Here's the thing though, unless we get rid of congress and the senate, each state does and will have a say. They are supposed to represent their own districts/states. The commander in chief represents the country as a whole, not individual states. It makes no sense that some states voters have more say in the president's election than others (either because of being a swing state or because of population density) when the president makes decisions on a national level. Absolutely none. Large cities should have more sway in a macro sense than small towns or rural areas because more people live there. My individual vote would count just as much as someone living in those cities.
That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.
America, forgive me for saying this, but you guys need the United Nations to enter your country and restore order to these elections
The outbreak of violence at the Trump rally, requires election monitors, and a peace-keeping force to ensure that these disgraceful scenes don't happen again.
Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.
Da Boss wrote: I think it is important that we dispatch some drones and bombers, arm moderates in the region and topple the current regime.
Then we can have properly democratic elections ASAP and ensure stability for the region.
Where are the moderate rebels in the USA?
The UK parliament is voting to have MI6 train 50,000 moderate Americans within 12 months, at a cost of 500 million pounds!
Until that happens, we urgently need British troops on the streets of Boston to restore order, and the Royal Navy needs to blockade the Chesapeake to cut off the supply lines for the more extreme American rebels.
I suspect that Saudi Arabia is funding the Democrats and Iran is secretly funding the Republicans.
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.
Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.
Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.
And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.
Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.
Sadly at Trump rallies in particular, these disturbances are not one off. They are getting worse with seemingly every rally. I don't think anyone has been seriously injured, yet, but I suspect that or worse is coming eventually.
Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.
Sadly at Trump rallies in particular, these disturbances are not one off. They are getting worse with seemingly every rally. I don't think anyone has been seriously injured, yet, but I suspect that or worse is coming eventually.
I was reading about the late 1960s in the USA and how the Democrat convention in 1968 ended up turning into a riot!
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.
Except... that's not true.
The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.
Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.
I'd argue that if the 17th amendment didn't exist, then things like Obamacare would look different or not even passed.
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.
Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.
Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.
And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.
65 million voted for Obama last election.... well over a quarter needed of *only* those top-10 cities.
But, ya know, we're just pissing in the wind here as we both know the EC isn't going to change anytime soon.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.
Except... that's not true.
The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.
Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.
...
Senators are elected per state, not by proportional representation of the whole. There are two senators for each state.
So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.
I dont usually post about this stuff but is this guy serious?
He said his own fans "were taunted, they were harassed by these other people, these other people by the way, some represented Bernie, our communist friend."
As an Irishman and European, I thought Bush mark 1 and 2 were very scary but this guy is utterly, utterly terrifying. And no, Im not some sort of leftist, ultra EU supporting introvert.
Please America, deport this guy.....no just out of the US, preferably offworld (into the Sun) Im scared gak-less of his policies.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.
Except... that's not true.
The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.
Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.
I'd argue that if the 17th amendment didn't exist, then things like Obamacare would look different or not even passed.
So you wish state governments (with all their problems) to have the power instead of the people?
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.
Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.
Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.
And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.
65 million voted for Obama last election.... well over a quarter needed of *only* those top-10 cities.
Only if you get 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.
Also, consider the fact that, with all,votes having meaning, there will be a lot more votes being cast, and with the suggested national voter registration push and national holiday voting day, that would mean a lot more voters that way as well.
Also, are you,suggesting that you should be able to be elected without having a majority of the votes.
And another point, all cities from 10 downward have less than 1m people.
But, ya know, we're just pissing in the wind here as we both know the EC isn't going to change anytime soon.
No. I believe that we both can, and will change this. It is a fundamental flaw in our election system that causes misrepresentation.
What I want to know is when he inevitability fails his "people" will they have the courage to admit they were wrong.
This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.
Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY
Well from my small sample size of a hundred or so people I personally know. The groups neatly fall into people who still feel the need to follow what their father says (even when having been dead for 30 years), people who are actual facists (as in the admit it but they prefer alt-right), actual racists (not the kind the do it in the open but the ones that do it behind closed doors), conspiracy theorists, right wing propaganda gobblers (kind of all of them actually) and people that fear muslims, communists and books (lol jk on the last one).
Sun, 13/Mar/2016 04:04:44 AM Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Nostromodamus wrote:
You travel in interesting circles...
It can be odd when someone tells you that they are pro fascism I can honestly say.
Crimson
Post Sun, 13/Mar/2016 03:16:30 AM Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ratius wrote:
This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.
Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY
I Bow out.....
OMG lol and all hat
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can I negavote you until you dont exist?
curran12 wrote: So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.
More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.
What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.
*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know
curran12 wrote: So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.
More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.
What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.
*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know
You are right I feel. His people firmly believe if others don't like what he is saying then he must be saying the right stuff. You have to wrap a lot of tin foil around many of his folks.
European reaction to Trump's success so far in the '16 primaries reminds me an awful lot of European reaction to Bush's success in the '04 election, right down to the same sort of "Who could possibly be voting for him?!" rhetoric.
No-one was particularly against Bush in 2000, but we found him pretty horrifying by 2004. He had got us involved in Afghanistan and let that go to gak, and then started the hugely unpopular Iraq campaign.
This pissed away all the sympathy and support generated by the 911 attacks. The US's world PR rating plummeted during Bush's presidency.
To be fair, our own government (UK) was wholly to blame for supporting Bush. He probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq, or stayed in Afghanistan, without Blair's enthusiastic help.
I'm just hoping for more sad-sack college kids taking webcam selfies while holding signs saying, "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him," again. I loved that gak.
Seaward wrote: I'm just hoping for more sad-sack college kids taking webcam selfies while holding signs saying, "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him," again. I loved that gak.
Instead, we'll probably have a bunch selfies of angry white dudes hold their guns with a Confederate flag hanging from wall in the background holding signs saying, "feth you Muslims, we voted for him!"
Seaward wrote: I'm just hoping for more sad-sack college kids taking webcam selfies while holding signs saying, "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him," again. I loved that gak.
Instead, we'll probably have a bunch selfies of angry white dudes hold their guns with a Confederate flag hanging from wall in the background hold sings saying, "feth you Muslims, we voted for him!"
We'll have to see. I'd be seriously worried about Clinton's chances in the general if I were a Democrat.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one was particularly against Bush in 2000, but we found him pretty horrifying by 2004. He had got us involved in Afghanistan and let that go to gak, and then started the hugely unpopular Iraq campaign.
I'm pretty sure that the UK had a say in that, and that your own leadership was more than ready and willing to follow the US into those conflicts.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one was particularly against Bush in 2000, but we found him pretty horrifying by 2004. He had got us involved in Afghanistan and let that go to gak, and then started the hugely unpopular Iraq campaign.
I'm pretty sure that the UK had a say in that, and that your own leadership was more than ready and willing to follow the US into those conflicts.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one was particularly against Bush in 2000, but we found him pretty horrifying by 2004. He had got us involved in Afghanistan and let that go to gak, and then started the hugely unpopular Iraq campaign.
This pissed away all the sympathy and support generated by the 911 attacks. The US's world PR rating plummeted during Bush's presidency.
To be fair, our own government (UK) was wholly to blame for supporting Bush. He probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq, or stayed in Afghanistan, without Blair's enthusiastic help.
More trouble at another Trump rally, which is obviously a bad thing.
On a newspaper forum, somebody posted a message that blamed Hilary Clinton for the trouble!
The theory being that fake Sanders supporters causing trouble at a Trump rally would obviously benefit Clinton.
Now, this particular poster is infamous for bizarre conspiracy theories...
BUT
American political history is full of dirty tricks at election time. I look at my bookcase, see a biography of FDR and remember reading about the controversy surrounding the death of the Kingfisher during one presidential election in the 1930s. There is also Richard Nixon, which needs no explanation!
We're all adults here in the US. A few gets roughed up over stupid things. Now when we have riots like those in Europe between a rival Soccer (Football) teams. I pay serious attention. Its like watching NASCAR but only for the wrecks
Jihadin wrote: We're all adults here in the US. A few gets roughed up over stupid things. Now when we have riots like those in Europe between a rival Soccer (Football) teams. I pay serious attention. Its like watching NASCAR but only for the wrecks
Hey, don't blame Europe for this. Our soccer teams haven't rioted since 1939!
Seriously, football riots are rare in Europe.
On another note, I'm not suggesting for a minute that America is heading back to 1960s levels of violence, but I find this increasing levl of demonising Trump with protest scuffles, to be disturbing.
IMO, Trump is a buffoon and an idiot, and is more than capable of providing the rope to 'hang' himself. These protestors are only going to increase support for Trump. Let the man damage his own campaign through his own actions.
More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.
What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.
*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know
Trump is expressing a popular viewpoint. Various elites are trying to suppress him. If these things were not the case then he wouldn't have popular support and he would've already been gladly accepted as the GOP nomination and would enjoy the full support of the establishment. Trump is notoriously difficult to stump and it certainly will not be possible to do so by pointing out something he said because his supporters either agree with him or plain don't care if he said one thing they disagree with because they like him mostly for not being yet more neoliberal consensus.
Yeah, Trump is riding the anti-Establishment wave hard. He is appealing to a large segment of the population dissatisfied with the legacy of internationalism and his populist militant isolationism planks don't seem particularly rooted in any form of conservatism nor Republican positions (which have been much more pro international trade and international activism). He is has caused an interesting shift in the Republican narrative, with the candidates now doing a 180 on free trade and sounding a lot more like the anti-NAFTA Democrats! Likewise, his strong nationalism is in direct contrast to the Bush pro labor view, as is his strong anti-Iraq statements.
He is swiping a lot of HRC's message out from underneath her and that could draw from traditional crossover union voters etc. and forces HRC to double down on her support of Obama's positions and experience, which could very much be a liability in this environment.
Trump has not pulled hard right at all in the primaries, and has a very mixed (arguably often contradictory) message that nonetheless seems to be lining him up for the Repub nomination. Meanwhile, the Republican leaders seem to be doing everything they can to prevent that. It's a very unusual election year....
Trump is strong in the bible belt where anti-establishment sentiment is strong. He's much weaker west of the Mississippi river. Even so, he doesn't have a majority of the delegates awarded so far. He simply has the largest minority.
I think this may very well go to the convention. My crystal ball is actually fairly muddy regarding who may actually come out on top when all the voting is done.
Breotan wrote: Trump is strong in the bible belt where anti-establishment sentiment is strong. He's much weaker west of the Mississippi river. Even so, he doesn't have a majority of the delegates awarded so far. He simply has the largest minority.
I think this may very well go to the convention. My crystal ball is actually fairly muddy regarding who may actually come out on top when all the voting is done.
Depends on the exact politics of the delegates. Trump is almost certainly not going to win a contested convention, but I can't see Cruz winning either given how much the establishment hates him. We might actually see a Kasich run if it comes down to it.
That's the fun part about brokered conventions: Neither of those things matter. All that matters is how well you can convince each delegation that you're the right man for the job. Trump has spent his entire campaign pissing off the establishment, and Cruz has spent his entire CAREER doing so. Assuming they don't bring in a new candidate (which is admittedly possible), Rubio and Kasich are the only remaining options.
Rosebuddy wrote: That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff.
You're confusing a well told joke, with a joke that you happen to share political assumptions with.
I happen to know perfectly well what socialism is. There's an outside chance I've spent more hours on dakka explaining socialism to people than you've spent hours on this earth. But a good joke is a good joke.
You want another example - "For sale - French rifles. Only dropped once." It's funny. It's also trading on a completely inaccurate stereotype of the French military, based on a single disastrous campaign in WWII, which was the product of a whole range of factors and individual soldier's cowardice was not one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: hint: it's not the people... but those in power.
I notice you're increasingly relying on this notion of 'the people', as a separate and distinct group. I don't think it's that useful, for the simple reason that 'the people' as a whole can't govern. When you need to determine next year's budget for housing subsidies, you don't get 300 million people around to discuss it, and hope you can hammer out a consensus by dinner time. You have to assign that decision making role to someone, those people in turn become 'the people in power' or 'the elite'. There's no way around that.
No matter what system of government, there will be people given vast levels of power and responsibility. This isn't a good thing, but it's a nonsense to call it a bug in any specific system, because it's common to every form of government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Aaaaaaaand the anti-Trumpers are getting their ducks in a row:
BREAKING: @marcorubio communications director @AlexConant tells us Rubio supporters in Ohio should vote for @JohnKasich.@ThisHour — John Berman (@JohnBerman) March 11, 2016
What makes this very interesting is Cruz putting campaign offices in Florida. Not because he thinks he has a hope in hell of winning, but because he's positioning his offices in strong Rubio areas, and is expecting to draw more votes off Rubio than he draws off Trump. Ie He's increasing the chance of Rubio losing his home state and most important state, expecting it'll push Rubio out of the race and give Cruz his one on one with Trump. (well, there's Kasich, but that's effectively one v one)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: If I'm not mistaken, many of Trump's supporters aren't rednecks. They're right-wingers from places other than the South who are unhappy with the Republican Party being essentially a Southern party.
It's actually kind of the opposite of that. The Republican party has often used social and racial issues as a bridge to woo voters who might not be particularly excited by the strong right wing economics embraced by the party.
This has been especially true in the South, which has been a strong Republican base despite being indifferent to many Republican platforms, especially their commitment to shrinking social safety nets. Trump is the first Republican candidate in a long time to reject many parts of the standard Republican platform, he is not just unlike the other candidates in that he wants to keep the safety net, he's actually promised to expand parts of it.
When we look back, this has kind of been a long time coming. The Republican party has applied stricter and stricter criteria on any elected official, which reached it's height in the Tea Party. While that movement was quite inconsistent in what it actually wanted, there was a consistent tone of officials being deemed true conservatives or not. Diversity of opinion was increasingly shut out in favour of a kind of purity test. A large portion of the base, who might not share the Tea Party or the general leadership of the party's commitment to far right economics was shut out. Trump has captured those voters, and they have been especially strong in the South.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
That's the senate's job, and it does that job very well. The electoral college basically removes most states from having any real impact on the election of the president, and instead makes it determined by a handful of swing states. If you live in California, Texas or one of about 40 other states then your vote will never have any impact on the election of the President. That's not very good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
No, every vote would matter. You cast a vote, your vote would matter just as much as any other vote. It wouldn't matter whether you lived in a city, or a town, your vote would count just as much as any other person's vote.
And sure, you might point out that there's more votes in cities and in big states, so they'd matter more... but shouldn't they. Shouldn't the opinions of a million people in a city be more important than the opinions of a thousand people in a town? And even then, the weighting is to the people in the city, but each vote is still worth the same.
And hey, people would ignore any smaller group at their peril. Look at the current Democratic race, black voters are a much smaller group than white voters, so by your argument they'd be irrelevant. But they've come out so strongly in favour of Clinton that they've tipped the contest strongly in her favour, despite Clinton losing among the more numerous white voters. That's how it works when every vote is equal.
Yes, you have a federal system, but you're way over-stating it with 50 mini-countries. You have 50 states with some constitutionally recognised areas of independence.
Full straight elections means the candidates only need to focus on tiny regions of the US, such as:
Focusing on big areas and winning 55% of the vote is a losing game, if that means by completely ignoring the rest of the country you only win 20% of the vote there. That means you'd lose, and lose bad. Instead you'd focus on every single vote. A place with 5% of the population would get 5% of your attention, a place with 2% of the population would get 2% of your attention. Because every single vote mattered equally.
Hence why we're a Republic and not a direct democracy.
How many times do we have to go over these terms, dakka?! Do we need a sticky?
Anyhow, Republican means you don't have hereditary head of state, ie a king. That's all it means. You could determine the president by who could throw a standard poodle the furthest, and you'd be a Republic. Similarly here in Australia we don't elect our prime minister directly, instead he is chosen by the majority party in the House of Reps, but we aren't a Republican because technically our head of state is the Queen.
Direct democracy means voters don't appoint officials, but vote directly on issues. The US is actually more a direct democracy than most, propositions and referendums are far more common and typically far more powerful in the US than in most other democracies, where such things are exceedingly rare and typically limited to social issues.
Finally, I think the term you're looking for is Federal, or Federated. That's what it means when states join together, but still have formalised, constitutionally recognised areas of independence.
Yeah, between the Trump ralliers and the counter-protestors, I'm not going to say who was more disruptive, quicker to violence and confrontation, because I don't know. I suspect both groups were probably pretty crappy.
