Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rick Perry - former Governor of Texas (aka Governor Blowdry) looks to be the short list guy for Sec of Energy. He'll be ok as long as you don't let him build any toll roads. Good in a crisis actually.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/13/trump-nominate-rick-perry-secretary-energy-reports-say/95363672/

https://www.instagram.com/p/5cPvgnmhdo/

realdonaldtrump.@GovernorPerry in my office last cycle playing nice and begging for my support and money. Hypocrite!

La plus ca change.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-22/rick-perry-torches-trump-candidacy-as-cancer-on-conservatism-

Rick Perry Torches Trump Candidacy as 'Cancer on Conservatism'

and this is the department he couldn't remember right ?

Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

Is it? It's just politics. Politicians are as fickle and flip-flopping as they come, Republican or not.

 Pouncey wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Just wait until the impeachment in two years or when he resigns in a year after realizing being Prez requires actual work.

Alternatively, Pence and Tiller may run things so well he's re-elected in a landslide.

Thing is, Pence isn't exactly a superstar. Possibly being the defacto POTUS is one helluva rise for kind of a mediocre career politician. He just looks like Teddy fething Roosevelt when standing next to the moron.

I hear Pence wants to bring back conversion therapy. My partner's name for it is, "beat the gay outta ya". He's read the stories to a few people who survived it, it's horrific enough that he didn't believe the first victim, but when similar stories kept cropping up from others... He spared me the details, except that it usually starts with the parents of a gay teenager consenting for strangers to kidnap their child.

Well, the good thing is that he's not King, or even Vice-King, and can't make whatever he wants just happen.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

Ted has always been all over the place. It's bad when I like John Kasich better - and we see where they stand.

Frazzled has been on point - yet hilarious ITT


So has Hillary is fully retired in the next year or so? She has the funds/following to try and stay relevant and in the game.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

Is it? It's just politics. Politicians are as fickle and flip-flopping as they come, Republican or not.

Yeah. And to be fair, there may be those looking to get involved because they want to help keep this administration from going completely pear-shaped.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

Is it? It's just politics. Politicians are as fickle and flip-flopping as they come, Republican or not.

Yeah but the Dems aren't the ones who've made a habit of presenting themselves as the resistance stopping the other side from dragging the country into the crapper (while sabotaging the country so they can complain about it later), and making a show of supposedly possessing strong moral fiber and the importance of character. So you know. Being utterly spineless kind of comes back to the GOP a bit more than the Dems because the Dems have never really made a habit of pretending not to be.

But I mean, posters have been trying to point this tree out for years.

Just a bit of levity to be filed under reality being stranger than fiction.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/canseco-tweets-trump-wants-to-be-next-fed-chairman/ar-AAltUSO?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies if this is has already been covered, but the guy that's suing the EPA...has just been appointed the head of the EPA?

While I agree with you that it is problematic, and I do NOT support the idea at all, it was pointed out by a friend of mine that he is not suing the EPA "in a vacuum." He is doing so at the behest of his state/constituencies within the state.

I still think that this should negate his ability to even be nominated, at least until it is resolved, but here we are.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, it's just pathetic watching these various Republicans selling their souls to get a job with Trump. Remember Ted Cruz's speech at the convention? And then that video of him working the phones for Trump on election day? Now Perry is bending over. Romney may as well just go hide in a cave now. It's just sad.

Is it? It's just politics. Politicians are as fickle and flip-flopping as they come, Republican or not.

Yeah but the Dems aren't the ones who've made a habit of presenting themselves as the resistance stopping the other side from dragging the country into the crapper (while sabotaging the country so they can complain about it later), and making a show of supposedly possessing strong moral fiber and the importance of character. So you know. Being utterly spineless kind of comes back to the GOP a bit more than the Dems because the Dems have never really made a habit of pretending not to be.

But I mean, posters have been trying to point this tree out for years.

They haven't? They sure use the term "fascists" a lot. Also did California secede yet?

I dunno, is Texas still around? :p

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, is Texas still around? :p

We're waiting for California to secede. Then maybe Washington and Oregon will follow. Then we can conquer them fair and square. They are full of hipsters. With their tight pants they can't duck. Should be a breeze. Then Cuba, then Mexico. Then the ultimate prize...Tahiti!

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Nah. This is where you must agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

It seems that you are continuing to refuse to defend your argument, because while you can't defend it, you still want to believe it is true.

I'll be honest mate - not good enough.

Fine... then my stubborn head will keep on clashing with your stubborn head.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yah... more dog pile!

