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.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
Did I say it was the "only" reason? No I didn't. Not even remotely, you just chose to go there.
But if you think that kind of non-stop, overly biased reporting...and Fox is mainstream compared to some of the right-wing nonsense sites out there...didn't have a material effect on the outcome of this election then you're the one in the bubble. The simple fact is that the desire for change is natural, when things aren't going well. However, the state of the nation, i.e. economy, employment, security, healthcare coverage, etc. has improved dramatically in the 8 years since Obama took the reigns from Dubya. So what dramatic change do we need? What is so horribly broken with our country that change must be mandated at any cost, even if it comes in the form of the unqualified dumbass about to take office? But to hear the incessant "The sky is falling." theme that just permeates Fox, you would think things are just cataclysmic and nothing is going right. That could not help but to have had a material effect on the mindsets of those who only tune in to it for their news...*see inauguration for proof. I've tried listening to their news and it's just skewed to the point of paranoia.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/19 15:14:10
The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does. His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
Well to be honest he did get Perry's major correct.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This week, President-elect Donald Trump named former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as his nominee for secretary of energy in Trump's forthcoming administration.
The Department of Energy, which requested a $32.5 billion budget in fiscal year 2017 and employed 13,814 staff members and numerous contractors in 2013, is primarily concerned with federal energy research. In particular, the DOE is responsible for the design, manufacturing and safe handling of the U.S. military nuclear arsenal. Current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is an accomplished nuclear and theoretical physicist, and his predecessors included Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu and Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemical engineer Samuel Bodman.
As the Daily Beast's Jeffrey Lewis noted Tuesday, while an undergraduate veterinary student at Texas A&M in the 1970s, Perry scored a D in a class simply titled "Meats."
The online syllabus for Texas A&M University's contemporary "Meats" course, ANSC 307 Meats, describes it as the integrated study of "the production of meat-type animals and the science and technology of their conversion to human food." Topics include "Meat inspection," "Kosher and halal," "Meat tenderness," "Meat color," while laboratories include "Pork evaluation" and "Ham manufacturing."
In an email to Mic, course instructor Dr. Jeffrey Savell explained ANSC 307 Meats is an advanced science class requiring students to demonstrate understanding of animal biology as well as regulatory and safety requirements in meat production.
"Animal Science 307 is a rigorous upper level science course that covers growth and development of food animals; antemortem and postmortem factors affecting meat quality; USDA inspection and regulatory requirements for the harvest and processing of livestock and muscle tissue; and the chemistry of meat color and preservation," Dr. Savell wrote.
According to a 2011 New York Times profile citing a version of Perry's transcript, Perry received two C's, a D, and an F in organic chemistry courses, and D's in economics, Shakespeare, veterinary anatomy and a class titled "Feeds & Feeding." Other grades included one A, a B, and two C's in "World Military Systems," two C's in "The Professional Officer," a C in a class appearing to deal with aeronautics, and a D in "Writing for Professional Men."
Perry eventually graduated with a degree in animal science before joining the U.S. Air Force, rising to the rank of captain, returning to farming and entering politics as a Democrat in 1984 in the Texas House of Representatives.
While as a former Air Force pilot Perry is likely familiar with some military technology, Perry has no graduate degrees and has presumably received no subsequent academic-level training in energy research or nuclear physics.
However, Perry did forget the name of the Department of Energy while listing it as one of three Cabinet-level federal agencies he would eliminate during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2011.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does. His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
DoE should have nothing to do with climate change. Thats an NOAA thing.
In contrast to the stupidity of the article, DoE also deals with domestic energy production, which is indeed an issue he would be familiar with, especially as the growth in "domestic energy production" is coming from his state.
Texas, we make energy here (and methane! oh the methane!)
"Remember, before hippies there were yippies" -From the Ballad of Frazzled.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/19 15:11:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
Nonsense. You dont need to show collusion. Nor is that the point of the article. All you have to see is the effect over time. Also, you dont need to show gerrymandering between the two elections. The point of the study is effects over time. If you are demanding to see changes over a short time then I am not sure why you reference the study at all.
This is, ill admit, sort of a chicken and egg argument. What happened first? Did dems take mine away and the area become non-competitive as a result or did they remove money because the areas become non-competitive?
Since politicians never cease trying to wrangle more money for reelections I am going to say the money didnt leave first. Unless, you think they all decided together to lose the jobs?