But I've been very disappointed at the number of people who've shown pride in having Trump cancel rallies. That's not cool. Anyone should be able to stand on stage and say their piece to their supporters, no matter what horrible things they might say.
You beat them by making strong arguments about why they're wrong, and why people should vote for someone else. And ultimately you trust that the majority of the people won't vote for the crazy guy. That's really how democracy has to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: European reaction to Trump's success so far in the '16 primaries reminds me an awful lot of European reaction to Bush's success in the '04 election, right down to the same sort of "Who could possibly be voting for him?!" rhetoric.
Well, 12 years on and we're still no closer to who could possibly have been silly enough to vote for Bush in '04...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: We'll have to see. I'd be seriously worried about Clinton's chances in the general if I were a Democrat.
I'd be seriously worried about Clinton's chances in the general if I was a human being who lived on this Earth, and therefore benefited from having sensible people running the United States. Which I am. Which makes fairly terrified that there's a decent chance that Trump or Cruz could end up leading your country. Rubio was about as worrying, but with recent results at least there's one less crazy who might be running the country.
sebster wrote: You could determine the president by who could throw a standard poodle the furthest, and you'd be a Republic.
Trump would win for sure. No one could throw a poodle further then he can, he's just amazing at throwing poodle.. Some of these guys, I don't want to say their names, but let me tell you about these guys, Jeb Bush comes to mind, they can't really throw poodles very well. They just don't have very strong arms, they have low energy, just small potatoes. Look at Ted Cruz! Smart man, I respect him, but can he throw a poodle? Not very well, people say. I wouldn't say that, but that's what people say. However, you look at Trump, when it comes to throwing poodles, he always does very well, just a huge performance every time - and very classy, just the best.
Ouze wrote: Trump would win for sure. No one could throw a poodle further then he can, he's just amazing at throwing poodle.. Some of these guys, I don't want to say their names, but let me tell you about these guys, Jeb Bush comes to mind, they can't really throw poodles very well. They just don't have very strong arms, they have low energy, just small potatoes. Look at Ted Cruz! Smart man, I respect him, but can he throw a poodle? Not very well, people say. I wouldn't say that, but that's what people say. However, you look at Trump, when it comes to throwing poodles, he always does very well, just a huge performance every time - and very classy, just the best.
332 pages in, and you just made this whole thread worthwhile.
One thing I never understood about US elections is that the votes are counted per state, not per person. So if a state votes 100% blue and 0% red, it's still counted as one state, just as if it had been 51% blue and 49% red.
It just seems too imprecise.
Edit: Assuming it is still done that way? It struck me that I have not read a lot on the subject for a while, and I may be (and I hope I am) mistaken.
Rice seems pretty good and capable, frankly. If the objective is to stop Trump, perhaps Rpublicans will have to hold their noses about the Iraq War thing and hope that her other good qualities win the day.
However it does seem a bit late in the race to join. Perhaps the way forwards is to let Trump be president in the expectation he will be a collosal disaster. Then Rice will be like a shining angel of redemption in another four years.
sebster wrote: You're confusing a well told joke, with a joke that you happen to share political assumptions with.
I am not confusing anything at all. It is a dull joke. There is no unexpected turn. The punchline is simply "socialism is about taking your things so I took your thing". There is no wit to it.
curran12 wrote: So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.
More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.
What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.
*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know
1. Democrats trying a Heckler's veto doesn't nothing but strengthen his position. Illinois is a sinch to go his way now. 2. I'd love to Trumpists (TM) start crashing Bernie and HRC meetings. I must be entertained! 3. In case our European friends hadn't noticed he's just the US version. European right wing parties across the continent, in central, Eastern, and Western countries are winning seats and offices. Right wing parties just gained in Germany. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35796831
1. Democrats trying a Heckler's veto doesn't nothing but strengthen his position. Illinois is a sinch to go his way now.
A Heckler's veto doesn't mean that if someone doesn't agree with you that you assault them. The violence is a result of the Trump supporters, not the people protesting him.
sebster wrote: You could determine the president by who could throw a standard poodle the furthest, and you'd be a Republic.
Trump would win for sure. No one could throw a poodle further then he can, he's just amazing at throwing poodle.. Some of these guys, I don't want to say their names, but let me tell you about these guys, Jeb Bush comes to mind, they can't really throw poodles very well. They just don't have very strong arms, they have low energy, just small potatoes. Look at Ted Cruz! Smart man, I respect him, but can he throw a poodle? Not very well, people say. I wouldn't say that, but that's what people say. However, you look at Trump, when it comes to throwing poodles, he always does very well, just a huge performance every time - and very classy, just the best.
Glorious. Simply glorious. It even read in his voice in my mind!
1. Democrats trying a Heckler's veto doesn't nothing but strengthen his position. Illinois is a sinch to go his way now.
A Heckler's veto doesn't mean that if someone doesn't agree with you that you assault them. The violence is a result of the Trump supporters, not the people protesting him.
BLAME THE VICTIM! If you crash a party and start yelling, expect to get thrown out on your keister.
But I am very onside with Trumpskiites doing the exact same thing to Democratic gatherings. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Just have the cameras around and give me time to get my popcorn.
1. Democrats trying a Heckler's veto doesn't nothing but strengthen his position. Illinois is a sinch to go his way now.
A Heckler's veto doesn't mean that if someone doesn't agree with you that you assault them. The violence is a result of the Trump supporters, not the people protesting him.
Did you miss the coverage of the Chicago event being canceled? That was not due to Trump supporters...
Ouze wrote: I only sort of tangentially heard about that, and don't know the details... some reported got arrested or something, right?
From what I've gathered, there were thousands of people who showed up to protest Trump. Law Enforcement felt that continuing with the rally would lead to safety issues, and Trump agreed to push it back to a later time. Violence did occur, a couple of police officers were injured, lots of people left there because they said they didn't feel safe.
Ouze wrote: I only sort of tangentially heard about that, and don't know the details... some reported got arrested or something, right?
Evidently the perennial "which is better NY or Chicago style" pizza debate got out of hand. Trump supporters were all "NY is da Bombz" and Chicago went Al Capone on them over the greatness of deep dish or something.
Ouze wrote: I only sort of tangentially heard about that, and don't know the details... some reported got arrested or something, right?
From what I've gathered, there were thousands of people who showed up to protest Trump. Law Enforcement felt that continuing with the rally would lead to safety issues, and Trump agreed to push it back to a later time. Violence did occur, a couple of police officers were injured, lots of people left there because they said they didn't feel safe.
Except that it was trump that cancelled the event and didn't even tell the police about it until the flunky went on stage to say so
In any event, sucks that happened. The man has the right to speak. Looks like 3 injuries total. At least from my cursory reading this morning it doesn't seem clear which "side" was responsible.
Considering that Trump keeps on making comments about hitting people that protest him and that being respectful (ie 'politically correct') is a bad thing...any surprise that his supporters take that to heart?
In any event, sucks that happened. The man has the right to speak. Looks like 3 injuries total. At least from my cursory reading this morning it doesn't seem clear which "side" was responsible.
Now matter who loses, we win?
I particularly liked Trump's face when the guy charged the podium and he turned, making what the wife calls a "cat face" (which means a face that looks like a cat's ass). Excellent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Considering that Trump keeps on making comments about hitting people that protest him and that being respectful (ie 'politically correct') is a bad thing...any surprise that his supporters take that to heart?
***Strange, in the Chicago video I saw, protesters were grabbing Trump signs and tearing them up. One grabbed a flag from a Trumptskiite. I'd beat wholesale ass for that. The protesters are attempting to eliminate the Trumpskiite's right to assemble. My sympathy for them is less than nothing. Protest outside, but let them have their little party putch's unmolested.
All the hullabaloo is still less than a high school's celebration after a regional win though. Everyone needs to up their game before my funmeter gets low and I have to start watching Korean parliament riots again. Shoes! Shoes flying everywhere!
Ffyllotek wrote: Protesting is a very valid form of freedomof speech and s an essential part in any democracy.
Punching protestors is illegal and should be condemned entirely.
If a protestor is peacefully holding a sign or - shock horror - shouting or talking or singing, there is no justification for any attacks.
You're right. Protestors do not get a free pass to do the same thing though. Everyone is so fast to attack Trump, that I've been seeing a lot of glossing over the fact that "protestors" were acting improperly themselves.
Ffyllotek wrote: Protesting is a very valid form of freedomof speech and s an essential part in any democracy.
Punching protestors is illegal and should be condemned entirely.
If a protestor is peacefully holding a sign or - shock horror - shouting or talking or singing, there is no justification for any attacks.
You're right. Protestors do not get a free pass to do the same thing though. Everyone is so fast to attack Trump, that I've been seeing a lot of glossing over the fact that "protestors" were acting improperly themselves.
By doing what? Shouting and singing? Standing in a line? I don't believe I've seen any protestors attack Trump supporters.
Ffyllotek wrote: Protesting is a very valid form of freedomof speech and s an essential part in any democracy.
Punching protestors is illegal and should be condemned entirely.
If a protestor is peacefully holding a sign or - shock horror - shouting or talking or singing, there is no justification for any attacks.
You're right. Protestors do not get a free pass to do the same thing though. Everyone is so fast to attack Trump, that I've been seeing a lot of glossing over the fact that "protestors" were acting improperly themselves.
By doing what? Shouting and singing? Standing in a line? I don't believe I've seen any protestors attack Trump supporters.
Ripping signs from Trump supporters hands, attacking Trump supporters, etc... that was occuring as well.
Ustrello wrote: In before the one video where it only shows the end of the fight and not who actually started it
Well, quite. I am searching the internet now and can not find a single source from even the "Armstrong Economics end of lunatics" to support this.
I am at a loss as to why a person wearing for example a Black Lives Matter shirt would stand up, make his point, and then attack the people next to him.
Ustrello wrote: In before the one video where it only shows the end of the fight and not who actually started it
Well, quite. I am searching the internet now and can not find a single source from even the "Armstrong Economics end of lunatics" to support this.
I am at a loss as to why a person wearing for example a Black Lives Matter shirt would stand up, make his point, and then attack the people next to him.
That's my point, sure the video looks like the dude attacked the trump supporter but it only shows the end of it and it only takes half a second to sucker punch someone and then try and play innocent for the cameras
Ustrello wrote: In before the one video where it only shows the end of the fight and not who actually started it
Well, quite. I am searching the internet now and can not find a single source from even the "Armstrong Economics end of lunatics" to support this.
I am at a loss as to why a person wearing for example a Black Lives Matter shirt would stand up, make his point, and then attack the people next to him.
That's my point, sure the video looks like the dude attacked the trump supporter but it only shows the end of it and it only takes half a second to sucker punch someone and then try and play innocent for the cameras
Indeed.
The best part of this was the Trump - Bernie Twitter exchange where Trump threatened to send this supporters to Bernie's rallies. Bernie replied 'Let them come - they deserve to see an honest politician'. #Burned.
It happened, it just wasn't by Bernie. The "honest politician" response came from a group called "Millenials 4 Bernie" (@Bernlennials, if you want to check yourself), as opposed to Sanders' account @BernieSanders.
Looks like they are claiming responsibility for it.
Yeah if you consider giving students 50 cent signs funding
That is a stupid comment. MoveOn.org admits to funding the signs and banners, and spent a lot of man hours organizing, promoting and leading. To minimize their efforts as you have is silly.
It happened, it just wasn't by Bernie. The "honest politician" response came from a group called "Millenials 4 Bernie" (@Bernlennials, if you want to check yourself), as opposed to Sanders' account @BernieSanders.
Looks like they are claiming responsibility for it.
Yeah if you consider giving students 50 cent signs funding
That is a stupid comment. MoveOn.org admits to funding the signs and banners, and spent a lot of man hours organizing, promoting and leading. To minimize their efforts as you have is silly.
Considering I know people who go to UIC, are in the political science department and actually talked to them about this exact thing. But you are right I don't know anything about it
Ripping signs from Trump supporters hands, attacking Trump supporters, etc... that was occuring as well.
Every instance that I have seen online of people ripping a sign, attacking "supporters", etc. were all at Trump rallies..... by Trump supporters.
Hell, there are probably dozens of clips of Trump's remarks post-removing someone from his "rallies" where he is using language that I would have to say is rather inflaming, or at least he is condoning the actions.
Ripping signs from Trump supporters hands, attacking Trump supporters, etc... that was occuring as well.
Every instance that I have seen online of people ripping a sign, attacking "supporters", etc. were all at Trump rallies..... by Trump supporters.
Hell, there are probably dozens of clips of Trump's remarks post-removing someone from his "rallies" where he is using language that I would have to say is rather inflaming, or at least he is condoning the actions.
And I'm not disagreeing. Trump has been inciting this stuff as well. I'm just saying we need to stop glossing over the oppositions tactics as well.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is blocking any challenger to a Democratic incumbent from accessing the voter file database—a vital campaign tool for any election.
“Last week, I called the Florida Democratic Party to request access to the voter file database and software known as VAN that is routinely used by Democratic candidates across the country,” wrote Tim Canova, Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s primary challenger, in an article on Medium. “I was told that our campaign would be denied access to this database because I am running against an incumbent Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I was also told that any Democratic candidate running against an incumbent Democrat would be denied access — even a lifelong progressive challenging an out-of-touch incumbent.”
Ripping signs from Trump supporters hands, attacking Trump supporters, etc... that was occuring as well.
Every instance that I have seen online of people ripping a sign, attacking "supporters", etc. were all at Trump rallies..... by Trump supporters.
Hell, there are probably dozens of clips of Trump's remarks post-removing someone from his "rallies" where he is using language that I would have to say is rather inflaming, or at least he is condoning the actions.
And I'm not disagreeing. Trump has been inciting this stuff as well. I'm just saying we need to stop glossing over the oppositions tactics as well.
The opposition tactic is to stand and hold banners and sing. That's legal and legitimate and a good form of protesting.
The Trumpers have been hitting protestors. That's illegal and not in anyway a legitimate response. Furthermore Trump has been winding his own side up with the language he's using. Laughing about thumping someone in a charged atmosphere, telling his dunderhead supporters to attack people, and linking it to wider perceptions about a disengaged class is incitement to violence and it's legal either.
Then don't try to inhibit their free speech? Protesters should legally protest outside. Protesting at events are merely fascistic attempts at tyranny. Your average working Joe (or KKK depending on how you view them) seem to object to that. At least the protesters aren't trying to break up a Teamsters meeting. They'd not have an unbroken bone yet.
The 'glossing over' of the opposition tactics is really the equivalent of a murderer claiming that a guy that stole (food to feed his family) is just as bad as he is...
Frazzled wrote: I agree. We can't gloss over the Soros funded Move-on.org's tactics to stifle free speech rights. Perhaps a RICO investigation is in order.
Doesn't look like anyone is stiffling anyone's right to free speech to me. See, look, the lunatic's on the tele spouting hatred again!
The Trump rallies are being held in arenas/buildings that are private property, therefore there are no free speech rights in play for the protestors. They can protest outside on public property but they don't have a right to be in the building if the running the event/building want them to leave. This holds true for any rally/event being held on private property.
There's no need for protestors fo this nature to lead to violence but anyone walking into an event on private property with the intent to be a disruptive nuisance needs to understand that they will be escorted out as soon as they act up.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Trump rallies are being held in arenas/buildings that are private property, therefore there are no free speech rights in play for the protestors. They can protest outside on public property but they don't have a right to be in the building if the running the event/building want them to leave. This holds true for any rally/event being held on private property.
There's no need for protestors fo this nature to lead to violence but anyone walking into an event on private property with the intent to be a disruptive nuisance needs to understand that they will be escorted out as soon as they act up.
Yes that's fine. They can be escorted out as being disruptive. Every protester knows that. It's still a legitimate form of democractic engagement and protest.
What is not acceptable is being attacked, punched or to have Trump encourage his supporters to attack and punch protesters.
Frazzled wrote: I agree. We can't gloss over the Soros funded Move-on.org's tactics to stifle free speech rights. Perhaps a RICO investigation is in order.
Doesn't look like anyone is stiffling anyone's right to free speech to me. See, look, the lunatic's on the tele spouting hatred again!
Well to be mor eclear, the right to free speech and assembly. These are private political events.