So when I replied "No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want"... I was thinking of this tidbit:
Since Obama's first election... by my count:
- Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress
- Democrats have lost 12 state governorships
- Democrats have lost 30 state legislative chambers
- Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats

See my post above, Republican gains are more a sign of systemic advantage due to Republican gains coming in smaller states. Their actual gain in total votes is not much of the story.

At the state level it really comes down to energy, Republicans have been reliably voting in smaller elections in a way Democrats have not. Is that because Republicans have an inherent advantage in partisanship and energy that Democrats can't match? If so then Democrats will continue to struggle. Or alternatively, is it the result of not holding the presidency, which gave Republicans a strong motivating factor, while allowing Democrats to be complacent? If that is the case then you can expect Democratic gains to begin showing up in strong numbers in 2 or 4 years.

Of course it comes down to energy, state-by-state. With regards to the Presidential elections, you have to factor in that the President represent the United States, and the people within those respective states.

That's how federalism works.

The freaking whole point of the US Constitution is to prevent a concentration of power. The Founders understood that the only thing that can reliably check 'this' power is another 'equal' power.

If too much power is held by any group, institution or branch of government, then the other institutions and branches will not be able to stop them.

That's why it's imperiative for each branch to jealously guard their respective powers. (aka, Check and Balances amongst the Balance of Power).

Why do you think I'm constantly harping on how Congress has abdicated much of their power to the Executive Branch? Guess what... the Democrats won't be in power for ever... and now we have Cheeto Jesus. So it's going to be really, REALLY interesting to see the same folks contort themselves in some preztel logics in criticizing Drumpf, who were the same people defending Obama in doing the same thing. You just watch this thread....

With respect to my defense of the EC, I'm going to try to explain this as best as I can...

In US, when we talk about “collective rights” ... we're talking about the collective rights in a community (ie, township/cities/STATES). So, let's talk about the state. Coloradans have the right to live the way they want to live, so long as they don’t violate the constitutional rights of the Americans who live there. So, no slavery or Jim Crow laws or unlawful searches or forcing military to house in citizens homes,etc..... But that still leaves an enormous amount of wiggle room for Coloradans to do things that the people running the federal government at any given time may or may not like.

And that’s a good thing, because states (and the communities that make them up) have a better idea of how they want to live, on what will work for them... than people in DC.

This is why federalism, within US constitutional restraints, is awesome-sauce.

So to bring this all back together, the Electoral College was designed based on those principles of federalism. That's a good thing.

So. Please... acknowledge that we're coming at this with different perspectives with different opinions. You can disagree with me... so, walk away and agree with we're stubborn mules.

So... do you want to declare an impass?


Or, do you still want to tango?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, is Texas still around? :p

We're waiting for California to secede. Then maybe Washington and Oregon will follow. Then we can conquer them fair and square. They are full of hipsters. With their tight pants they can't duck. Should be a breeze. Then Cuba, then Mexico. Then the ultimate prize...Tahiti!

The west coast has quite a few military bases fraz. Rather be a hipster than a hee haw though.

Found this on FB, thought it looked interesting, it appears to confirm what I think about various news sources.



Edit: I wouldn't put Vox so high. I've read some pretty bad articles from them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, is Texas still around? :p

We're waiting for California to secede. Then maybe Washington and Oregon will follow. Then we can conquer them fair and square. They are full of hipsters. With their tight pants they can't duck. Should be a breeze. Then Cuba, then Mexico. Then the ultimate prize...Tahiti!

The west coast has quite a few military bases fraz. Rather be a hipster than a hee haw though.

Once you secede they won't be there.

You will be all alone...in the night.

 LordofHats wrote:
[
Yeah but the Dems aren't the ones who've made a habit of presenting themselves as the resistance stopping the other side from dragging the country into the crapper (.

Funny you should say that. Didn't a couple of Democrats (not politicians, but still Democrats) that just happened to make the new Rogue One Star Wars movie quite literally take to twitter and acclaim that Republicans are the Evil (all white) Empire, and Democrats are the Resistance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Found this on FB, thought it looked interesting, it appears to confirm what I think about various news sources.



Edit: I wouldn't put Vox so high. I've read some pretty bad articles from them.

I'd also pull Huffington and MSNBC down and a tad more left.

 cuda1179 wrote:


Funny you should say that.

Oh look being talked past again.

 feeder wrote:
Found this on FB, thought it looked interesting, it appears to confirm what I think about various news sources.

