2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:32 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/po ... obama.html
With Carson's pick, it removes most of the mystery of what kind of Administration that Trump wants to have. It's gonna be far right, but a very familiar* far right. Trump isn't going to be the next moderate Republican. He's gonna be Bush, but a huge egotistical asshole. The only difference is the focus on manufacturing, and the anti-trade stuff. Everything else will be standard hard right.

From what the establishment and business elites are signaling, they think they can push Trump to back off on the anti-economy stuff. Sorta, since a huge giveaway to corporations/ultrawealthy will be bad for the economy later, but would have huge support.

*at least for those in the Tea party era.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:10 pm UTC

Now that we're getting into post-election news, should we have a "President Trump" thread? This story is related to the fake news plague that elected him, but still.

Goddammit North Carolina.
It's NYT, Google the article name if you've already used your 10 free articles.

Sure, actually electing Trump was the first real-world impact all this had, but for it to spill over in this way is terrifying. Two realities colliding. How long till people actually get shot?
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Rear-wheel-drive cars are harder to recover from broadside skids that front-wheel-drive cars. The reason they're popular with boy racers is that acceleration throws the weight of the car back onto its rear axle, reducing friction under the front wheels and increasing friction under the rear wheels, so a front-wheel-drive car spins its wheels while a rear-wheel-drive car keep accelerating hard. In other words, they're a straight-line-quarter-mile gimmick, not a real driver's preferred design.

At last. I knew I prefered FWD for some reason. (In my wilder days, I even liked the feel of slinging the car round a corner, in a manner similar to the imfamous 'drifting', and couldn't work out why everybody said that you could only drift with RWD. I could, though I tried not to do it so often.) And it was always easier to drive on ice with FWD because if grip was ever teetering over the verge of being lost on a camber or slope the wheels could be steered to prevent sideways limiting friction turning into sliding friction and thus not so easily recoverable until grip re-established and forward motion preserved or cessated, safely either way.

Thank you for this information.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Liri wrote:Goddammit North Carolina.
It's NYT, Google the article name if you've already used your 10 free articles.
North Carolina didn't go to Washington, some fool did. And open the article in Firefox's private browsing mode in a new window it's simpler.

...I guess you didn't care to interpret my tone, but I myself am North Carolinian and was expressing facetious dismay that our state name is yet again being associated with idiocy on the national stage. I'm trying to be lighthearted about this. Please stop being so overly literal and serious (at least in response to what I posted). Gah.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Liri wrote:Goddammit North Carolina.
It's NYT, Google the article name if you've already used your 10 free articles.
North Carolina didn't go to Washington, some fool did. And open the article in Firefox's private browsing mode in a new window it's simpler.

...I guess you didn't care to interpret my tone, but I myself am North Carolinian and was expressing facetious dismay that our state name is yet again being associated with idiocy on the national stage. I'm trying to be lighthearted about this. Please stop being so overly literal and serious (at least in response to what I posted). Gah.
Okay, dokay. Consider me abashed. :oops:

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

Boeing's shares drop 1% after Donald Trump tweets.

Basically, he thinks that the new Air Force One planes will be too expensive and has tweeted that the order should be cancelled. Despite the fact that they're not even supposed to be used until 2024 (however the USAF wants them brought forward, because the current planes are getting too expensive to repair).
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:14 pm UTC

Well, if he's going to be the Last President Of The United States, the updated Air Force Ones won't need to be built, s'obvious... ;)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Well, if he's going to be the Last President Of The United States, the updated Air Force Ones won't need to be built, s'obvious... ;)

Sigh.

Also on the BBC 'Job traitor tax' faces Republican revolt.

Turns out Republicans aren't a fan of increasing taxes. Who knew?

Also mentioned is that the Carrier deal is going to cost $7 million.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Well, if he's going to be the Last President Of The United States, the updated Air Force Ones won't need to be built, s'obvious... ;)

Sigh.

Trump-Approved version of the new Air Force 0.5...
Spoiler:
Image
(Someone needs to GIMP that. If they haven't already.

Also on the BBC 'Job traitor tax' faces Republican revolt.

Turns out Republicans aren't a fan of increasing taxes. Who knew?
Trump can just blame "the politicians" for that failing, and try to get the voting public to make them walk the plank. After all, he's not a politician. (He's a plank.)

Also mentioned is that the Carrier deal is going to cost $7 million.
But that isn't his fault. It's the fault of... erm greedy big business CEOs? Something like that.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Boeing's shares drop 1% after Donald Trump tweets.

Basically, he thinks that the new Air Force One planes will be too expensive and has tweeted that the order should be cancelled. Despite the fact that they're not even supposed to be used until 2024 (however the USAF wants them brought forward, because the current planes are getting too expensive to repair).


$3.2 billion does seem a tad pricey. I gotta wonder how much of the extras on those planes are needed. I mean is it the fact they have all the extra security features a reason they don't get attacked? Or is it just plain unlikely it would be attacked anyways.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:26 pm UTC


Please let the racism discussion go, it's taking over too much of the thread. Perhaps it needs its own thread

Edit:moved to SB

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:34 pm UTC

Edit: Moved over to thread for continuity.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Angua wrote:Boeing's shares drop 1% after Donald Trump tweets.

Basically, he thinks that the new Air Force One planes will be too expensive and has tweeted that the order should be cancelled. Despite the fact that they're not even supposed to be used until 2024 (however the USAF wants them brought forward, because the current planes are getting too expensive to repair).