Protesting outside: time honored tradition that allows you to use your free speech while respecting the right of your opponent to use theirs.
Protesting inside: shouting down your opponent: bs Godwin tactic. You get what you get.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Trump rallies are being held in arenas/buildings that are private property, therefore there are no free speech rights in play for the protestors. They can protest outside on public property but they don't have a right to be in the building if the running the event/building want them to leave. This holds true for any rally/event being held on private property.
There's no need for protestors fo this nature to lead to violence but anyone walking into an event on private property with the intent to be a disruptive nuisance needs to understand that they will be escorted out as soon as they act up.
Yes that's fine. They can be escorted out as being disruptive. Every protester knows that. It's still a legitimate form of democractic engagement and protest.
What is not acceptable is being attacked, punched or to have Trump encourage his supporters to attack and punch protesters.
I'm not sure what's worse... the act itself, or the police reaction (which is to swarm over the dude who got punched, instead of immediately go to arrest the assaulter)
You certainly don't see this kind of violence inside of Hillary or Sanders' events, do you? And you certainly don't have the reaction Trump usually gives, which only further inflames the crowds.
It's still a legitimate form of democractic engagement and protest.
Its not. Its attempting to shout down your opponent. Thats not even acceptable on the kindergarten playground.
These tactics, and the MSM saying how its all Trump's fault, are making him sympathetic. Do you know how hard it is to make Trump sympathetic?
The "silent majority" still exists. And you are pushing them.
It is called heckling and it is fine. Politicians need to be able to deal patiently with it. There's a nack to getting on top of heckling, a witty one-liner, or, politely waiting until the person is escorted out. Telling your fired-up low IQ supporters to punch a protester and, if they do, he'll pay legal bills isn't the right way at all.
I don't get this whole 'silent majority' clap trap. It's what people with racist views say when they wonder why they don't have a lot of support.
TheMeanDM wrote: If you are a disruptive jackass protesting...sure..I can see being removed.
So what about the people simply holding a sign?
Or the hajib wearing Muslim woman who did nothing more than show up with a shirt?
They are at a private event. If the event holder wants 'em out, they have to leave or be escorted out by the local gendarme/rent a cop.
I don't believe in 'private events' when it is a political rally. Especially when the manin charge is calling for an entire religion to be banned from a country.
Regardless, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that they can be escorted out. What we are suggesting is that assaulting protesters is not a legitimate response, not is calling for them to be assaulted to get a few cheap claps from drunk thugs.
You have also been trying to equate peaceful protest with violent assaults and we are disagreeing they are the same.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Wait, so protestors at multiple private events provoke a physical response and there is another incident where a protestor charging the stage is arrested and this is all Trump's fault? It seems like the protestors are getting at least as worked up as those at the rallies. By my count, the guy who punched the protestor in Fayetteville was arrested, the guy in Dayton charging the stage was arrested, at least 4 Chicago protestors were arrested, and St. Louis had over 30 protestors arrested. These do not seem particularly peaceful protests, nor limited to the normal bounds of free speech. They seem to be active disruptions trying to provoke conflict.
If one is looking for a fight then don't be surprised to find one.
And it seems to be playing right into Trump's claims! Heck, him cancelling Chicago for safety makes him look like the good guy!
Frazzled wrote: What you believe is not relevant. What is, is.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Sorry, but I expect better of a person than a dog. It is NEVER appropriate for a protester to be assaulted.
Escort them out of private events sure...but it should never be expected that they are met with violence.
Frazzled wrote: I agree. We can't gloss over the Soros funded Move-on.org's tactics to stifle free speech rights. Perhaps a RICO investigation is in order.
Implying that they are congress or any body of government passing laws stifling free speech.
That is a stupid comment. MoveOn.org admits to funding the signs and banners, and spent a lot of man hours organizing, promoting and leading. To minimize their efforts as you have is silly.
Considering I know people who go to UIC, are in the political science department and actually talked to them about this exact thing. But you are right I don't know anything about it
Great, so what part of my statement was wrong?
Move On did fund the printed materials, did organize, recruit/promote and lead the protestors. Diminishing their contribution to 50 cent signs is damned silly. They did do a lot more.
That is a stupid comment. MoveOn.org admits to funding the signs and banners, and spent a lot of man hours organizing, promoting and leading. To minimize their efforts as you have is silly.
Considering I know people who go to UIC, are in the political science department and actually talked to them about this exact thing. But you are right I don't know anything about it
Great, so what part of my statement was wrong?
Move On did fund the printed materials, did organize, recruit/promote and lead the protestors. Diminishing their contribution to 50 cent signs is damned silly. They did do a lot more.
That move on came in towards the middle/end. The largest portion of the leg work was already done by the students
That is a stupid comment. MoveOn.org admits to funding the signs and banners, and spent a lot of man hours organizing, promoting and leading. To minimize their efforts as you have is silly.
Considering I know people who go to UIC, are in the political science department and actually talked to them about this exact thing. But you are right I don't know anything about it
Great, so what part of my statement was wrong?
Move On did fund the printed materials, did organize, recruit/promote and lead the protestors. Diminishing their contribution to 50 cent signs is damned silly. They did do a lot more.
Sort of like the tea party was completely a grass roots movement.
Rosebuddy wrote: I am not confusing anything at all. It is a dull joke. There is no unexpected turn. The punchline is simply "socialism is about taking your things so I took your thing". There is no wit to it.
As long as you see things in terms of ‘does this joke fit my political views?’ then yeah, it’s just ‘socialism means taking stuff’. For anyone who understands socialism, but isn’t precious about the subject then the joke works because it applies a caricature of socialism to a sign in a clever way.
The best part of this was the Trump - Bernie Twitter exchange where Trump threatened to send this supporters to Bernie's rallies. Bernie replied 'Let them come - they deserve to see an honest politician'. #Burned.
It was a great line, whether either line was from Trump or Sanders it maybe doesn't matter. Because it wasn't just a funny one-liner, but actually spoke to the core of what makes good politics different from Trump politics - Trump's line was caught up in my people vs your people, it was purely combative. The response encouraged people to hear alternative views, hear which idea is best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then don't try to inhibit their free speech? Protesters should legally protest outside. Protesting at events are merely fascistic attempts at tyranny.
"Fascistic attempts at tyranny" is a wonderfully fanciful term for getting up at a rally and saying you don't like a candidate, then getting told to leave.
Now, if anyone could actually prove that the protests were organised with the intent of causing so much disruption that it prevented Trump speaking, then you'd have evidence of a dick move. Not a fascistic attempt at tyranny, but a dick move. Of course, there's been no evidence of any such thing, just a bunch of accusations that the actions of a handful of people must have been plotted and organised because that's the view that best allows you to think the worst of the other side of politics.
Out of curiosity, when the Republican party, particularly the Tea Party, called on members to attend Democrat efforts to talk about healthcare reform and be as disruptive as possible, did you describe that as a fascistic attempt at tyranny? If not, why not?
jmurph wrote: Wait, so protestors at multiple private events provoke a physical response and there is another incident where a protestor charging the stage is arrested and this is all Trump's fault? It seems like the protestors are getting at least as worked up as those at the rallies. By my count, the guy who punched the protestor in Fayetteville was arrested, the guy in Dayton charging the stage was arrested, at least 4 Chicago protestors were arrested, and St. Louis had over 30 protestors arrested. These do not seem particularly peaceful protests, nor limited to the normal bounds of free speech. They seem to be active disruptions trying to provoke conflict.
Emphasis mine - I think that is TBD. Holding up a Trump is Hitler sign or whatever is not provoking a physical response, other than being escorted out if on private property. Obviously rushing the stage is. After reading some more this morning I'm gonna stick with my earlier stance that I don't think it's really clear at all from what I've seen which "side" is responsible, it looks to me like lots of jerks from both camps. I think this somehow got called "glossing over what the opposition did", which I didn't - but maybe that was aimed at someone else.
I think you have the right to protest in public spaces, but not to disrupt events to shut down speech you don't like.
Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Trump rallies are being held in arenas/buildings that are private property, therefore there are no free speech rights in play for the protestors. They can protest outside on public property but they don't have a right to be in the building if the running the event/building want them to leave. This holds true for any rally/event being held on private property.
There's no need for protestors fo this nature to lead to violence but anyone walking into an event on private property with the intent to be a disruptive nuisance needs to understand that they will be escorted out as soon as they act up.
Yeah, and I think entering the building with a plan to disrupt is obnoxious, but whatever, politics is full of obnoxious people. It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to strike anyone else. This only becomes an issue if it can be established that political group, either one of the big parties or one of the supporting groups like moveone, is actually attempting an organised campaign of disruption. When political groups start planning to behave en masse like the most obnoxious members of society then there really is a problem.
But at this point all we have are accusations, taken as truth by people who want to believe the worst of any progressive group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As Trump is such a good construction company exec, maybe he could build huge walls around his events to keep out the undesirables.
He's so clever he'll even make the protesters pay for the walls.
There's no guest list. It is open to anyone who wants to attend. It is a public event. Aren't you a lawyer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: Wait, so protestors at multiple private events provoke a physical response
As long as we assume Trump supporters are amoeba with no capability beyond stimulus and response, then sure, that summary makes sense. But once we take a closer look and notice that most if not all Trump supporters are human beings and not amoeba, then we can actually apply some human standards of decision making and responsibility to those people. "The person was disruptive so I punched them" is not an acceptable response for a human.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think you have the right to protest in public spaces, but not to disrupt events to shut down speech you don't like.
Just to open that up, you actually have the right to disrupt as well. There's is nothing illegal in entering a rally open to the public, and picking a point during the rally to be disruptive. It's a dick move, but as long as you make no effort to resist the request to make you leave, you have every right to do it.
In fact, it's even the right of a political party to organise lots of people in disruption attacks. And that's where we get to the real issue - how much a good, healthy democracy relies not just on laws and formal rights, but also on goodwill and accepted codes of good behaviour among the major players. If those standards fall down, then no rules or legal code can make sure decent political debate still happens.
That's why the Republican attempts to shut down the healthcare townhalls was such an odious tactic, and it's why I was so angry at conservatives on this site who ignored that strategy simply because they wanted to cheer for their team. And if moveon is organising something similar at Trump rallies, that's just as gakky, and just as troubling.
No, it's not illegal - I think I implied that with what I said but that's not what I meant, my bad. What I meant was that I agree - it's a gakky thing to do.
Ouze wrote: No, it's not illegal - I think I implied that with what I said but that's not what I meant, my bad. What I meant was that I agree - it's a gakky thing to do.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to contradict you, I don't think you said anything wrong. I was just trying to open it up for a greater conversation about the difference between what is legal, and what is actually an okay thing to do.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
It's a bit like Obama's comment that after years of economic decline with no government support, a lot of people in small Pennsylvanian towns got bitter and started focusing on guns and religion to vent their frustration. It's just a basic statement of reality, but Republicans committed to repeating that it was a horrible gaffe over and over again, and the base was happy to accept that. Even though, you know, the comment was anything but. People will believe what they want to believe.
Anyhow, this thing about concern for coal mining because of all the jobs in the sector is a simple con. The jobs dissapeared from coal mining decades ago. Peak employment around 250,000, and now there's about 70 to 80k.
Where was the concern about jobs in the sector then? Was there a single Republican plan to fight automation and open cut methods, because they were destroying jobs? Nope, because coal mines were making more money with less employees, and you better believe that's what matters.
But hey, lets just watch people believe what they want to believe. Let's watch them hand on their heart claim they really believe those 70,000 jobs must be protected, and that Republicans really care about those 80,000 jobs, even though they didn't care about the last 170,000 jobs.
Let's watch them claim that replacing coal with green tech is a terrible, scary jobs destroyer.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
You must have heard that completely differently than I did.... What I heard her say was that she was gonna invest in, and get "Green Power" into "Coal Country" to basically replace the jobs that will be lost when she gets coal shut down.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
... that's not a gaffe, though. I'm increasingly starting to think maybe you don't know what that means. Or maybe I don't know what it means.
A gaffe is when Obama said he visited all 57 states, for example. You know he doesn't actually think there are 57 states. You know what he meant.
Increasingly, politicians try to frame as "gaffes" when they try to walk back something - rather than admit they were wrong or stupid, they pretend they misstated what they meant, which is now... whatever it now is. But that's not a gaffe either.
However, the way you're using the phrase is wholly new to me.
whembly wrote: It *is* a job destroyer... and politicians always want to push green tech.
So you're now concerned for the 80,000 people employed in coal? Where you as concerned when automation and open cut methods cut 180,000 jobs out of the sector?
But, green tech "isn't there yet" on a mass scale.
One of the things we've learnt in the last decade is that trying to replace large plant old tech energy with new large plant green energy is the wrong way of looking at things. Green tech is different, and should be deployed as it makes best sense to deploy it, regardless of how we built the sector in the past. The strength of many green technologies is they can be deployed in small scale. S purely in terms of
Also, the ultimate greenie gets the shaft... which is Nuclear power.
I think there's a lot to like about nuclear, but the reason we've seen little new nuclear development isn't because it's been given the political shaft. That's just an easy line repeated in conservative circles.
The problem is that any new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking. We're talking a few billion dollars, and a development time of five or more years once you commit to the project. If you want to put a few billion in to a project that won't start any repayment for five years, you want to be really confident about what energy demands will be for life of the project. And there's no such certainty at all right now. Back when most nuclear plants were built there was a great deal of confidence about the growth in electricity usage, and the tech base was pretty stable. Now there's a lot of uncertainty about what tech will look like in five years - what if battery tech takes the next step and we can use roof panels to charge batteries with little or no need for the grid? Would you want to sink a billion dollars in to nuclear plant, when break even is maybe 20 years away, are you confident that your plant will still be needed in 2036?
A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.
Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney. (I can't because I live in a listed building.)
On a larger scale, when car parks and major roads are built or renewed, geothermal plant can be added during construction. You can even have this plant put into your garden if it's large enough.
All this, combined with passive improvements like better insulation and low energy light bulbs to cut demand, can make a surprising amount of difference to the overall energy strategy.
Frazzled wrote: What you believe is not relevant. What is, is.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Sorry, but I expect better of a person than a dog. It is NEVER appropriate for a protester to be assaulted.
Escort them out of private events sure...but it should never be expected that they are met with violence.
I'm not saying its appropriate. I'm saying its reality, on a global basis. There is the way things ought to be, and the way things are.
Kids these days, thinking what should be, is reality.
-Socrates
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
Basically, he's saying Trump isn't "an accident" and that people from the Establishment "shocked" that he came to this really have no reason to be.
In short, Trump is the monster created by Republican party's policies for all those years, and that everything that he's saying bluntly at the face of the world is what was tacit in what all Republican party made until now.
Here is the article translated in english with Google Trad for those who'd like (sure, mock it if you want, I don't care)
The Republicans of the establishment who are horrified by the rise of Donald Trump might want to take a moment to remember the bug heard everywhere - this point that Marco Rubio could not help repeating during a crucial debate, exposing catastrophic mockery and sending his campaign in a death spiral.
That's what it looked: "We must end this story that Barack Obama does not know what he does He knows exactly what he does.". The clear implication, even if the grammar is not correct is that all these negative things that happened under President Obama as Republicans assumptions - including the influence of the so-called reduced America in the world - are the result of a deliberate effort to weaken the country.
In other words, the darling of the establishment for the GOP nomination, the man Time magazine that began one day cover with the title "The Republican Savior" was just deliberately use this paranoid style of American politics. He suggested, albeit evasively, that the president was a traitor.
And today the establishment is shocked to see a candidate to play roughly the same role, but not evasive, this leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
Why ?
The truth is that the path to "Trumpism" began long ago, when the conservative movement - ideological warriors on the right - have taken over the GOP. And it was really a stranglehold. Person claiming a career in the party dares question the dominant aspects of ideology, for fear of being not only deal with first order challenges but also face excommunication.
One can see the persistent power of orthodoxy in the way all the surviving candidates for the Republican nomination, including Trump, dutifully offered huge tax cuts for the rich, even though a large majority of voters, including many Republicans, want rather see a tax increase for the rich.
But how can a slave out of an unpopular ideology - or at least an ideology that voters do not like if they learned more about him - can he win the elections? Obstruction assistance. But demagogy and appeals to tribalism help more. The coded messages about race and suggestions that Democrats are anti-American or even traitors assets are not things that happen like that, they are an integral part of the political strategy of the Republicans.