It's a decent chart, though I can't even remotely agree with the position of Vox, or Slate (I don't even know if I'd put the Guardian that high up either). Someone was being high when they slapped those logos there. Sometimes you do find really good stuff on both those sites, but it's like hunting for a sentence without a passive verb in something written by Stephanie Meyer. You'll find it, but it's a whole lot of just plain bad writing in between. EDIT: I'd put MSNBC and Huffpost lower too personally. I don't think either as large organizations really deserve to be called analytical (though Huffpost has some blogs that are).

so...yeah.

Head of education ?

New head of NASA maybe ?

Sunday :



Today





Perhaps' Trump's plan is to simply put all of you in the cabinet in some way, thus you will literally only have yourselves to blame.

Interesting interview last night by Pres. Obama:

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/dd2z7w/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-12--2016---president-barack-obama-season-22-ep-22036?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161213_722573891_The%20Daily%20Show_Site%20Link&linkId=32303662


Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)

Fret not : the physicist who was in charge of looking at that has been replaced by a guy who couldn't win Dancing With The Stars.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Interesting interview last night by Pres. Obama:

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/dd2z7w/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-12--2016---president-barack-obama-season-22-ep-22036?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161213_722573891_The%20Daily%20Show_Site%20Link&linkId=32303662


Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)

Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.

Major Garrett: Donald Trump chooses Rick Perry to be energy secretary

Me likey!

Probably need a handler to remind him of the dept name...

 reds8n wrote:
Fret not : the physicist who was in charge of looking at that has been replaced by a guy who couldn't win Dancing With The Stars.

Emitt Smith?

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Fret not : the physicist who was in charge of looking at that has been replaced by a guy who couldn't win Dancing With The Stars.

Emitt Smith?

Your old govenor

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Interesting interview last night by Pres. Obama:

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/dd2z7w/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-12--2016---president-barack-obama-season-22-ep-22036?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161213_722573891_The%20Daily%20Show_Site%20Link&linkId=32303662


Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)

Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.

That's the derpy, derp of all that is... conflating climate-change to anthropogenic activities.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Interesting interview last night by Pres. Obama:

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/dd2z7w/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-12--2016---president-barack-obama-season-22-ep-22036?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161213_722573891_The%20Daily%20Show_Site%20Link&linkId=32303662


Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)

Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.

That's the derpy, derp of all that is... conflating climate-change to anthropogenic activities.

Since you are the most reasonable climate change denier that I know, could you share with me the piece of info that convinced you that 90ish% of relevant scientists are wrong and that climate change is NOT connected man made activities?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Fret not : the physicist who was in charge of looking at that has been replaced by a guy who couldn't win Dancing With The Stars.

Emitt Smith?

Your old govenor

While no Ann Richards, he was a good governor: balanced budgets, handled natural disasters well, went out on a limb and staked put his career on the line for the HPV vaccine. Plus when he was pulled over once, while leaving he uttered one of the most epic lines ever recorded by the PoPo: "adios...mofo!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Since you are the most reasonable climate change denier that I know

-I don't deny climate change and I will take the complement. Can you ship some Horton's maple glaze donuts my way?

could you share with me the piece of info that convinced you that 90ish% of relevant scientists are wrong and that climate change is NOT connected man made activities?

-Er...what?
1. Climate has been continuously changing. Here are the issues:
A. for the next hundred years, what is it going to do? Lets leave out the hyperbole becuase the extremes have been disproven, as they usually are for everything.
B. Your argument is that it is connected. To what extent? Is it bad or good?
C. How do we best adapt to to A?

2. Note: imploding our economy is a nonstarter.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Interesting interview last night by Pres. Obama:

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/dd2z7w/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-12--2016---president-barack-obama-season-22-ep-22036?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161213_722573891_The%20Daily%20Show_Site%20Link&linkId=32303662


Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)

Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.

That's the derpy, derp of all that is... conflating climate-change to anthropogenic activities.

Since you are the most reasonable climate change denier that I know, could you share with me the piece of info that convinced you that 90ish% of relevant scientists are wrong and that climate change is NOT connected man made activities?

How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....

Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.

I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".

We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities could cause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.

And the answer, so far at any rate, is "very little". Furthermore, there's no measurable warming for the last 18+ years...

Here's a good article summarize the issues in touting the "97 percent".

If you want a good source that get into this debate, dig into this:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

Compilation of 770 papers refuting the consensus:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/03/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-agw-consensus-is-a-fantasy/#sthash.tAv9BYtG.dpbs

So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.