basis. Obama didn't have personal lawyers speaking for him on Sunday morning talk shows, about why we should just ignore our President's disgusting lack of loyalty, and other inappropriate behaviors. The irony here is that we started with the rule of law. Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something. But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof. Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines. I don't recall much hyperbole about Obama that even smells like many of the genuine claims that can be leveraged against Trump. Also remind me who started the birther nonsense? What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole. Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right: "Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with. "Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means. Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality: The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect." Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised. "The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over. There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview). Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect. According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you. http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html This is what I'm looking at from reading your link: Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. I'd dare to say we have that now. So there's conflicting views, but a precedent and public understanding that impeachment = crime. Furthermore, language in the Constitution is framed in legal terms. I can't speak for the whole country, but, in addition to the above, I'd prefer that Congress be required to have a legal basis to remove one of the checks on their power. Probably more importantly, I'm envisioning all kinds of interesting impeachable "bad acts" a single party supermajority in Congress might come up with to get rid of a president of the opposing party. I think that drastic of a change would need to be handled via constitutional amendment to the impeachment process. A supermajority removing a president of the opposing party seems pretty unlikely, mostly due to the fact that getting a supermajority combined with a president of the opposing party requires a very weird political environment (typically supermajorities happen in reaction to 1 party fucking up massively, ie 1929 or 2008, and that party loses the presidency anyways). Plus, it's not terribly effective at just removing a political party from power because the #2 in line is his vice president anyways. It is tremendously effective at removing an incompetent or criminal president. That's pretty much all it's designed for.
Technically, Congress can already do whatever it wants. The Supreme Court has already said impeachment is a political question. Like a lot of legal issues (as I'm sure you know), the status quo is based on interpretation and precedent.
The question here is whether you think it's good governance to have presidents be impeached at the whims of Congress. I'm of the opinion that the US is better off maintaining a legal standard for impeachment proceedings (though I think the burden of proof should probably be less than "beyond reasonable doubt").
EDIT: If you were responding more to my use of the word "require" in the first post, ignore this post. I didn't mean "require" in the legal sense.
|
On July 17 2017 11:57 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:47 Nevuk wrote:On July 17 2017 11:37 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:On July 17 2017 02:44 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2017 02:01 mozoku wrote:On July 16 2017 22:12 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
I actually question whether or not he will eventually be gone. So far he's been able to flagrantly ignore the rule of law, I see nothing preventing him from declaring himself winner of the next election before the votes are counted and refusing to leave the white house after his second term. Can you give any examples of Trump "flagrantly ignoring the rule of law?" He hasn't passed any legislation and his travel bans have had legal issues since their rollout. His use of executive order has been no more expansive than Obama's was (and Obama actually did expand EO usage relative to his predecessors). In addition, he's being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to his presidency. If anything, the rule of law is slaughtering Trump I think Trump is incompetent and a pretty terrible president so far imo, but you sound like you're getting your lines from some liberal equivalent of Fox News. In general, the amount of hyperbole about Trump as a president in this thread (and the left in general) isn't that different from Fox News during the Obama era. Even attempting comparisons to other Presidents is an exercise in failure. We don't know how Fox News would've reacted if Obama fired the FBI Director, then joked about it in a private Oval Office meeting with the very people the FBI Director was investigating, while claiming, "This will help". You know, we (the media, the public, the government) are looking into the legality of various actions. But this investigation should be happening under a different President. To make a different comparison: You have a soldier. Let's put him in the ww2 era, for simplicity. That soldier is constantly talking about how good and misunderstood the German and Japanese are. He even says they're better than some of these American soldiers who've served in the past. You even catch him laughing with some Germans while they make fun of some American soldiers. He even argues that Germany didn't really invade Poland. It's fake news. "Maybe Russia is in Ukraine, I don't know. Maybe Russia hacked us, I don't know". You can argue about legality, but the bottom-line is, if I were that soldier's superior, I would not order him into battle with other soldiers. I would do everything I can to keep him out of fighting with other men. He should not be there. And Donald Trump should not be Commander-in-Chief. In any other day, he'd be gone. Go back some generations, a man who has behaved similarly would not just be impeached, he'd be in much worse problems. Don't compare this to Obama -- literally none of it fits. There is no basis. Obama didn't have personal lawyers speaking for him on Sunday morning talk shows, about why we should just ignore our President's disgusting lack of loyalty, and other inappropriate behaviors. The irony here is that we started with the rule of law. Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something. But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof. Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines. I don't recall much hyperbole about Obama that even smells like many of the genuine claims that can be leveraged against Trump. Also remind me who started the birther nonsense? What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole. Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right: "Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with. "Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means. Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality: The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect." Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised. "The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over. There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview). Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect. According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you. http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html This is what I'm looking at from reading your link: Relating to the President's Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. I'd dare to say we have that now. So there's conflicting views, but a precedent and public understanding that impeachment = crime. Furthermore, language in the Constitution is framed in legal terms. I can't speak for the whole country, but, in addition to the above, I'd prefer that Congress be required to have a legal basis to remove one of the checks on their power. Probably more importantly, I'm envisioning all kinds of interesting impeachable "bad acts" a single party supermajority in Congress might come up with to get rid of a president of the opposing party. I think that drastic of a change would need to be handled via constitutional amendment to the impeachment process. A supermajority removing a president of the opposing party seems pretty unlikely, mostly due to the fact that getting a supermajority combined with a president of the opposing party requires a very weird political environment (typically supermajorities happen in reaction to 1 party fucking up massively, ie 1929 or 2008, and that party loses the presidency anyways). Plus, it's not terribly effective at just removing a political party from power because the #2 in line is his vice president anyways. It is tremendously effective at removing an incompetent or criminal president. That's pretty much all it's designed for. Technically, Congress can already do whatever it wants. The Supreme Court has already said impeachment is a political question. Like a lot of legal issues, the status quo is based on interpretation and precedent (as I'm sure you know). The question here is whether you think it's good governance to have presidents be impeached at the whims of Congress. I'm of the opinion that the US is better off maintaining a legal standard for impeachment proceedings (though I think the burden of proof should probably be less than "beyond reasonable doubt"). It's already difficult enough that it's never been used to remove a president. If anything, the burden is a little too high in the senate.
|
On July 17 2017 11:38 Adreme wrote:
Even assuming you are right and that the entire world suddenly decides to move away from the direction that it has headed which does not involve coal, it wont actually help anyone other then coal executive.
...
even if that were not the case and I really want a fossil fuel why would I not go with much cheaper natural gas and just ignore coal altogether. Basically coal is not going to recover and even if it has a slight bump the jobs from it wont ever recover and are gone for good and pretending otherwise does more to screw over the people actually doing those jobs then any of these fake attempts to give them there jobs back.
I called out two effects in my post.
Repealed regulations -> cheaper coal power domestically -> higher demand
Expanding grids overseas -> higher coal exports -> higher demand
The reason for coal over gas overseas seems to be that it's easier to transport by ship. Regardless of the reason, there are enough actual coal plants under construction overseas to affect US exports.
|
On July 17 2017 12:22 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:38 Adreme wrote:
Even assuming you are right and that the entire world suddenly decides to move away from the direction that it has headed which does not involve coal, it wont actually help anyone other then coal executive.
...
even if that were not the case and I really want a fossil fuel why would I not go with much cheaper natural gas and just ignore coal altogether. Basically coal is not going to recover and even if it has a slight bump the jobs from it wont ever recover and are gone for good and pretending otherwise does more to screw over the people actually doing those jobs then any of these fake attempts to give them there jobs back. I called out two effects in my post. Repealed regulations -> cheaper coal power domestically -> higher demand Expanding grids overseas -> higher coal exports -> higher demand The reason for coal over gas overseas seems to be that it's easier to transport by ship. Regardless of the reason, there are enough actual coal plants under construction to affect US exports.
No there aren't. They are closing so fast due to Corporations won't expand into cities/towns unless they are powered by Renewable's, along with other pressures from society. Let's also not forget that Arby's employs more people than the Coal Industry.
Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020.”