During the Obama years, Republican leaders have mounted volume on this strategy to 11 (although it was not terrible either during the Clinton years). Republicans avoided the establishment, in general, ie in the state that the president was a Kenyan atheist, socialist and Islamist terrorists friend - although, as the quote from Rubio, it was not away - but they encouraged tacitly those who did, and accept their financial support. And now they are paying the price.
Because the underlying assumption behind the strategy of the establishment is that you could fool the voters again and again encouraged to vote for Republicans, rage against "Those Guys", then ignored after elections when the party was pursuing his true priorities in favor of plutocrats. Trump arrives today, that turns these coded messages perfectly audible cries by all, who said at the base of the voters she can have what promises without being cheated. And the establishment is destroyed by the monster he created.
Things are different on the other side of the chessboard.
I still see people suggest an equivalence between Trump and Bernie Sanders. But even if the two men are the challenges to the establishment of their party, these establishments are not the same. The Democratic Party is, and a political scientist described it, "a coalition of social groups" ranging from family planning to teachers unions, rather than a monolithic ideology; there is nothing comparable to this multitude of institutions on the other side who want to establish purity.
In fact, Sanders movement, with its requirements for purity and contempt for the compromises and half measures, not like the Trump insurgents but much more the ideologues who have control over the GOP, becoming the establishment Trump bring back into question. And yes, we are beginning to see signs of this movement in the ugliness that has long been the procedure of the right: personal attacks scathing against anyone who questions the foundation of the campaign, more demagoguery in the countryside herself. Compare Twitter accounts of Sanders and Clinton and you will see what I mean.
But back to the Republicans we must end this story that the Trump phenomenon is a kind of unpredictable intrusion into classical political Republicans. Instead, the GOP has spent decades to encourage and exploit the same rage that now bears Trump to the appointment. It was inevitable that the establishment loses sooner or later the control of that rage.
Donald Trump is not an accident. His party has what he deserves.
Not really Republican friendly indeed, but Krugman is known for not really be kind with Democrats either. Here, he's quite harsh with Sanders as well. He's an economist first.
About Green Tech, well of course the "old jobs" would be destroyed. Strange that the part where new jobs would be created as soon as another technology is replacing the older one is missing from some affirmations here.
But well, it's a matter of point of view, as always.
Funny to see the usual suspects are still blattering the same false arguments to try to "defend" their point. Just show your true nature and get done with it.
Let's be clear; no matter the justification, using violence to make your point right doesn't make it right by itself. Also, freedom of speech doesn't mean shutting the other up because he's saying things that don't please you.
Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
Frazzled wrote: What you believe is not relevant. What is, is.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Sorry, but I expect better of a person than a dog. It is NEVER appropriate for a protester to be assaulted.
Escort them out of private events sure...but it should never be expected that they are met with violence.
I'm not saying its appropriate. I'm saying its reality, on a global basis. There is the way things ought to be, and the way things are.
Kids these days, thinking what should be, is reality.
-Socrates
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
Isn't this the same kind of logic that says women who wear short skirts deserved to get sexually assaulted?
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
jmurph wrote: Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
Saying you don't like something, or even that the ideas are idiotic is not limiting someone else's Free Speech. It is using your own Free Speech as well. Free Speech simply means free from government interference. It doesn't mean free from other people thinking you're an idiot.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
Ok first, forgive my mispelling as I am typing this on my phone and it is rather unforgiving.
Secondly with all the talk of coal I felt the need to way in.
I work in a coal mine that is facing its end of days. We have had two major layoffs, and now the miners left have been cut back to four day shifts a week, this includes the longwall, the mines big money maker.
Many of the bosses and their cronies have gotten their west virginia certification. Its only a matter of time before this place is shuttered.
Now the owner of this mine, whom I will not name, is well known for being an donkey-cave on the national stage. First in the fact he dropped a mountain on a bunch of miners outwest and second in making attending a Romney rally mandatory for a lot of guys who just finished a 12 hour shift.
Some time ago he began buying up mass tracts of widely believed useless farmland. Flashforward some odd years and he now owns most of the oil and gas rights in the region.
He recently bought several mines in west virginia that offers him better tax breaks and subsidies. The mines are also newer while the mine I work in is over 30 years old and pretty damn deep but still have a good bit of life in it.
And yet, even though these facts are pretty common knowledge. This gak talks out of his ass about how this is all the faults of the oil and gas co and democrats.
This anti union piece of scum is nothing but two faced liar worried about lining his own pocket, the stories of safety hazards, book fudging, and general fuckery of his employees I could tell you would turn your hair white.
So the next time someone tells you the democrats are killing coal, make sure they dont own a mine first.
whembly wrote: It *is* a job destroyer... and politicians always want to push green tech.
So you're now concerned for the 80,000 people employed in coal? Where you as concerned when automation and open cut methods cut 180,000 jobs out of the sector?
See that? That's moving the goal-post. I hope you have enough gretchins to pull it.
Here's the problem. This is a candidate (much like Obama) who wants to push Green Technologies.
That's fine.
However, I draw the line when it's pushed without any goddamn consideration of such impact. You don't simply "replace jobs" 1-to-1 that these politician insinuates. These miners isn't going to suddenly mine coals one day, then get trained/skilled to work in the green sector.
That simply dumbassery.
It's politically dumb for HRC because coal is a big industry in W. Virginia, PA and IL. The GOP only have to play that one snippet in a 30-second ad.
Please don't construe this as, hurr-hurr ignore whembly 'cuz he hates anything Clinton. Just for once, acknowledge that this is a goof.
It's one thing the say, "we need to invest in green technologies and help the industry to become competetive vs legacy-power industry"... but, it's a goddamn different thing when you say:
Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
I'm just pointing out that the Ads starts writing themselves .
But, green tech "isn't there yet" on a mass scale.
One of the things we've learnt in the last decade is that trying to replace large plant old tech energy with new large plant green energy is the wrong way of looking at things. Green tech is different, and should be deployed as it makes best sense to deploy it, regardless of how we built the sector in the past. The strength of many green technologies is they can be deployed in small scale. S purely in terms of
Sure... but Clinton, or most other politicians for that matter, don't talk in these terms. Nor, once in their power, do that really push this.
There's very little opportunity for grafts. (which is a pretty damn cynical view, but I don't believe I'm far off).
Also, the ultimate greenie gets the shaft... which is Nuclear power.
I think there's a lot to like about nuclear, but the reason we've seen little new nuclear development isn't because it's been given the political shaft. That's just an easy line repeated in conservative circles.
The problem is that any new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking. We're talking a few billion dollars, and a development time of five or more years once you commit to the project. If you want to put a few billion in to a project that won't start any repayment for five years, you want to be really confident about what energy demands will be for life of the project. And there's no such certainty at all right now. Back when most nuclear plants were built there was a great deal of confidence about the growth in electricity usage, and the tech base was pretty stable. Now there's a lot of uncertainty about what tech will look like in five years - what if battery tech takes the next step and we can use roof panels to charge batteries with little or no need for the grid? Would you want to sink a billion dollars in to nuclear plant, when break even is maybe 20 years away, are you confident that your plant will still be needed in 2036?
A) Biggest hurdle is getting new license.
B) It's a great investment opportunity if there wasn't such a high barrier to overcome the startup regulation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: Ok first, forgive my mispelling as I am typing this on my phone and it is rather unforgiving.
Secondly with all the talk of coal I felt the need to way in.
I work in a coal mine that is facing its end of days. We have had two major layoffs, and now the miners left have been cut back to four day shifts a week, this includes the longwall, the mines big money maker.
Many of the bosses and their cronies have gotten their west virginia certification. Its only a matter of time before this place is shuttered.
Now the owner of this mine, whom I will not name, is well known for being an donkey-cave on the national stage. First in the fact he dropped a mountain on a bunch of miners outwest and second in making attending a Romney rally mandatory for a lot of guys who just finished a 12 hour shift.
Some time ago he began buying up mass tracts of widely believed useless farmland. Flashforward some odd years and he now owns most of the oil and gas rights in the region.
He recently bought several mines in west virginia that offers him better tax breaks and subsidies. The mines are also newer while the mine I work in is over 30 years old and pretty damn deep but still have a good bit of life in it.
And yet, even though these facts are pretty common knowledge. This gak talks out of his ass about how this is all the faults of the oil and gas co and democrats.
This anti union piece of scum is nothing but two faced liar worried about lining his own pocket, the stories of safety hazards, book fudging, and general fuckery of his employees I could tell you would turn your hair white.
So the next time someone tells you the democrats are killing coal, make sure they dont own a mine first.
I won't defend that guy as it sounds like he epitomize the worst of the worst owner one can have...
But, it's a different conversation on whether how a company is operated vs. whether or not our government allows such an industry.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised that it *is* the natural gas/oil industries donating to politicians to push the coal industries out.
jmurph wrote: Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
That's right, I am not going to defend this moron's right to free speech on a message board on the Internet. I am not saying he doesn't have a right to it, I'm just not going to defend it. An in no way is my saying that impairing his freedom of speech. He doesn't need my help to get free airtime and speak freely whenever he wants because the media likes the ratings he brings. He is doing fine by himself.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
Just because people do these things, doesn't make it right.
Clinton: 'We didn't lose a single person' in Libya
By ELIZA COLLINS 03/15/16 07:22 AM EDT
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn't. But did they have two elections that were free and fair where they voted for moderates. Yes, they did. So you know, changing from a dictator who has hollowed out your country to something resembling a functioning state and even hopefully more of a democratic one doesn't happen overnight,” she said. “And we've got to continue to support the Libyan people, to give them a chance, because otherwise you see what has happened in Syria, with the consequences of millions of people flooding out of Syria, with more than 250,000 people killed, with terrorist groups like ISIS taking up almost -- huge blocks of territory, as big as some of the states in that area.”
Groups affiliated with the Islamic State have carved out large swathes of territory in Libya as well, forcing the United States to conduct airstrikes there in mid-February. U.S. officials estimate that ISIL boasts some 6,500 fighters across a 150-mile stretch of Libya's Mediterranean coastline, according to the New York Times.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are unable to comment.
I would assume that she is making a distinction between the military campaign and the period afterwards when the attack occurred.
The difference between "casualties of the Iraq war" and "A guy that got killed in Iraq in 2009 whilst on holiday" (Yes, I am aware that they weren't on holiday)
Goliath wrote: I would assume that she is making a distinction between the military campaign and the period afterwards when the attack occurred.
The difference between "casualties of the Iraq war" and "A guy that got killed in Iraq in 2009 whilst on holiday" (Yes, I am aware that they weren't on holiday)
We never declared war on Libya so there's no distinction between casualties of war and post war activities. Clinton didn't clarify her remarks as being limited to just the military operation and she went on to talk about the US involvement in supporting the post Qaddafi government to prevent an opportunity for ISIS or a similar entity to seize power which absolutely includes the period of time in 2012 when our ambassador and security forces were killed in Benghazi. She was obviously speaking about the entirety of our involvement in LIbya and our involvement in Libya did not occur without the loss of US citizens' lives.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Keep on circling that wagon bro.
It is if you ignore history, context, and all of the words spoken. All of which you did. So, yeah. Its b.s.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Keep on circling that wagon bro.
It is if you ignore history, context, and all of the words spoken. All of which you did. So, yeah. Its b.s.
Even one of her defenders implicitly acknowledges that her answers were... less than graceful:
It's, "we don't like this industry, so let's destroy it and prop up another. Nevermind if this is efficient or the impact on jobs".
So your counterargument is "I hate Democrats!"?
No. Re-read above please.
Did Ms. Clinton say those words, or are you putting words into her mouth?
Oh? Wanna play this?
HRC wrote:“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business"
That sure sounds like she's going to use what means at her disposal as President to pick winners and losers.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
You must have heard that completely differently than I did.... What I heard her say was that she was gonna invest in, and get "Green Power" into "Coal Country" to basically replace the jobs that will be lost when she gets coal shut down.
Except that's not what will happen.
The people working in coal can't suddenly transition into Solar or Wind. The skills are not transferrable. Those people will lose their livelihood right now and they'll never get it back. The people who get jobs are those who have the skills necessary to run whatever this "green power" is, and even on pure numbers these green power jobs will be less than the coal jobs(because a big part of coal is the actual mining, which doesn't have an equivalent in solar, wind, etc...).
HRC wrote:“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business"
That sure sounds like she's going to use what means at her disposal as President to pick winners and losers.
So my previous statement stands.
Coal needs to be the loser here. Not today, or tomorrow, but soon. And all those coal miners need to get new jobs in the clean energy sector. HRC says she "has a policy" to implement this. I hope she does.
HRC wrote:“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business"
That sure sounds like she's going to use what means at her disposal as President to pick winners and losers.
So my previous statement stands.
Coal needs to be the loser here. Not today, or tomorrow, but soon. And all those coal miners need to get new jobs in the clean energy sector. HRC says she "has a policy" to implement this. I hope she does.
Coal is already losing as it is. There is zero need to push it faster and cause more people to lose their jobs.
The way to do it isn't to attack coal, its to subsidize things like Nuclear power to replace it over decades. Shrink coal at the same rate that the people currently working in it are retiring, so that the fewest possible people are impacted by the transition from a low skill labor force to a purely high skill one.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
You must have heard that completely differently than I did.... What I heard her say was that she was gonna invest in, and get "Green Power" into "Coal Country" to basically replace the jobs that will be lost when she gets coal shut down.
Except that's not what will happen.
The people working in coal can't suddenly transition into Solar or Wind. The skills are not transferrable. Those people will lose their livelihood right now and they'll never get it back. The people who get jobs are those who have the skills necessary to run whatever this "green power" is, and even on pure numbers these green power jobs will be less than the coal jobs(because a big part of coal is the actual mining, which doesn't have an equivalent in solar, wind, etc...).
Capitalism is a game of winners and losers. If you can't adapt to new industry then capitalism will leave you by the roadside. Thems the breaks to a harsh economic system. I am to understand America supposedly favors inovation over stagnation but the reality rarely lives up to the ideal.
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
You must have heard that completely differently than I did.... What I heard her say was that she was gonna invest in, and get "Green Power" into "Coal Country" to basically replace the jobs that will be lost when she gets coal shut down.
Except that's not what will happen.
The people working in coal can't suddenly transition into Solar or Wind. The skills are not transferrable. Those people will lose their livelihood right now and they'll never get it back. The people who get jobs are those who have the skills necessary to run whatever this "green power" is, and even on pure numbers these green power jobs will be less than the coal jobs(because a big part of coal is the actual mining, which doesn't have an equivalent in solar, wind, etc...).
Capitalism is a game of winners and losers. If you can't adapt to new industry then capitalism will leave you by the roadside. Thems the breaks to a harsh economic system. I am to understand America supposedly favors inovation over stagnation but the reality rarely lives up to the ideal.
That's my point. She's deluded if she thinks she can just replace those jobs overnight. No, she's going to prematurely drive thousands and thousands of people out of work to give maybe a few hundred jobs to entirely different people. Long term, those Coal jobs will disappear but if done over a long period you won't have the immediate large scale unemployment issues.
Don’t Sleep On Illinois And Missouri — They Could Help Make Trump Unstoppable
March 15 has long looked like the most pivotal date on the GOP primary calendar. And although Florida and Ohio are hogging the spotlight because they are the sites of Marco Rubio and John Kasich’s “last stands,” don’t forget that two other states could help Donald Trump become essentially unstoppable in his quest for the nomination: Illinois and Missouri.
Sure, far more delegates were at stake on Super Tuesday (595) than will be awarded March 15 (367), but the Super Tuesday delegates were all awarded proportionally. By the Republican National Committee’s rules, March 15 is the kickoff of the high-stakes winner-take-all season. Of the five states voting Tuesday1 — Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio — only North Carolina will truly award its delegates on a proportional basis, making it the least valuable prize of the night.
Florida and Ohio are hyped up not only because of their favorite sons (for good reason), but also because they are the only “true” winner-take-all states: The Florida winner will claim 99 delegates, and the Ohio winner will claim 66 — no ifs, ands or buts. However, Illinois and Missouri could functionally become winner-take-all too. Both states award their delegates on a congressional-district level. So if Trump (or someone else) sweeps their congressional districts, that candidate will win all the delegates. Together, Missouri and Illinois will award 121 delegates — which would go a long way in helping Trump stay “on track” for the nomination even if he loses either Florida or Ohio.