It's not a chicken or egg argument. Gerrymandering is an effect not a cause. Gerrymandering is when the state govt passes legislation to redraw the geographical boundaries of State and/or Federal legislative districts in a manner designed to favor a political party in the redrawn district.
Take my state of NC for example. In 2010 the Republicans won a majority both houses of the state legislature, it was the first time the Party controlled both in over 100 years. Once the Republicans had control over the state legislature they passed legislation to redraw districts to give Republicans an advantage, in this instance using race as a marker for Democrat support they redistricted to confine black majority neighborhoods into only a few districts in order to preserve a Republican voter advantage in other districts. That was passed in 2011 and then in 2012 Republicans won the governor's race as well as maintaining their control of the legislature so the gerrymandering was kept, but it was challenged in court and eventually the gerrymandering was overturned this year which is why some districts have to revote in special elections in 2017 because those districts are reverting back to their pre gerrymandered areas. In order for gerrymandering to happen one Party has to gain enough control to redistrict in a favorable manner. It's easy to check and see if such one party dominance occurred in a state and if redistricting legislation was passed.
Data shows Democrat support in rural areas declining over the last half dozen presidential elections. That declining support in those areas was key in Trump winning states that Obama had previously won twice like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan etc. If you want to argue that gerrymandering was a factor in the decline of Democrat support in rural areas in those states then you should be able to find legislation that was passed in those states prior to the 2016 election that redistricted the state to favor Republicans. If no redistricting legislation was passed prior to 2016 then no gerrymandering happened and therefore gerrymandering was NOT a factor in the decline of Democrat support in rural areas.
I'm dismissing gerrymandering as a big factor in noncompetitive districts and the growing political polarization and extremism in our country but we can easily see where and when gerrymandering is done because it's a matter of public record so we know when it becomes a contributing factor to a given state and when it doesn't.
Here are some links to articles about the Republicans winning their majority in NC (and the fears that it would lead to more extreme right wing legislation) and regarding the gerrymandering legislation and lawsuit.
Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
"Make America Greater" was not what Trump's fancy hats said, though.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
lonestarr777 wrote: Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
I don't call you a hippy. A hippy, like a libertarian would not want the government in charge of "picking winners and losers."
As an aside, show me a clean renewable that will take care of US energy needs and I will show you a snow blizzard in Southern Texas.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
lonestarr777 wrote: Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
There is no way for energy producers like the coal industry to become "winners." Coal use has steadily dwindled and that will only continue. Nobody is building coal powered power plants in the US anymore. The biggest obstacle to getting rid of existing coal plants is the NIMBY legislation that prevents us from building new cleaner power plants. Coal may not be the cleanest way to generate power but as long as people want electricity we can't just stop using the coal plants we have until we build replacement plants. It is difficult to clear all the procedural hurdles to get permits to build new power plants and nobody wants them built near them so we don't get many new power plants so we keep using our old ones. Same thing with oil refineries.
Switch around a name, here or there and there's some very interesting parallels in this article to another thin-skinned, inexperienced public figure...
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
"Make America Greater" was not what Trump's fancy hats said, though.
Sadly, proper and accurate grammar has never been a strong suit for either Trump or the nation.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
Actually, the last 3 heads of the DoE have had doctorates in the physical sciences. Moniz had a PhD in Theoretical Physics, Chu a PhD in Physics and Bodman had a Doctor of Science (exact same requirements as a PhD) in Chemical Engineering.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 15:40:43
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
And yet another instance where Trump Derangement Syndrome has me not only having to defend Trump but defend Governor BlowDry.
Don't make Frazzled defend (ex)Governor Blowdry. It makes him angry. You wouldn't like to see him when he's angry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 15:45:35
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
Actually, the last 3 heads of the DoE have had doctorates in the physical sciences. Moniz had a PhD in Theoretical Physics, Chu a PhD in Physics and Bodman had a Doctor of Science (exact same requirements as a PhD) in Chemical Engineering.
While those degrees may have been of some use they're really not directly related to a job that is primarily maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile. If all Perry does is leave the DoE to keep running as it currently is while taking every opportunity to say nice things as a spokesperson for the US Oil and Natural Gas Industry we'll be fine. Perry will probably focus primarily on helping US companies increase domestic energy exploration and production and let the bulk of the DoE run on autopilot.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
You did notice the sarcastic, laughing Orkmoticon attached to my comment, right?