Globally, the price of solar panels has fallen 50% between 2016 and 2017, they write. And in countries with favorable wind conditions, the costs associated with wind power “can be as low as one-half to one-third that of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants.” Innovations in wind-turbine design are allowing for ever-longer wind blades; that boost in efficiency will also increase power output from the wind sector, according to Morgan Stanley.
Even in Australia, where the political climate is hostile to renewables, Morgan Stanley sees hope in the slightly longer-term: “In Australia, we anticipate that by 2020, renewables will provide ~28% of grid-supplied energy, including over 60% in South Australia.”
Source
|
On July 17 2017 11:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.comWhile I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries
Scarborough has it backwards. Trump isn't the cause of what is killing the GOP. Trump is the result of a GOP that had already mortally wounded itself. He cites most of the right facts above, but he doesn't quite have the fortitude to draw the right conclusion.
And I'm not sure why you think that Scarborough was one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders. He never has been.
|
On July 17 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:30 Nevuk wrote:
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.comWhile I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries Scarborough has it backwards. Trump isn't the cause of what is killing the GOP. Trump is the result of a GOP that had already mortally wounded itself. He cites most of the right facts above, but he doesn't quite have the fortitude to draw the right conclusion. And I'm not sure why you think that Scarborough was one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders. He never has been.
Trump was a constant presence on his show for over a year. He may not have agreed with him on everything, but he did as much to normalize him as anyone else in the media
|
On July 17 2017 13:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2017 11:30 Nevuk wrote:
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.comWhile I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries Scarborough has it backwards. Trump isn't the cause of what is killing the GOP. Trump is the result of a GOP that had already mortally wounded itself. He cites most of the right facts above, but he doesn't quite have the fortitude to draw the right conclusion. And I'm not sure why you think that Scarborough was one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders. He never has been. Trump was a constant presence on his show for over a year. He may not have agreed with him on everything, but he did as much to normalize him as anyone else in the media
Since when is giving someone a fair shake the same as being a cheerleader?
|
Pretty sure the keyword is "normalize" here.
|
On July 17 2017 13:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 13:07 Nevuk wrote:On July 17 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2017 11:30 Nevuk wrote:
Trump is killing the Republican Party
By Joe Scarborough
I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left its senses. The political movement that once stood athwart history resisting bloated government and military adventurism has been reduced to an amalgam of talk-radio resentments. President Trump’s Republicans have devolved into a party without a cause, dominated by a leader hopelessly ill-informed about the basics of conservatism, U.S. history and the Constitution.
America’s first Republican president reportedly said , “Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The current Republican president and the party he controls were granted monopoly power over Washington in November and already find themselves spectacularly failing Abraham Lincoln’s character exam.
It would take far more than a single column to detail Trump’s failures in the months following his bleak inaugural address. But the Republican leaders who have subjugated themselves to the White House’s corrupting influence fell short of Lincoln’s standard long before their favorite reality-TV star brought his gaudy circus act to Washington.
When I left Congress in 2001, I praised my party’s successful efforts to balance the budget for the first time in a generation and keep many of the promises that led to our takeover in 1994. I concluded my last speech on the House floor by foolishly predicting that Republicans would balance budgets and champion a restrained foreign policy for as long as they held power.
I would be proved wrong immediately.
As the new century began, Republicans gained control of the federal government. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress responded by turning a $155 billion surplus into a $1 trillion deficit and doubling the national debt, passing a $7 trillion unfunded entitlement program and promoting a foreign policy so utopian it would have made Woodrow Wilson blush. Voters made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House in 2006 and Barack Obama president in 2008.
After their well-deserved drubbing, Republicans swore that if voters ever entrusted them with running Washington again, they would prove themselves worthy. Trump’s party was given a second chance this year, but it has spent almost every day since then making the majority of Americans regret it.
The GOP president questioned America’s constitutional system of checks and balances. Republican leaders said nothing. He echoed Stalin and Mao by calling the free press “the enemy of the people.” Republican leaders were silent. And as the commander in chief insulted allies while embracing autocratic thugs, Republicans who spent a decade supporting wars of choice remained quiet. Meanwhile, their budget-busting proposals demonstrate a fiscal recklessness very much in line with the Bush years.