And so Illinois and Missouri are a big part of the reason Tuesday is such a huge fork in the road. If Trump sweeps Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio, he will have at least 748 delegates and would need to win only 44 percent of all remaining delegates,2 a remarkably low bar, potentially ending the nomination fight.
If Trump loses Ohio but still wins Florida and sweeps Illinois and Missouri, he would need to win 50 percent of all other remaining delegates, a slightly higher bar but still very doable — and he would probably still be “on pace” for the nomination according to our delegate targets. But if Trump were to lose both Ohio and Florida, along with, let’s say, half of Illinois’s and Missouri’s districts, he could find himself needing to win 63 percent of remaining delegates to clinch the nomination, a much less plausible goal, considerably raising the odds of a contested convention in Cleveland.
Which of those scenarios is most likely? There haven’t been any polls of Missouri since August, but considering the state’s relatively large share of evangelicals (36 percent of the population), it would seem that Ted Cruz would be Trump’s main threat in the Show-Me State. But, unlike the last three states Cruz has won (Kansas, Maine and Idaho), Missouri has an open primary — the type of contest Trump has dominated thus far. In fact, Illinois and Missouri are among the relatively few states remaining to vote where the rules permit non-Republicans to vote in the party primary.
Technically, Illinois holds a “loophole” primary in which district-level delegates will be elected directly on the ballot. But unlike in the loophole primary in Pennsylvania, delegates’ presidential preferences are stated on the ballot, making it highly likely that the preferred presidential candidate will win all three delegates at stake in a given congressional district. The only recent poll taken in Illinois, a Chicago Tribune survey from the first week of March, showed Trump leading with 32 percent, to 22 percent for Cruz, 21 percent for Rubio and 18 percent for Kasich. A double-digit lead raises the possibility that Trump could sweep most or all of the 18 congressional districts.
Trump currently holds 462 delegates, 43 percent of the 1,065 delegates that have been at stake so far. But up until now, just 5 percent of all GOP delegates (the 50 Trump won in South Carolina) have been awarded on a winner-take-all basis. From March 15 forward, a whopping 64 percent of delegates will be awarded on a winner-take-all basis (39 percent based on statewide winners plus 25 percent based on district-level winners). This means continued Trump pluralities would be more than sufficient to earn him a majority of the 2,472 delegates by June.
TL;DR: If Cruz wins IL and MO, while Trump wins OH and FL... we may truly be looking at a Contested Convention!
skyth wrote: It's no Gaffe. You may disagree with the policy but it is not a gaffe.
No, its definitely a Gaffe.
She made a very very poor choice of words, which by definition is a gaffe, in a way she's sort of revealed her true self. Hopefully it comes back and bites her.
Yes. I asked you a very simple question: "Did Ms. Clinton say those words, or are you putting words into her mouth?" It was a leading question, to be sure, but still a simple one.
skyth wrote: It's no Gaffe. You may disagree with the policy but it is not a gaffe.
No, its definitely a Gaffe.
She made a very very poor choice of words, which by definition is a gaffe, in a way she's sort of revealed her true self. Hopefully it comes back and bites her.
The thing with HRC is she is the least worst. I mean, she'll be "not-terrible" president at best, but she's still the best option (of a really bad bunch) America seems to be putting forwards.
skyth wrote: It's no Gaffe. You may disagree with the policy but it is not a gaffe.
No, its definitely a Gaffe.
She made a very very poor choice of words, which by definition is a gaffe, in a way she's sort of revealed her true self. Hopefully it comes back and bites her.
The thing with HRC is she is the least worst. I mean, she'll be "not-terrible" president at best, but she's still the best option (of a really bad bunch) America seems to be putting forwards.
Disagree. She's equally as bad. But for more insidious and less obvious reasons.
I'd take Bernie over her for several reasons. Namely he's too radical to do much damage to the country, he won't get much cooperation from his own party. Trump is in a similar position, he'll be limited by the system too much to do any real damage. Hillary has proven she will freely ignore the rules, and somehow get away with it all.
The people working in coal can't suddenly transition into Solar or Wind. The skills are not transferrable.
Mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, industrial engineers, and the like suddenly lose their skills after working in coal?
No. But the miners do. And they far outnumber the engineers. A miner is going to be out of luck, if he still needs to work he's going to have to move out west or up into Canada to find similar positions where his skills will apply.
Further more the workings of a coal power plant are going to have many differences with wind and solar, so there isn't going to be a clean transfer of the mechanical skills.
I thought it was the Republican Mantra that if you lose your job it's your own fault. If you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete, it's your own fault.
skyth wrote: I thought it was the Republican Mantra that if you lose your job it's your own fault. If you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete, it's your own fault.
When it happens as a result of natural market shift yes. Not when its artificially and forcefully induced over a small period of time.
skyth wrote: I thought it was the Republican Mantra that if you lose your job it's your own fault. If you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete, it's your own fault.
Grey Templar wrote: The way to do it isn't to attack coal, its to subsidize things like Nuclear power to replace it over decades. Shrink coal at the same rate that the people currently working in it are retiring, so that the fewest possible people are impacted by the transition from a low skill labor force to a purely high skill one.
Oh man, do you guys remember every thread about the minimum wage ever, where it's pointed out that higher wages will just lead to more automation and cost jobs, and how people were all concerned that these fast food guys would lose their jobs, and how we talked about how we need to slow the pace of automation so fast food workers can find jobs in other industries?
Oh, wait. That never happened. Instead, automated burger making machines are usually mentioned with barely disguised glee at the prospect of displacing the jobs of those uppity poors.
She made a very very poor choice of words, which by definition is a gaffe, in a way she's sort of revealed her true self. Hopefully it comes back and bites her.
Making a clear, unambiguous statement of policy is not a gaffe, even if it's bad or unpopular policy. She has said exactly what she meant without any hidden meaning. It may bite her, but not because she said something she didn't mean. I'm not sure how this is being spun as some sort of "this is going to blow the case wide open" misstatement.
skyth wrote: I thought it was the Republican Mantra that if you lose your job it's your own fault. If you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete, it's your own fault.
Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
skyth wrote: It's no Gaffe. You may disagree with the policy but it is not a gaffe.
No, its definitely a Gaffe.
She made a very very poor choice of words, which by definition is a gaffe, in a way she's sort of revealed her true self. Hopefully it comes back and bites her.
The thing with HRC is she is the least worst. I mean, she'll be "not-terrible" president at best, but she's still the best option (of a really bad bunch) America seems to be putting forwards.
Disagree. She's equally as bad. But for more insidious and less obvious reasons.
I'd take Bernie over her for several reasons. Namely he's too radical to do much damage to the country, he won't get much cooperation from his own party. Trump is in a similar position, he'll be limited by the system too much to do any real damage. Hillary has proven she will freely ignore the rules, and somehow get away with it all.
Perhaps you are right about her, but then I think everyone at that level of politics has to be that way. I don't think Sanders could take Trump in the general. President Trump would be nuts. I don't know how much of his talk is campaign BS and how much is stuff he actually believes, and frankly I don't want to find out. President Cruz would be worse, because he erally does believe all the nonsense he says.
A miner is going to be out of luck, if he still needs to work he's going to have to move out west or up into Canada to find similar positions where his skills will apply.
If he lacks marketable skills then retail or a McJob is his likely destination; something which is entirely his own fault.
Further more the workings of a coal power plant are going to have many differences with wind and solar, so there isn't going to be a clean transfer of the mechanical skills.
There is no such thing as a "clean transfer" from one job to another. This is why the ability to learn is so important.
feeder wrote: I don't think Sanders could take Trump in the general.
The current weighted average of polls nationwide shows Sanders beating Trump by 10 points. Obviously there is a lifetime between now and November, and a bajillion unknown unknowns, but I personally feel fairly confident that, all things being equal, Sanders would be very competitive against Trump. Sanders has at least some crossover appeal - though not as much as Trump - but Trumps negatives are so very, very high that it would greatly drive Democratic voter turnout while somewhat depressing conservative GOP turnout.
That's my gut feeling.
CptJake wrote: The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
And never have I ever once on these forums seen concern trolling for those displaced fast food workers, the way suddenly some of you guys are pretending you give half a gak about 70k coal miners, despite the fact there are 3.5 million fast food workers so it would take far less automation to destroy significantly more jobs.
feeder wrote: I don't think Sanders could take Trump in the general.
The current weighted average of polls nationwide shows Sanders beating Trump by 10 points. Obviously there is a lifetime between now and November, and a bajillion unknown unknowns, but I personally feel fairly confident that, all things being equal, Sanders would be very competitive against Trump. Sanders has at least some crossover appeal - though not as much as Trump - but Trumps negatives are so very, very high that it would greatly drive Democratic voter turnout while somewhat depressing conservative GOP turnout.
That's my gut feeling.
I actually agree with this...
Personality matters and Trump has a massive issue in this regard.
I'd think it'd be a Sander's Tsunami if his opponent were to be Trump.
whembly wrote: Personality matters and Trump has a massive issue in this regard.
I'd think it'd be a Sander's Tsunami if his opponent were to be Trump.
I think the closer fight would be Clinton vs Trump, because she has all the same problems as Trump does, but with some additional ones all of her own - she would substantially increase GOP turnout while. My gutsy feeling is that she would win, but man, it would be very close and I certainly would not put money on it.
CptJake wrote: The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
And never have I ever once on these forums seen concern trolling for those displaced fast food workers, the way suddenly some of you guys are pretending you give half a gak about 70k coal miners, despite the fact there are 3.5 million fast food workers so it would take far less automation to destroy significantly more jobs.
#alljobsmatter
Ouze... it's more than just those jobs and you know it.
It's the *dick* move to wontonly introduce regulation/taxes as a vehicle to make industries like this Coal industry unprofitable so that their dearest green energy industries can fill in the void.
It's a dick move, like when Obama stated the Electricity Prices will necessarily have to rise in order to conform to cap&trade:
Hillary is signaling that she'll continue Obama's Energy policy.
No. But the miners do. And they far outnumber the engineers.
Miners suddenly lose their skills after working in coal?
No. But the miners do. And they far outnumber the engineers.
A miner is going to be out of luck, if he still needs to work he's going to have to move out west or up into Canada to find similar positions where his skills will apply.
If he lacks marketable skills then retail or a McJob is his likely destination; something which is entirely his own fault.
Further more the workings of a coal power plant are going to have many differences with wind and solar, so there isn't going to be a clean transfer of the mechanical skills..
There is no such thing as a "clean transfer" from one job to another. This is why the ability to learn is so important.
You're being deliberately dense and obstinate.
Miners don't lose their skills, but you've suddenly shut down all the mining in the area. So they have nowhere to use their skills. They'll be forced to move somewhere else where there are mining jobs, except those jobs are already being done. So you end up with a glut of miners looking for work. Not to mention the economic hardships of actually moving, especially when that's going to mean moving across the continent to areas which have large amounts of mining.
Yes, ordinarily it would be the worker's fault/responsibility. Except this isn't the result of natural market movement. Its the result of direct government interference saying "you can't mine and burn coal to create electricity anymore". I assume you have the intelligence to see the difference.
If an industry is already declining there is no need to legislate its demise. It will go away naturally, and at a speed which won't result in lots of people being suddenly out of work. Newer generations will find employment in growing industries, the older generation will work in the shrinking industry and it will shrink at a similar rate to the rate of retirement. Ultimately effecting fewer people.
Though I suppose if Hillary causes all this unemployment she'll be able to crow about how much we need safety nets for all these displaced workers. While conveniently ignoring that she directly caused the unemployment.
skyth wrote: I thought it was the Republican Mantra that if you lose your job it's your own fault. If you can't find a job because your skills are obsolete, it's your own fault.
When it happens as a result of natural market shift yes. Not when its artificially and forcefully induced over a small period of time.
Considering that green power has been a long time coming along with the drive against polution-causing things...it seems like a lack of planning on the coal miners' part. This isn't a sudden, out of nowhere change. Where's the personal responsibility platform?
And government IS part of natural market shift. Same way as the government subsidises all sorts of industries (like the military industry or the coal industry. Funny how they are allowed to pollute without paying the full cost of cleaning it up)
whembly wrote: Personality matters and Trump has a massive issue in this regard.
I'd think it'd be a Sander's Tsunami if his opponent were to be Trump.
I think the closer fight would be Clinton vs Trump, because she has all the same problems as Trump does, but with some additional ones all of her own - she would substantially increase GOP turnout. My gutsy feeling is that she would win, but man, it would be very close and I certainly would not put money on it.
I'd still say HRC pulls ahead easily as Trump is a walking turdbucket and epitomizes all the "bad characteristics" of the wealthy white man.
Romney couldn't overcome that... which is a shame as I believe he's actually a very good person. Trump? ugh.
feeder wrote: I don't think Sanders could take Trump in the general.
The current weighted average of polls nationwide shows Sanders beating Trump by 10 points. Obviously there is a lifetime between now and November, and a bajillion unknown unknowns, but I personally feel fairly confident that, all things being equal, Sanders would be very competitive against Trump. Sanders has at least some crossover appeal - though not as much as Trump - but Trumps negatives are so very, very high that it would greatly drive Democratic voter turnout while somewhat depressing conservative GOP turnout.
That's my gut feeling.
I actually agree with this...
Personality matters and Trump has a massive issue in this regard.
I'd think it'd be a Sander's Tsunami if his opponent were to be Trump.
Well, you guys likely have a better feel for it than I, but I thought the spectre of "socialism" is such a big issue (especially outside of the progessive states) that Trump's racism and lack of coherent policy wouldn't matter. I hope I'm wrong, of course. President Bernie would be ideal.
I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.
CptJake wrote: The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
And never have I ever once on these forums seen concern trolling for those displaced fast food workers, the way suddenly some of you guys are pretending you give half a gak about 70k coal miners, despite the fact there are 3.5 million fast food workers so it would take far less automation to destroy significantly more jobs.
#alljobsmatter
Why do you think automation kept getting brought up?
It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.
Ouze wrote: I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.
I'll be honest, I wasn't politically aware during the Reagan/Bush administrations as I was in elementary/High School. I think it's a bit disengenuous to pull that argument by going that far into history.
And, furthermore, Green Energy are notoriously cost prohibitive to implement in a large scale right now. Hence why Coal/Natural gas power plants are thing.
Once Green Energy can compete on it's own, all things being equal, then we'd see more efforts to adopt these technologies and move away from the legacy power plants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Where socialism is a problem, Trump's racism is a strength rather than a hinderance.
It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.
Where was your concern about their lost jobs? Where was your argument that we need to try and slow the pace of automation so those displaced workers can find employment in other industries? Only 2% of fast food jobs lost would be just about 70,00 jobs, exactly the same as those coal miners.
Ouze wrote: I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.
Sure... okay.
I don't recall Billy 'o Clinton wielding the governmental hatchet like Obama did (or Hillary's claiming to do).
Ouze wrote: I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.
It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.
Where was your concern about their lost jobs? Where was your argument that we need to try and slow the pace of automation so those displaced workers can find employment in other industries? Only 2% of fast food jobs lost would be just about 70,00 jobs, exactly the same as those coal miners.
I was actually arguing that we shouldn't do anything that would accelerate the transfer to automation. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Automation is going to happen, abandoning coal in favor of more sustainable power generation is going to happen. But we shouldn't artificially accelerate the transfer because that causes massive short term harm by putting thousands or millions out of work all at once.
Automation is going to happen, abandoning coal in favor of more sustainable power generation is going to happen. But we shouldn't artificially accelerate the transfer because that causes massive short term harm by putting thousands or millions out of work all at once.
It goes both ways, as the industries are doing their best to artificially hinder the transfer with all the millions they're pumping into the politicians. Sure, it's capitalism for the market to decide which way to go, but in this country, it's also capitalism to buy the politicians to direct the market which way to go.
I personally wish for us to, eventually, phase out coal. It's dirty and dangerous. I do, however, think there should be a push to reopen our rare earth metal mines, so we aren't relying on China.
Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.
Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.
Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.
Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.
The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.
Also so that they can point and say, "See look at what raising wages did!"