Last week’s Russia revelations show just how shamelessly Republican lawmakers will stand by a longtime Democrat who switched parties after the promotion of a racist theory about Barack Obama gave him standing in Lincoln’s once-proud party. Neither Lincoln, William Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would recognize this movement.
It is a dying party that I can no longer defend.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham has long predicted that the Republican and Democrats’ 150-year duopoly will end. The signs seem obvious enough. When my Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, it was the first time the GOP had won the House in a generation. The two parties have been in a state of turmoil ever since.
In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove anticipated a majority that would last a generation; two years later, Pelosi became the most liberal House speaker in history. Obama was swept into power by a supposedly unassailable Democratic coalition. In 2010, the tea party tide rolled in. Obama’s reelction returned the momentum to the Democrats, but Republicans won a historic state-level landslide in 2014. Then last fall, Trump demolished both the Republican and Democratic establishments.
Political historians will one day view Donald Trump as a historical anomaly. But the wreckage visited of this man will break the Republican Party into pieces — and lead to the election of independent thinkers no longer tethered to the tired dogmas of the polarized past. When that day mercifully arrives, the two-party duopoly that has strangled American politics for almost two centuries will finally come to an end. And Washington just may begin to work again.
www.washingtonpost.comWhile I agree with him, I feel that it all rings a little hollow coming from one of the biggest promoters of Trump during the election/primaries Scarborough has it backwards. Trump isn't the cause of what is killing the GOP. Trump is the result of a GOP that had already mortally wounded itself. He cites most of the right facts above, but he doesn't quite have the fortitude to draw the right conclusion. And I'm not sure why you think that Scarborough was one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders. He never has been. Trump was a constant presence on his show for over a year. He may not have agreed with him on everything, but he did as much to normalize him as anyone else in the media Since when is giving someone a fair shake the same as being a cheerleader?
Well, I never said he was a cheerleader. I said he was a promoter. I think he went a bit beyond giving him a fair shake in late 2015/early 2016.
Trump literally called him a supporter + believer in his campaign in February of 2016. www.washingtonpost.com
Yes, they got critical after that, but they were probably the friendliest bunch on TV for a long time towards him. So my point was that I think he's being hypocritical in blaming Trump here, since he bears some amount of responsibility if Trump is truly responsible for the issues he's complaining about.
|
California’s milestone climate legislation is at a critical crossroads, and reluctance toward the program from both liberals and conservatives could stand in the way of extending it.
The California Senate will will vote Monday on AB 398, a bill drafted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program, which since 2012 has enforced limits on carbon emissions and required polluters obtain permits to emit greenhouse gases. The program’s goals ― bringing emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and achieving an 80 percent reduction of that by 2050 ― are among the most aggressive climate-change-curbing efforts in the U.S.
But the program will collapse in 2020 if lawmakers don’t vote to renew it. Gov. Jerry Brown is seeking to ensure its expansion until 2030 now, making it clear that California will continue the fight against climate change in spite of President Donald Trump reneging on national commitments to it. In the face of Trump backing out of the Paris Agreement on climate change and going “AWOL” on the subject, Brown said earlier this month that California will host its own climate summit next year.
“Cap-and-trade is the way forward,” Brown said in an impassioned speech at a hearing for the bill Thursday. “I know we’ve got politics; they have everybody on different sides. This is fundamental,” he said, calling climate change a “threat to organized human existence.”
He warned of a future where the massive wildfires ravaging the state in recent weeks and other climate-caused catastrophes are the new normal. More than a dozen wildfires have scorched California in recent days, including the ever-growing Whittier fire in Santa Barbara County, which has burned more than 18,000 acres since igniting more than a week ago. Wildfires this catastrophic, scientists warn, will only become more frequent as global temperatures rise.
“You’re going to be alive in a horrible situation where you’re going to see mass migrations, vector diseases, forest fires, Southern California burning up,” he urged. “That’s real, guys. That’s what the scientists of the world are saying. I’m not here about some cockamamie legacy that some people talk about. This isn’t for me. I’m going to be dead. It’s for you.”
Brown is seeking passage with a super-majority, or two-thirds, vote in order to protect the program from future legal threats. But that won’t be so easy, even as Democrats control the legislative body.