I find it odd to now see pro Dems saying "But I thought you Repubs said that you have to adapt, etc" totally ignoring that 1) this is a job loss from government intervention, not market forces and 2) the Dems are supposed to *not* mirror the opposition on that attitude.
It's not really a "gaffe" though. Just another statement by a candidate that doesn't really care how her policies might harm a certain job segment. Nothing terribly surprising as crony capitalism seems to be the norm.
I am with Ouze on Bernie v. HRC v, Trump. HRC mobilizes voters who would otherwise be lukewarm on Trump and Bernie mobilizes voter that are lukewarm on HRC. Peaceful socialism v. militant nationalism would also be a great narrative.
Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.
Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.
The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.
Offering breakfast all day also drive up the cost of consumables for McDonalds owners. Rent and taxes can also cost a pretty penny depending on the location.
Workers get paid based on the value of the work they do and the ease in which they can be replaced. The amount of profit ownership makes has very little to do with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.
The people that should have been concerned for those jobs were the Democrats in DC, specifically the ones representing coal states. The Democratic Party likes to claim that they're the party that cares about unions and blue collar workers but from what I can tell those constituencies do more for the party than they ever get back from it. It certainly didn't stop Clinton from signing NAFTA.
Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.
Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.
Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.
The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.
The people who start the franchises don't create jobs. Nice of you to bring up that debunked argument. Consumers create jobs. A business hires as a last resort when they have to have something done that their current employees can't do. Not to mention a straw man, since the unabashed greed was aimed at the CEO's/owners of big corporations that even though they don't work 5,000 times harder than their employees, they bring home 5,000 times the pay. If they weren't so greedy, they could share a bit of that with the people that actually make the money for them instead of relying on the government to subsidize their workers.
Given that we provide coal companies with billions in subsidies annually, it sounds like we're already picking winners. Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?
Laughing Man wrote: Given that we provide coal companies with billions in subsidies annually, it sounds like we're already picking winners. Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?
Because it's only "free market" when the companies that already exist get to write the laws that govern them so that they can make more money
You could probably equate the entire debate about Net Neutrality as having nothing to do with anything but who gets to benefit from government regulations and who doesn't.
The free market exists as nothing more than a political talking point, but that won't stop certain parties from trumpeting it like gospel.
Kilkrazy wrote: At some point there won't be any coal left. Will Clinton get the blame for that too?
Current estimates of coal reserves is at the low end 110 years (proven reserves) at current rates of production to as much as 500 years (estimated, but unproven reserves) . Obviously Clinton or any other politician will be long dead before coal runs out. When we finally reach "peak" coal, the law of supply and demand will have taken over driving the market naturally to alternative energy sources, probably nuclear. Why? IMHO based on my understanding of existing "green" renewable energy technology capacity and infrastructure requirements, "green" energy cannot currently be installed to the scale necessary to meet current and expected energy demands. Combined with the negative impact on the environment current "green" energy technologies would have (amount of open land and sea required, the mineral resources required, the by-products of manufacturing solar cells and wind-mills, etc.), I believe anyone would come to the sensible conclusion that regardless of what any politician says, coal and other fossil fuel energy sources are here to stay for the foreseeable future, certainly a generation or more at the least, assuming no artificially induced shortage overnight or change in the ability to implement and pay for sufficient "green" energy.
I think ultimately that any of the candidates posturing on energy policy is designed to pander to those special interests or those who make such issues a priority. Something about politicians and when their lips are moving.......
Finally this dive into energy policy is interesting, however individuals gross over simplification, apparent ignorance, and word games is frustrating to say the least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote: Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?
Interesting suggestion. If I follow your reasoning we should pick winners based on how often people die in industry related accidents. If so, we need to start with Construction (nearly 1 out of every 5 deaths) and not focus on mining and O&G which appear to have a much better safety record by compairson. Full list in order of percent of fatalities below. Source http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013.pdf
Construction
Transportation and warehousing
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
Goverment - Professional and business services
Manufacturing
Leisure and hospitality
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction
Education and health services
Financial activities - I guess if we really want a safe industry to work in we all need to go work for the evil wall street firms.
Miners don't lose their skills, but you've suddenly shut down all the mining in the area. So they have nowhere to use their skills. They'll be forced to move somewhere else where there are mining jobs, except those jobs are already being done. So you end up with a glut of miners looking for work. Not to mention the economic hardships of actually moving, especially when that's going to mean moving across the continent to areas which have large amounts of mining.
Why are you assuming that the skills acquired in the course of mining only enable a person to find employment as a miner?
"Even if Donald Trump turns out to be not such a great President, which I don't think is the case, I think he's going to surround himself with really good people. But even if he didnt, we're only looking at four years as opposed to multiple generations, and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever."
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd think a lot of skills used in mining would translate to many "unskilled" labor type jobs.
While true, they wouldn't be getting paid nearly as well. Miners and other similarly dangerous jobs get a lot of hazard pay.
But lets keep pretending that taking a severe paycut or being forced to move makes up for this. Plus they'd still be entering an established field that's already going to be at equilibrium in terms of the jobs it can offer and the number of potential applicants.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd think a lot of skills used in mining would translate to many "unskilled" labor type jobs.
While true, they wouldn't be getting paid nearly as well. Miners and other similarly dangerous jobs get a lot of hazard pay.
But lets keep pretending that taking a severe paycut or being forced to move makes up for this. Plus they'd still be entering an established field that's already going to be at equilibrium in terms of the jobs it can offer and the number of potential applicants.
I'm not. If you look at my post on the subject (only one other than this), you'd see that I have made no statements in that vein. Perhaps your comments would be better directed elsewhere.
Ouze wrote: I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.
Sure... okay.
I don't recall Billy 'o Clinton wielding the governmental hatchet like Obama did (or Hillary's claiming to do).
He said he was suspending his campaign during his FL concession speech. It was his best speech of his entire candidacy. Not being flip here, it was a good speech and suggested he could have been a strong general election candidate.
He holds them until the convention. If nobody gets to the magic number needed for the nomination outright, he can release them to vote for other candidates in the subsequent convention votes.
curran12 wrote: So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?
Generally speaking... stays with him.
There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.
There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...
curran12 wrote: So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?
Generally speaking... stays with him.
There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.
There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...
If so, prepare for riots.
I'm no expert but I thought that delegates are bound until the first floor vote at the convention and after that everyone is unbound for the following votes.
curran12 wrote: So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?
Generally speaking... stays with him.
There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.
There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...
If so, prepare for riots.
I'm no expert but I thought that delegates are bound until the first floor vote at the convention and after that everyone is unbound for the following votes.
The RNC Rules Committees will have THREE chance prior to the convention to update/change the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?
Lemme back track there...
Under Rule 16(a)(2) of the current RNC rules, Rubio's (and assuming other dropped canddiates) delegates are no longer bound to him on the first ballot.
d-usa wrote: That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.
Ah... yeah, good point.
Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.
I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.
So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.
d-usa wrote: That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.
Ah... yeah, good point.
Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.
I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.
So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.
Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.
d-usa wrote: That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.
Ah... yeah, good point.
Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.
I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.
So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.
Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.
Maybe they will pass a rule that says nobody with the first names of Ted or Donald is eligible for nomination in 2016? One can dream.
As to dropping out vs. suspending: the reason candidates suspend is because of campaign financing. They need time in order to pay off outstanding debts and bills before they close up shop. I don't think it really affects delegates.
d-usa wrote: That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.
Ah... yeah, good point.
Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.
I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.
So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.
Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.
Maybe they will pass a rule that says nobody with the first names of Ted or Donald is eligible for nomination in 2016? One can dream.
As to dropping out vs. suspending: the reason candidates suspend is because of campaign financing. They need time in order to pay off outstanding debts and bills before they close up shop. I don't think it really affects delegates.
That's plausible... but keep in mind, these rules are *wonkey*.
Automatically Appended Next Post: via 538's live blog:
ANNE LI 10:28 PM Where do Rubio’s delegates go?
Are they released and free to vote for whomever they choose? Nope, that would be too easy. What happens to a departed candidate’s delegates depends on the delegate’s state, and those details are fuzzy and complicated.
For example, Rubio’s seven now-released delegates from Kentucky must convene in a meeting with bound delegates in which they will vote in a secret ballot to reallocate Rubio’s delegates to another candidate. Some states release delegates to support whomever they choose at the convention (for example, New Hampshire and Tennessee). Other states continue to bind delegates to the withdrawn candidate (Iowa), or they reallocate the delegates among the remaining candidates as if the withdrawn delegate had never qualified (Alaska).
There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.
According to ABC, Rubio had 163 delegates at the time of his withdrawal (our delegate tracker reports a slightly different number) and 23 are still bound to Rubio. What happens to the rest of his delegates will prompt the first large-scale delegate fight of the election season.
The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.
1. "They" don't create jobs, "we" do. As has already been mentioned, it is those who actually spend money who create more jobs. There is literally ZERO way for Mark Cuban to buy enough McD's to "create" jobs, unless he's literally giving them away. It's been proven time and time again that it is the middle class and the poor who create jobs, we're the sorry saps who spend money all the damn time.
2. There is a fine line between outright greed, and good business sense. Like I said, the Waltons can "give up" a billion dollars, contrary to what they may believe. Look at the CEO of Costco. He's made it a long term business practice to break the "business rules" in that he pays decent wages to all workers, and keeps prices low. Surely he could be raking in as much dough as the Waltons do, but he doesn't. I know by your logic, he doesn't practice "smart business," but at the same time, it is pretty much the most successful grocery chain in the US (not to mention the most plentiful pizza chain)
I'm not asking all the billionaires to suddenly give away millions/billions every year, the way Bill Gates does (and I know that sometimes this is a bit dubious), I'm asking/demanding that those CEOs realize who the feth pays their bills, and who keeps the nation's economy running, because it isn't them. The whole idea of trickle down, and "I can't raise wages because then I'll have to raise prices" is bull gak. The ONLY people who can really make that excuse, are the little mom and pop shops.
Further, someone up thread mentioned property taxes for businesses like McD's and the like... Well, most of them don't. As in, they do not pay taxes to the state, much less federal government. Of the retail stores, Walmart again tends to be among the worst for this. One location in Oregon owes over $2 million per year in property taxes for the location it sits on, and hasn't paid a dime in over ten years. Add in the many other hundreds and thousands of locations around the country where undoubtedly the same thing is happening, and you get an idea of the ridiculous tax burden you are shouldering for "Low Prices." This doesn't even take into account how 84% of people on Welfare programs nationwide are working at least one job.
To answer an earlier question regarding who Rubio's delegates go to now that he is out: the answer is evidently complicated and based on the state that awarded the delegates. This is from the live blog on 538:
"Where do Rubio’s delegates go?
Are they released and free to vote for whomever they choose? Nope, that would be too easy. What happens to a departed candidate’s delegates depends on the delegate’s state, and those details are fuzzy and complicated.
For example, Rubio’s seven now-released delegates from Kentucky must convene in a meeting with bound delegates in which they will vote in a secret ballot to reallocate Rubio’s delegates to another candidate. Some states release delegates to support whomever they choose at the convention (for example, New Hampshire and Tennessee). Other states continue to bind delegates to the withdrawn candidate (Iowa), or they reallocate the delegates among the remaining candidates as if the withdrawn delegate had never qualified (Alaska).
There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.
According to ABC, Rubio had 163 delegates at the time of his withdrawal (our delegate tracker reports a slightly different number) and 23 are still bound to Rubio. What happens to the rest of his delegates will prompt the first large-scale delegate fight of the election season."
Edit: damn ninja by Whembly. You are too quick, my friend.
There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.
I was gonna respond with, "wouldn't they just go to the next guy down the line?" but then I remembered, Rubio hasn't really done all that well and not won very many states, so that kind of falls apart.
It does seem odd to me that the "delegate" is a literal single person, as opposed to a more abstract notion of a vote. At least under an abstract "vote" system, you could conceivably come up with a math equation to solve who gets what delegates.
There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.
I was gonna respond with, "wouldn't they just go to the next guy down the line?" but then I remembered, Rubio hasn't really done all that well and not won very many states, so that kind of falls apart.
It does seem odd to me that the "delegate" is a literal single person, as opposed to a more abstract notion of a vote. At least under an abstract "vote" system, you could conceivably come up with a math equation to solve who gets what delegates.
It's always been this way.
Think about it, before mass media, would the party officials in WA know who the feth this FL candidate is like?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pucker factor ya'll:
Just in: With 77 percent of precincts reporting in Missouri, Cruz pulls ahead of Trump, 41.7 percent to 41.6 percent.
Cruz wins MO... almost a given of a contested convention.
:fingers crossed:
Automatically Appended Next Post: And with 99% in... looks like Trump won MO stateside primary vote by something like 0.3%.
What a squeaker.
That means, he gets the states-wide delegate (12 I believe) and splits the rest with Cruz.
Trumps is barely on track to the 1237 minimum. If Cruz/Kasich have just one really good day/state, then Contested Convention is very possible.
Kilkrazy wrote: A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.
Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.
Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.
jmurph wrote: Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Nah, protesting Trump is never about hurting his primary numbers. Fringe politics is never about being useful. It's about being righteous.
Kilkrazy wrote: A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.
Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.
Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.
Does anyone know the cost of a Thorium based reactor? A few places have said it is fairly cheaper and I know it was in the news recently as being extremely feasible.
whembly wrote: Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
Except that is the exact opposite of what Clinton said. She isn't picking winners and losers, we all know there will be job losses in Pennsylvania coal whether there's greenhouse policies or not, what Clinton has said is that she will offset those losses with new green jobs in that very area.
Now, you make a good point that Clinton will be unlikely to deliver all of the green tech jobs to that one area. Congress is what it is, and if this bill gets up it'll only get there by spreading those jobs around in a good old fashioned pork barrel. But to have that conversation, first you have to be honest about what Clinton actually said.
whembly wrote: Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
Except that is the exact opposite of what Clinton said. She isn't picking winners and losers, we all know there will be job losses in Pennsylvania coal whether there's greenhouse policies or not, what Clinton has said is that she will offset those losses with new green jobs in that very area.
Now, you make a good point that Clinton will be unlikely to deliver all of the green tech jobs to that one area. Congress is what it is, and if this bill gets up it'll only get there by spreading those jobs around in a good old fashioned pork barrel. But to have that conversation, first you have to be honest about what Clinton actually said.
Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.
Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.
Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.
Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.
I have listened to the actual words... I will agree with you that it was a callous remark, but it most definitely wasn't a flub. In fact, I haven't actually looked at ANY articles or "spin" to gain any more opinion on the matter.
Kilkrazy wrote: A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.
Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.
Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.
I think that the problem many people have is what I've underlined. I personally have some issue with a contract that is so easily breached. I mean, if I sign a contract for a company to design and build a fence, and they say it will cost $650, it had better not be one cent more. I would think that in an industry as regulated as power generation (whether it's a coal plant, or nuclear plant), calculating costs shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially given that most large projects build in a certain percentage of "things going wrong" into the estimate before work even begins.
whembly wrote: See that? That's moving the goal-post. I hope you have enough gretchins to pull it.
No, it’s putting the situation in proper context, to show the Republican con job. 50,000 jobs go from coal mining, Republican silence. Another 50,000 jobs go to automation, and Republicans continue to push for tax breaks on automation. 70,000 more jobs disappear, and more Republican silence. Then Clinton talks about coal mining jobs going and replacing them with green tech jobs, and suddenly Republicans care about coal mining jobs?
However, I draw the line when it's pushed without any goddamn consideration of such impact. You don't simply "replace jobs" 1-to-1 that these politician insinuates. These miners isn't going to suddenly mine coals one day, then get trained/skilled to work in the green sector.
A lot of the Fed money is for re-training. And much of the job protection is in subsidiary industries. When a coal mine closes there’s more jobs lost in the nearby towns, the supermarkets, auto mechanics and everyone else who was providing services and products to coal workers. If new green tech industries develop in those towns
Please don't construe this as, hurr-hurr ignore whembly 'cuz he hates anything Clinton. Just for once, acknowledge that this is a goof.
It isn’t a goof to talk about actual policy. Any time politicians give actual substance then there’ll be scare campaigns. By following your line of thinking, that means any time a politician says something with some substance behind it it’s a goof.
That probably does explain the Republican debates…
A) Biggest hurdle is getting new license.
The biggest hurdle is $20 billion dollars, for plant that won’t start generating revenue for 5+ years. Doing that in an unknown energy future is incredibly risky.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised that it *is* the natural gas/oil industries donating to politicians to push the coal industries out.
The trick is that you shouldn’t just speculate about stuff that’d make you feel better about your existing political biases. You should go out and actually find out. As luck would have it…
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E01++
91% of Oil and Gas money goes to Republican candidates. 9% to Democrats. Democrats did receive about 40% back in 1990, but that’s been on a steady trend downwards for 26 years, that’s almost certainly explained by the Democrat’s acceptance of climate change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: and even on pure numbers these green power jobs will be less than the coal jobs(because a big part of coal is the actual mining, which doesn't have an equivalent in solar, wind, etc...).
Have you ever seen numbers for the number of man hours per kwt of energy produced under various forms of tech? Or did you just make whatever guess best suits your argument? You did the latter, because of course you did.
Anyhow, now that that's sorted, green tech is actually a larger employer per kwt. This should be fairly obvious, on account of it being more expensive per kwt. That's what makes things pricier, the labour that goes in to production. It isn't simply more labour intensive to build and install solar panels and wind turbines than it is to mine and burn coal. That's what coal has had going for it all this time - it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because it uses less labour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: That's my point. She's deluded if she thinks she can just replace those jobs overnight.
Who said overnight? Why did you just make that up? Stop fething making things up to try and invent reasons to complain a policy you haven't even read.
Yes, it was a gaff on her part. 100%
The fact that you disagree with a policy for poorly thought through reasons doesn't make it a gaff.
Anyone remember when all the conservatives, including those on dakka, were complaining about 'gotcha journalism'? It was back when people were just pointing out the extraordinarily stupid stuff that Sarah Palin was saying. Now we've gone to a period of conservatives trying to convince themselves they scored a 'gotcha' on Clinton, when she just stated a policy. Funny how it works.
The Illinois democratic race is very close, hillary is only leading by about 2 percent with a 91 percent reporting rate. Kinda funny since the tribune was reporting a percentage in the 60 40 range in favor of hillary a few days ago
Ouze wrote: I think the closer fight would be Clinton vs Trump, because she has all the same problems as Trump does, but with some additional ones all of her own - she would substantially increase GOP turnout while. My gutsy feeling is that she would win, but man, it would be very close and I certainly would not put money on it.
Maybe, but the thing to remember is that the Republicans have been working on Clinton since 1992. Whatever they've got has already been thrown. Whereas Sanders has skated through pretty much unscathed, Clinton has barely attacked him because she's been leading by enough that she's more concerned about wooing his voters for the general. And Republicans haven't attacked him because they've assumed Clinton would be the candidate.
Do you remember how rosy Obama looked, until a few upset primary wins meant Clinton turned on him, and then later the Republicans turned. By the end of that Republicans voted against him in large numbers, despite the basic reality that he's centre left at most, Republicans built a narrative that the guy was some kind of crazy radical posing a massive threat to the country. Given Sanders actual policy positions Republicans will have a much easier time convincing themselves to be very scared about him.
I'm not saying that will definitely happen in Sanders is nominated. I'm just saying we shouldn't mistake Sanders current brand and low fear factor among Republicans, will what it will be by November, if he won the primary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.
While quantitative studies are fairly rare, what studies there have been have showed very few job losses compared to what theoretical models predicted. And even those model predictions were far less than what you suggest.
But by all means, just keep making up stuff you'd like to believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And, furthermore, Green Energy are notoriously cost prohibitive to implement in a large scale right now. Hence why Coal/Natural gas power plants are thing.
Once again, the scale thing is a mistake. Green tech doesn't need to operate in massive plants, the tech doesn't require it.
Once Green Energy can compete on it's own, all things being equal, then we'd see more efforts to adopt these technologies and move away from the legacy power plants.
We're seeing it now. While the $/kw isn't there, the smaller scale and adaptability of green tech is making them a preferred solution in many situations. It's somewhat akin to steel manufacturing, where minimills have much poorer $/ton figures, but have expanded while large consolidated mills have declined, because the latter needs vast scale and loads of supporting infrastructure.
This guy was put on Time magazine as the face that'd rebuild the party. This is the guy that Republican insiders liked so much that they convinced themselves 3rd place in the Iowa primary was really a win.
And now he ends his campaign, unable to get voters to pick him over Trump or Cruz.
All a bit of a farce, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: What do you guys think the likelihood of trump getting the most votes, but not the 1237 or whatever he needs? Because that could be interesting.
It's looking like the most likely outcome.
538 made the interesting point that Ohio kind of works for and against Cruz. It denied Trump 66 delegates that could have been decisive, but it also means Kasich will stay in the race, which could cost Cruz in future primaries.
Also, you guys might like this.
Spoiler:
Brilliant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.
I haven't read any spin, I've read nothing outside of what you posted, and then I just applied what I already knew about coal mining job losses to date.
Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.
She was honest that there will be job losses. Because of course there will. The opposite statement, something like "this industry that's gone through three decades of consistent job losses and now employs less than a third of its peak employment will suddenly became a job creator" wouldn't just be spin, it'd be delusional nonsense. Politicians don't want to talk about reality, and they can't say something as silly as pretend there'll be new jobs in coal, so instead they just... don't talk about.
Clinton actually did talk about it. She stated that ongoing job losses were a reality, and tried to counter that with a policy about new green jobs in the region. And the response from you and other Republicans has been to play gotcha. It explains why so many politicians say nothing of substance.
And it also shows why I have so little sympathy when people complain that politicians never talk honestly. Because when they do people like you line up to use that honesty as a points scoring exercise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that the problem many people have is what I've underlined. I personally have some issue with a contract that is so easily breached. I mean, if I sign a contract for a company to design and build a fence, and they say it will cost $650, it had better not be one cent more. I would think that in an industry as regulated as power generation (whether it's a coal plant, or nuclear plant), calculating costs shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially given that most large projects build in a certain percentage of "things going wrong" into the estimate before work even begins.
I know what you're saying, it is frustrating that the contracting party almost never makes a loss, over-runs always come out of the taxpayer's purse. But I understand why those over-runs happen, there's a difference between a fence and a multi-stage, five year construction, the latter includes a lot of estimates that are close to unknowable by the time they'll actually be needed.
And then the reality is that if a contractor was responsible for those unknowns, the risk factor they'd price in to their costings would be much higher. If there's a 10% chance they might face a billion $ loss then they're going to bump their price up $500 million, just to make the risk worthwhile. Government is better able to absorb those losses, so for a cheaper initial price it accepts over-runs.
The sticking point is where you get the line between cost over-runs and bad contract management, what is what, and so who has to pay. Believe me, I've sat in that many meetings with our infrastructure guys and there's, everyone bashing out which party is responsible for this thing or that. And the unfortunate reality is that in most cases their infrastructure guys are better than our infrastructure guys.
Honestly, is there anything about the primary that hasn't been a farce for months now? It's really easy most of the time to poke fun at the Republican party for the sheer amount of ludicrous nonsense it and its base so readily embrace, but the past few months in particular have been kind of mind blowing. I remember that thread we had "the other side is not dumb" and it was nice talking about how sometimes differences really are just differences, but Jesus Christ have the past few months just gakked all over that XD
Its way behind where he needed to be if he wants a real shot at winning. He would basically need to start blowing Clinton out in the upcoming elections 70-30 in big states to have any sort of shot at this point because of the proportional delegate allocation. That won't happen as most of the rest of the big states are closed primaries (independents can't vote). He will stay in til the end since he will have the cash and will win some more states, but he is pretty much relegated to being an issue candidate, not a serious threat to win at this point. He started today further behind where Clinton was to Obama at this time in 2008 and ended even further behind.
They don't have anything left to do. The GOP is too stupid to understand why they're in the political mess that they're in, so if Hillary becomes President they're going to do what they always do and try to wreck her term(s) while catering to far-right loonies as much as possible in preparation for the next election.
Opinions on if the GOP in the Congress will pull the same gak they did with Obama and be obstructionist twit waffles?
Pfft... you don't have to be Nostradamus, have a Magic 8 Ball or read entrails to know that gak is going to continue with Clinton in office.
I personally think one of two things will eventually happen: moderate or far-right "republicans" will get sick of the other part of their party's gak, and there will be a total melt-down resulting in a right of center party (Dems), moderately further right of center ("republicans"), and REALLY far right (tea party, libertarians, fascists, whatever). OR, the party antics will continue to a point where people get sick of it, vote out the clowns and return to sense, OR the party comes to near meltdown, but is saved in the end by a single "sensible" person.
BlaxicanX wrote: They don't have anything left to do. The GOP is too stupid to understand why they're in the political mess that they're in, so if Hillary becomes President they're going to do what they always do and try to wreck her term(s) while catering to far-right loonies as much as possible in preparation for the next election.
We can only hope. Hillary will be a disaster if she isn't checked. She'll probably be a disaster anyway.
I think there is only so far obstructionism goes. I think a good example of this is the blockade, sight unseen, of any SCOTUS nominee that Obama picks. The last poll I saw showed this being pretty unpopular with a general sample of registered voters. It's one thing to not vote for the nominee - that's the game. Not even holding hearings is new, and people being elected and paid salaries at taxpayer expense to not do their job isn't something that I think is going to resonate well. 2 out of 3 people polled didn't support Kim Davis, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum.
I mean, I could be wrong, but I feel like this is a losing stance. The last time they fully embraced obstructionism was Waterloo, the next one could be a senate loss.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, is there anything about the primary that hasn't been a farce for months now? It's really easy most of the time to poke fun at the Republican party for the sheer amount of ludicrous nonsense it and its base so readily embrace, but the past few months in particular have been kind of mind blowing. I remember that thread we had "the other side is not dumb" and it was nice talking about how sometimes differences really are just differences, but Jesus Christ have the past few months just gakked all over that XD
I’ve been waiting for the Republican party to hit rock bottom and start returning to sanity since around 2004. They have not only managed to find new depths each time, they appear to be actually accelerating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Its way behind where he needed to be if he wants a real shot at winning.
Yeah, all at once Sanders is ahead of expectations, but well behind in where he needs to be to win.
He will stay in til the end since he will have the cash and will win some more states, but he is pretty much relegated to being an issue candidate, not a serious threat to win at this point.
It's worth remembering Sanders entered this race to drag Clinton and the debate in general further to the left. He's well and truly achieved that goal.
That’s what I was trying to say to the Sanders supporters like 50 pages ago – don’t get excited hoping for a win that’s basically not going to happen, because then the Sanders campaign might seem like a failure. Look at what’s been done in terms of the national conversation on equality, trade and other issues, and use that to build on future campaigns.
TheMeanDM wrote: Opinions on if the GOP in the Congress will pull the same gak they did with Obama and be obstructionist twit waffles?
If Clinton, or anyone other than a Republican wins office, the Republicans in congress will obstruct. The alternative to obstruction is dealing with the other side, and that means compromise, giving something to get something. But the Republicans can’t give to get, because there’s no coherent set of policies they actually want to get. The platform is basically ‘grr bad Democrats’ + ‘tax cuts’. Anything else comes and goes to suit the political needs of the moment, none of it means anything.
Tax cuts aren’t viable, especially the Republican tax cuts that are almost all at the top end. So there’s nothing else. So they obstruct.
I read an interesting article in The Spectator (UK political and current affairs magazine.) To precis it, Trump is picking up a lot of votes because there is a wide-spread feeling among lower and middle class Americans than the country is in the gak; their wages are static or falling, their jobs are insecure, the economy is in the crapper, infrastructure is dilapidated and getting worse, and abroad American power and prestige has fallen around the world.
A lot of this is based on fact. Some of it channels into worries about immigration and Islamic terrorism, but above all, it channels into a generalised anger at politics as usual. Trump is the candidate of not politics as usual, plus he's anti-immigration and anti-Islam, so he's attracting a lot of these voters.
To go on to the Green Energy tangent again...
The new UK reactor is projected to cost about £20 billion = about $30 billion US.
The project is in trouble because the Chinese and French government owned companies selected to build the reactor are not sure they can raise the money. The UK government does't want to pay for it because of national debt. The eventual income stream is based on the UK government guaranteeing to buy electricity from the reactor at double the market price for 30 years.
The trouble is, this kind of long term project simply cannot be accurately costed, because there are too many variables over too long a time period. Who knows the price of concrete and steel in five years from now? Obviously companies will try to hedge it by buying futures, but this often can go wrong. Who knows if the French and Chinese governments will be able and willing to support their end of the deal? Who knows if electricy demand will require the power from this reactor in 10 or 20 years? Electricity use has been dropping in the UK, partly due to green tech and partly due to more heavy industry closing (steel plants, etc.) What about cost of skilled labour? Where are they going to come from?
It's all a bit of a gamble, and it's a bit of a very big gamble because it's such a big project.
motyak wrote: So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.
So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.
He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.
Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.
motyak wrote: So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.
So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.
He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.
Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.
I don't think you can really compare the coverage he gets as a presidential candidate to that of a member of the Senate.
In the senate he has to compete with a lot more other people vying for attention, giving him less airtime. When it comes down to it, the media is going to run a story about the senator who is calling for a governmental shutdown over the senator calling for free education because the former gets them more ad revenue.
As a presidential candidate, he doesn't have to worry about that. Sure, the media will still cover the idiot with the weird hair but they will also give him some coverage, whereas they would only run a single "Senator says something" story.
The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.
1. "They" don't create jobs, "we" do. As has already been mentioned, it is those who actually spend money who create more jobs. There is literally ZERO way for Mark Cuban to buy enough McD's to "create" jobs, unless he's literally giving them away. It's been proven time and time again that it is the middle class and the poor who create jobs, we're the sorry saps who spend money all the damn time.
2. There is a fine line between outright greed, and good business sense. Like I said, the Waltons can "give up" a billion dollars, contrary to what they may believe. Look at the CEO of Costco. He's made it a long term business practice to break the "business rules" in that he pays decent wages to all workers, and keeps prices low. Surely he could be raking in as much dough as the Waltons do, but he doesn't. I know by your logic, he doesn't practice "smart business," but at the same time, it is pretty much the most successful grocery chain in the US (not to mention the most plentiful pizza chain)
I'm not asking all the billionaires to suddenly give away millions/billions every year, the way Bill Gates does (and I know that sometimes this is a bit dubious), I'm asking/demanding that those CEOs realize who the feth pays their bills, and who keeps the nation's economy running, because it isn't them. The whole idea of trickle down, and "I can't raise wages because then I'll have to raise prices" is bull gak. The ONLY people who can really make that excuse, are the little mom and pop shops.
Further, someone up thread mentioned property taxes for businesses like McD's and the like... Well, most of them don't. As in, they do not pay taxes to the state, much less federal government. Of the retail stores, Walmart again tends to be among the worst for this. One location in Oregon owes over $2 million per year in property taxes for the location it sits on, and hasn't paid a dime in over ten years. Add in the many other hundreds and thousands of locations around the country where undoubtedly the same thing is happening, and you get an idea of the ridiculous tax burden you are shouldering for "Low Prices." This doesn't even take into account how 84% of people on Welfare programs nationwide are working at least one job.
'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs. Yes, if demand dries up, the business and the jobs go away. But there is plenty of demand NOT creating jobs, because the demand can't be met while generating enough profit for it to be worth someone dumping in capital and starting the business needed (and providing the jobs) to meet the demand. Inner city 'food deserts' are a good example. There is demand not being met, regardless of the available consumers, and jobs that don't exist to meet that demand regardless of the available consumers. Why? Because for a variety of reasons the profit motive is not great enough for someone to invest in business (which provide jobs...) which leaves the demand unmet.
motyak wrote: So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.
So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.
He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.
Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.
I don't think you can really compare the coverage he gets as a presidential candidate to that of a member of the Senate.
In the senate he has to compete with a lot more other people vying for attention, giving him less airtime. When it comes down to it, the media is going to run a story about the senator who is calling for a governmental shutdown over the senator calling for free education because the former gets them more ad revenue.
As a presidential candidate, he doesn't have to worry about that. Sure, the media will still cover the idiot with the weird hair but they will also give him some coverage, whereas they would only run a single "Senator says something" story.