To pass, AB 398 will need 27 votes in the state Senate and 54 in the state Assembly ― the exact number of seats held by Democrats in each of those houses. But with Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) out all week, The Los Angeles Times noted, cap-and-trade’s security hinges on at least one Republican vote.
While many GOP lawmakers oppose the bill’s taxes and increased regulatory efforts, securing some Republican votes is not out of reach. However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are facing pressure from environmental justice groups who say the bill is too friendly to the oil industry and doesn’t go far enough to protect citizens from pollution.
“Governor Brown wants to give the oil and gas industry a pass to pollute for another decade,” Food & Water Watch California director Adam Scow said in a statement to HuffPost. “This bill, that is supported by Sempra Energy and the fossil fuel industry, makes a mockery of California’s climate leadership,”
The bill is also opposed by the Sierra Club, the Coalition for Clean Air and a handful of other groups, whose complaints largely center on the limits it imposes on the state’s Air Resources Board and its ability to protect people who live near pollution sites. Under AB 398, the board would not be allowed to regulate carbon emissions from sources that are subject to the cap-and-trade program.
Stifling the Air Resources Board in an effort to secure cap-and-trade ignores the health consequences for people who live near companies’ pollution sites. It’s a “non-starter,” the Coalition for Clean Air said.
But Brown says letting cap-and-trade take the lead and avoiding “intrusive commanding control” from the Air Resources Board is essential for ensuring climate change efforts stay affordable and avoiding the short-term consequences of higher gas and food prices.
AB 617, a companion bill to the cap-and-trade legislation that requires upgrades for outdated equipment and creates stricter penalties for violations, is intended to address some of those concerns, but critics of the bill say it doesn’t undo the problems caused by AB 398.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is one of the environmental groups that supports the bill, despite such limits on the Air Resources Board and other concessions to the gas and oil industry being “bitter pills” to swallow. They’re joined by the Environmental Defense Fund and NextGen Climate, among other groups.
“[O]n balance the package ensures our emissions limits are enforceable against polluters and secures critical gains to improve air quality for millions of Californians,” Alex Jackson, the legal director of group’s California climate project, said in a statement last week. “The world is watching for California to chart a path through the climate denial and obstruction coming from the White House – and California is yet again poised to deliver.”
Source
|
On July 17 2017 12:22 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 11:38 Adreme wrote:
Even assuming you are right and that the entire world suddenly decides to move away from the direction that it has headed which does not involve coal, it wont actually help anyone other then coal executive.
...
even if that were not the case and I really want a fossil fuel why would I not go with much cheaper natural gas and just ignore coal altogether. Basically coal is not going to recover and even if it has a slight bump the jobs from it wont ever recover and are gone for good and pretending otherwise does more to screw over the people actually doing those jobs then any of these fake attempts to give them there jobs back. I called out two effects in my post. Repealed regulations -> cheaper coal power domestically -> higher demand Expanding grids overseas -> higher coal exports -> higher demand The reason for coal over gas overseas seems to be that it's easier to transport by ship. Regardless of the reason, there are enough actual coal plants under construction overseas to affect US exports.
There is simply no argument for coal.
It's an energy of the past. It's negligible in terms of job creation possibilities, it's in decline everywhere in the world and most importantly, it's the dirtiest form of energy and puts our environment in jeopardy.
That mining communities in key rust belt area are receptive to Trump pro coal bullshit is understandable. Their lifestyle is gone, and it's not there that new jobs are being created. But that anyone else defends coal or don't call BS immediately is beyond me. What's up with going back to an obsolete form of energy generating an absurd amount of pollution when scientists tell us we are at a breaking point environment-wise? That's as dumb as it gets.
|
Coals major displacement is from fracking it's just far more profitable and it's not from regulation cost, doesn't mean coal will go away completely but it's decline as a major player in the energy sector is from it. Plus coal mining has become increasingly automated as we've mastered it.
|
Well if You want to support heavy industry You need to burn something. Be it coal, natural gas or uranium. The need for high output - independent to time of day or weather conditions power plants will always be there.
Not that i think coal is good, but You cant get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear at the same time (unless You hapen to be area suitable for Hydro power).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