Yeah, I agree tha there's no comparison in coverage between a presidential candidate and a sitting senator. So the question in my mind is now that it's becoming more and more certain that Sanders won't be able to beat Clinton, since Sanders has admirably put his money where his mouth is and is totally dependent on small private contributions, what are his contributors getting or their money other than more airtime for Bernie, and is that in and of itself a reason to continue to solicit money from them?
Barack Obama, in the unlikely event you're reading this, do your country one last service:
Come January, take off your tie, wrap it round your forehead Jimi Hendrix style, stock up on DVD boxsets and canned food, lock the White house doors, turn your speakers to 11, and refuse to leave!
Barack Obama, in the unlikely event you're reading this, do your country one last service:
Come January, take off your tie, wrap it round your forehead Jimi Hendrix style, stock up on DVD boxsets and canned food, lock the White house doors, turn your speakers to 11, and refuse to leave!
That is actually what many Trump supporters think Obama is going to do. Lets see, Jade Helm 15 was Obama prepping for his 3rd term, the Trump rally protests are being started by Obama to prevent Trump from running so he can get his 3rd term, Obama is going to turn the country over to his Muslim brothers..etc etc. Obama should just have Airforce One drop him and his family off somewhere calm, quiet and warm bedore America getting weird.
So with Rubio dropping out last night, who thinks it wasn't from the race but from politics? Its going to be pretty damn hard to politically recover from the embarassment Trump has given Rubio.
" In addition to forbidding volunteers from disparaging Trump, the contract also includes a sentence that demands volunteers prevent their employees from criticizing Trump, thus making volunteers responsible for the free speech of others for an indeterminate amount of time."
As the linked article says no way this could be enforced in court right ?
In contract law, there is no contract without consideration being exchanged. In this contract, the volunteer gives Trump his time and work, and in exchange Trump gives him... nothing.
Therefore there is no contract and the terms and conditions are not enforceable.
Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court By Kevin Liptak, Ariane de Vogue and Manu Raju, CNN Updated 10:40 AM ET, Wed March 16, 2016
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, multiple congressional sources tell CNN, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer, he supervised investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing.
Senate Republicans do not plan to vet or have hearings on the nominee, and say the next President should be able to choose Scalia's replacement. Obama and Democrats argue that with 10 months left in his term, there is plenty of time for the Senate to take up and confirm a new justice.
Obama will formally unveil his pick at 11 a.m. ET in the White House Rose Garden, he told supporters in an email Wednesday.
"I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision," Obama wrote. "I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we've reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously."
Obama's announcement amplifies the ongoing political battle over the precedent and propriety of considering a Supreme Court nomination amid a heated presidential election.
The announcement comes after a big night in the 2016 election, with both party's front-runners -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump -- emerging with sweeping victories as they march toward their respective nominations. Some believed Obama would time his pick so it wouldn't get lost in a news cycle dominated by election results. But the timing seems suited to directly insert the selection into the political conversation.
Fueling the argument is the potential for the first shift in the court's ideological leaning in two decades. If confirmed, Obama's nominee will likely offer a vastly different legal outlook that Scalia, who was considered one of the court's most conservative members.
At 63, Garland is much older than the other contenders on the short list such as Judges Sri Srinivasan, Paul Watford and Jane Kelly. Garland's supporters argue he is the nominee that the senators couldn't refuse even in a contentious environment. "He's the establishment of the establishment," one backer said.
Obama has said his goal was to find a "consensus candidate."
"It is my intention to nominate somebody who has impeccable credentials, somebody who should be a consensus candidate," Obama told CNN en Español anchor Juan Carlos Lopez in an interview last week.
This is Obama's third nomination to the high court. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. But those confirmation hearings and votes occurred when Democrats were firmly in control of the Senate.
All eyes on Senate Republicans
Since Scalia's death and for the foreseeable future, the court has operated with eight justices, four appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, have both expressed little leeway in their determination to forgo hearings for Obama's nominee.
"We think the people should choose as we've said repeatedly," McConnell said Wednesday morning after word of Garland's selection was made public.
There have been dissenters on the Republican side, particularly from moderate Republicans. But their ability to force hearings before the full judiciary panel appear slim.
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it will be difficult for them to change tactics now.
"I don't see how at this point they can go back on this promise," not to move on the nominee, Toobin said Wednesday morning.
A McConnell aide said noted the Kentucky senator voted against Garland when he was confirmed to the appeals court in 1997 and argued Obama's choice is a recognition that this pick not getting through -- otherwise the President would have picked a younger nominee who would serve longer.
Democrats, meanwhile, have already begun a campaign to pressure Republicans into considering Obama's nomination. In their sights: vulnerable senators up for reelection, some of whom are already facing backlash from opponents for refusing to consider even a hypothetical Obama nominee.
The White House launched a Twitter account, @SCOTUSnom, designed to promote the nomination as well.
Polls show most Americans support giving a nominee a congressional hearing. A CNN/ORC survey taken late last month indicated sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents want Senate Republican leaders to hold hearings on the nominee.
Grassley last week said the Senate retained a prerogative to forgo hearings for Obama's selection.
"It isn't any different if the President of the United States notifies Congress well in advance of a piece of legislation that he's going to veto it," Grassley said at a Judiciary panel hearing, citing criticism from Republicans over the role of the high court.
"Whether it's today or tomorrow or whether it's for the next seven or eight months, this is a very important debate that we ought to have about the Constitution and about not only who's going to be a replacement for Justice Scalia but about the role of the Supreme Court," he added. "At the grassroots of America, there's a real feeling of 'Is the Supreme Court doing what the Constitution requires?'"
Trump said he agrees with the stance of the Hill Republicans. "I think the next president should make the pick. And I think they shouldn't go forward. And I believe I'm pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday on "New Day."
The announcement comes 32 days after Scalia's death, only slightly longer than it took him to name his two previous appointments to the high court. Unlike his nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan, the vacancy this time wasn't expected. White House officials have said they weren't anticipating another Supreme Court nomination during Obama's term ahead of Scalia's death.
Obama oversaw a team led by his counsel Neil Eggleston, chief of staff Denis McDonough, and his senior adviser Brian Deese to select and vet a group of potential nominees. After conducting interviews last week, Obama narrowed his list to include Merrick, Watford and Srinivasan, each of them considered "consensus" candidates for their history in gaining confirmation support from Republicans.
Any replacement of Scalia has the power to tilt the ideological balance of the court for decades, something conservatives are using to move their base to hold the line.
"This seat could be transformational to the court because Justice Scalia's fidelity to the Constitution was a real anchor for the court. If he were replaced by an Obama nominee that would give the court a solid five votes for enacting an extremely liberal agenda that the American people will not be comfortable with," Carrie Severino, of Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative group opposed to any candidate getting a hearing until after the election. It would shift the court --that is somewhat balanced --to a liberal stronghold. She is a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Since Scalia's death, justices have been considering several major cases, including a challenge to public sector unions, a race-conscious admissions plan at the University of Texas, the first big abortion case since 2007, challenges to voting rights, the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate and a challenge to Obama's executive actions on immigration. Scalia's death means not only the loss of the court's main conservative voice but also increases the likelihood of a 4-4 split on controversial issues. If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court.
Pretty old for a pick - sacrificial lamb probably.
It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.
Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.
motyak wrote: So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.
So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.
He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.
Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.
I don't think you can really compare the coverage he gets as a presidential candidate to that of a member of the Senate.
In the senate he has to compete with a lot more other people vying for attention, giving him less airtime. When it comes down to it, the media is going to run a story about the senator who is calling for a governmental shutdown over the senator calling for free education because the former gets them more ad revenue.
As a presidential candidate, he doesn't have to worry about that. Sure, the media will still cover the idiot with the weird hair but they will also give him some coverage, whereas they would only run a single "Senator says something" story.
Yeah, I agree tha there's no comparison in coverage between a presidential candidate and a sitting senator. So the question in my mind is now that it's becoming more and more certain that Sanders won't be able to beat Clinton, since Sanders has admirably put his money where his mouth is and is totally dependent on small private contributions, what are his contributors getting or their money other than more airtime for Bernie, and is that in and of itself a reason to continue to solicit money from them?
You are paying for a political message you support to be dragged out of the wilderness and put int eh spotlight, thereby moving it onto the stage of relevance and something other candidates have to talk about too. Something about moving the Overton Window? It is a big deal and worth it for people who passionately believe in what Sanders is espousing, because before him their ideas weren't even on the radar.
djones520 wrote: It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.
Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.
I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.
But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?
So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.
djones520 wrote: It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.
Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.
I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.
But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?
So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.
@Easy E: Fair enough. I understand your point, I just don't like the idea that there are probably a whole lot of people who will contribute to Sanders thinking their money will help him beat Clinton, which at this point I think it's fair to say is a lost cause.
At this point, I think it would be better for Sanders to admit to his supporters that he's going to lose, and start asking them to eat the chicken even though they can't have the steak.
I don;t think his message has to change too much. Sanders has always said he was going the distance, and his main goal was to change the political conversation. His followers probably know this all ready.
However, I suspect his defeats will hurt his fund-raising, but we will see.
djones520 wrote: I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly
That isn't how our Senate does things these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: His followers probably know this all ready.
Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.
whembly wrote: Yup... very savvy move by Obama to put Pressure on the Senate GOPright afterTrump's Primary win.
I presume that is sarcasm, but actually it might be a very savvy move.
We already know the majority public opinion is that a new Judge needs to get appointed. GOP will spend the next 10 months operating "business as usual" politics to refuse to consider Obama's candidate, thus looking like utter knobs. This makes Trump look all the more attractive to anti-establishment Republican voters, so he gets the nomination. However Trump's support, though solid, is limited. As the election comes closer, more and more soft Republicans will realise what a horrible disaster Trump would be, and in the end they will vote for the Clinton-Sanders ticket to keep him out.
djones520 wrote: It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.
Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.
I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.
But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?
So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.
Glad you got that sorted.
And based on Garland's past cases on the Appellate Ct... he ain't no friend on the 2nd amendment.
Here's how Trump could win my vote, and probably the vote of a lot of former #NeverTrumps:
Give us a list of 3 or 4 names. Swear on all that's holy in such an absolute manner... that you'll nominate to SCOTUS only names from that list.
If all of them are constitutional conservatives, in the mold of, say, Thomas, I'll vote for him.
Otherwise, I don't know whether I'll order the gak sandwich with mustard, or the gak sandwich with pickles.
Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.
I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.
djones520 wrote: It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.
Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.
I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.
But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?
So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.
Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.
I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.
Sanders has a misguided heart of Gold.
Clinton is an influence peddler...
Trump is an influence buyer...
It's no wonder that Sander is enjoying some support.
Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.
I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.
She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.
He said he was suspending his campaign during his FL concession speech. It was his best speech of his entire candidacy. Not being flip here, it was a good speech and suggested he could have been a strong general election candidate.
Just watched this. I agree it was a decent speech. After seeing it, you might even allow yourself to forget that it was Rubio who turned the Republican Primary into a literal D-measuring competition.
'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs."
You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.
Interesting article on some of the reasons behind Trump's success in the polls, specifically relating to which of his policies people support.
Basically, among those republicans polled (I think at the voting stations) between 64-73% of them support the proposed ban on muslims entering the country. In Florida, 60% of those that supported the ban voted for Trump, whilst only 24% that opposed it voted for him.
Kilkrazy wrote: However Trump's support, though solid, is limited. As the election comes closer, more and more soft Republicans will realise what a horrible disaster Trump would be, and in the end they will vote for the Clinton-Sanders ticket to keep him out.
I'd suggest that the idea that Trump has limited support could be on the verge of wishful thinking. If news outlets are to be believed, he is drawing from Republicans, Democrats, and brand new voters.
She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.
Bernie has had no real traction with minorities or southern voters. She also has a huge advantage in funding.
Just watched this. I agree it was a decent speech. After seeing it, you might even allow yourself to forget that it was Rubio who turned the Republican Primary into a literal D-measuring competition.
One of Rubio's strengths was that he could articulate reasonable positions. Rubio was at his worst when he got in the mud. It cost him dearly.
Oh, and Kasich said no too, so that probably had a huge impact.
So Trump is at 652/1237 with Cruz holding 406 and Rubio potentially putting 169 delegates into play. With Rubio out, I would guess most of those would be voters go Cruz or Kasich in the next round of states. I would also guess Kasich could play spoiler in some of the moderate states. And Trump has struggled some in western states, though his numbers rose, on average, this round. It is looking like Trump is going to struggle to get to 1237 before the convention.
She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.
Bernie has had no real traction with minorities or southern voters. She also has a huge advantage in funding.
Just watched this. I agree it was a decent speech. After seeing it, you might even allow yourself to forget that it was Rubio who turned the Republican Primary into a literal D-measuring competition.
One of Rubio's strengths was that he could articulate reasonable positions. Rubio was at his worst when he got in the mud. It cost him dearly.
Oh, and Kasich said no too, so that probably had a huge impact.
So Trump is at 652/1237 with Cruz holding 406 and Rubio potentially putting 169 delegates into play. With Rubio out, I would guess most of those would be voters go Cruz or Kasich in the next round of states. I would also guess Kasich could play spoiler in some of the moderate states. And Trump has struggled some in western states, though his numbers rose, on average, this round. It is looking like Trump is going to struggle to get to 1237 before the convention.
It will be a struggle, but the upcoming primaries are going to be winner take all. Trump needs about 55% of the remaining delegates to get the magic number. With Cruz and Kasich still splitting the anti Trump vote, he could do it with a plurality, not a majority. Also, he is the only one to have cleared a basic rule the GOP has for their nominee: winning a majority of at least 8 primary's delegates. It won't be easy, by any means, but I think last night and the calendar made it easier for him.
It will be a struggle, but the upcoming primaries are going to be winner take all. Trump needs about 55% of the remaining delegates to get the magic number. With Cruz and Kasich still splitting the anti Trump vote, he could do it with a plurality, not a majority. Also, he is the only one to have cleared a basic rule the GOP has for their nominee: winning a majority of at least 8 primary's delegates. It won't be easy, by any means, but I think last night and the calendar made it easier for him.
I just want to point out that plurality doesn't matter.
If he can't get to 1237 delegates (50%+1 majority) in the first round, then, everyone get's a mulligan.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is anyone surprised by this Trump ad?
Thinking of all the jobs opening that would come from building the wall. South and North
ICE is going to plus up being we removed the extra Brigades per division....more jobs
USCIS hiring on Vet's more then Peace Corp
Trump going to find legal loop hole to get the US out of debt...
It will be a struggle, but the upcoming primaries are going to be winner take all. Trump needs about 55% of the remaining delegates to get the magic number. With Cruz and Kasich still splitting the anti Trump vote, he could do it with a plurality, not a majority. Also, he is the only one to have cleared a basic rule the GOP has for their nominee: winning a majority of at least 8 primary's delegates. It won't be easy, by any means, but I think last night and the calendar made it easier for him.
I just want to point out that plurality doesn't matter.
If he can't get to 1237 delegates (50%+1 majority) in the first round, then, everyone get's a mulligan.
I think you are misunderstanding me here (I could have been more clear, but it wasn't a gaffe ). He can get pluralities in the primaries of winner take all states and still win all of the delegates of those states. Yes, he needs a majority overall, but he can get that with pluralities in individual primaries.
As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees? You don't strike me as a one issue voter. What about nearly every other issue on which Trump has graced us with his well developed thoughts? His ideas of ordering American troops to commit war crimes? His nonsensical idea to round up millions of people and send them packing? His pie in the sky notion that somehow he will magically get Mexico to pay for a huuuuge beautiful wall across the southern border? His idea of increasing tariffs of goods coming from China to 45% (regardless of how much that will cost consumers of said products) is fine? His economic plan that the CBO says will increase the deficit by 10 trillion dollars in the next ten years is fine? The very idea of allowing this man to have his short stubby finger on the nuclear button doesn't automatically make you say "no way, no how"?
Edit: made some grammatical fixes and added a few question on trumps ridiculous ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is anyone surprised by this Trump ad?
Seems like a dumb move to try and make the argument about foreign policy. This is one of Trumps biggest downsides...no foreign policy experience.
Also, his admiration for Putin is unbecoming a potential US President. It's one thing to get all giddy over the dude in private, but does anyone seriously believe Putin would not use this to his advantage in US-Russia relations?
'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs."
You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.