$3.2 billion does seem a tad pricey. I gotta wonder how much of the extras on those planes are needed. I mean is it the fact they have all the extra security features a reason they don't get attacked? Or is it just plain unlikely it would be attacked anyways.


It needs to survive enough damage, whilst bad guys try to get to Harrison Ford, that it can reasonably survive everything but a cartwheeling into the sea...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:02 pm UTC

I mean, a modern 747 is around 342m. So yeah, 4b+ is a lot of additional toys.

The US already spends a *lot* more on presidential security than most countries. Dialing it back a bit is a reasonable thing to suggest. Particularly by the person who'll be in that position.

And, from a strategic position, a 747 is still a 747. You can put a lot of cool toys on it, I'm sure, but it's still big and relatively obvious/not maneuverable compared to fighter jets, etc. If you put it in a position where it's getting attacked, you've probably already screwed up.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:48 pm UTC

Let Trump fly commercial, better yet if he likes his jet better let him pay for the upgrades. There are currently 2 747's in use. They have one aircraft to carry the Presidential motorcade(evidently a C-17 Globemaster III) and numerous other aircraft. He could use the car supplied to him by the hosting state. It's got to be pricey to transport an armored limo.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

Trump isn't going to be flying on these planes. They won't enter service until 2024; otherwise, I'm sure he would be advocating for them to be covered in gold leaf.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:09 pm UTC

I for one support Trump being flown in a solid gold jet. Best investment we'd ever spend.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Trump isn't going to be flying on these planes. They won't enter service until 2024; otherwise, I'm sure he would be advocating for them to be covered in gold leaf.


In his third term, Emperor Trump will fly on whatever he wishes, peasant!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:00 pm UTC

On another note, looking at why it costs so much, the reason is that they have to completely swap out all of the avionics for military grade stuff. Since this is a new model entirely, they can't just rip it out and put existing military stuff in, it needs to go through all sorts of rounds of testing, which also requires prototypes be built to prove it is safe. From what I've seen online, that alone is about 2 billion, meaning the cost of production is about $600m each. I think that's fairly reasonable; they don't want to stick with what's basically an upgraded version of a 45 year old model.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:33 am UTC

I'm now imagining Air Force One being a fighter jet. I'm also imagining what would happen when an arrogant blowhard with no piloting skills tries to fly one. It's a good dream.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:42 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm now imagining Air Force One being a fighter jet. I'm also imagining what would happen when an arrogant blowhard with no piloting skills tries to fly one.
Re-imagine Independence Day, but with Trump playing the president.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:02 am UTC

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-27-million-lead-popular-vote-donald-trump-cook-report-a7459631.html
Hillary Clinton has 2.7 million more votes than Donald Trump, despite losing the presidential election, and the number is expected to rise.

Ms Clinton is on track to get more votes than president Barack Obama did in 2012. He won 65.9 million, and she is only about 400,000 votes behind him.

I guess that early vote numbers graph was very wrong (didn't know how damn long your process takes), she just got the wrong votes. Also damn that is a significant popular vote win for the loser to have.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:19 pm UTC

1992:

Code: Select all

Party               Leader                 No.
Conservative        John Major          14,093,007
Labour              Neil Kinnock        11,560,484
Liberal Democrat    Paddy Ashdown        5,999,606
SNP                 Alex Salmond           629,564

1997:

Code: Select all

Party               Leader                 No.
Labour              Tony Blair          13,518,167
Conservative        John Major           9,600,943
Liberal Democrat    Paddy Ashdown        5,242,947
Referendum          James Goldsmith        811,849
SNP                 Alex Salmond           621,550

2001:

Code: Select all

Party               Leader                 No.
Labour              Tony Blair          10,724,953
Conservative        William Hague        8,357,615
Liberal Democrat    Charles Kennedy      4,814,321
SNP                 John Swinney           464,314
UKIP                Jeffrey Titford        390,563

I know the US population's something like 4.6 times bigger, but yes, that's a big number.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:26 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-27-million-lead-popular-vote-donald-trump-cook-report-a7459631.html
Hillary Clinton has 2.7 million more votes than Donald Trump, despite losing the presidential election, and the number is expected to rise.

Ms Clinton is on track to get more votes than president Barack Obama did in 2012. He won 65.9 million, and she is only about 400,000 votes behind him.

I guess that early vote numbers graph was very wrong (didn't know how damn long your process takes), she just got the wrong votes. Also damn that is a significant popular vote win for the loser to have.


Looking back at the last Canadian election we have the following for our vote split:

Liberal: 39.47%
Conservative: 31.89%
NDP: 19.71%
Bloc Quebecois: 4.66%
Green: 3.45%

Seems like a reasonable distribution for a non-two party system. Yet with that 39.47% the Liberals have a full majority (184 out of 338 seats) in Parliament. Even if the remaining 60% of the votes suddenly formed a coalition, they could not overrule decisions made by the Liberals.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:47 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:[...]
I know the US population's something like 4.6 times bigger, but yes, that's a big number.

I obviously misunderstand the point of that. None of those were "runner up is popular winner", which I first thought might be what you were trying to depict...

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:12 pm UTC

Just comparing the margin that didn't win there with the margins seen here, or even the voter turnouts here. For some reason I read it as a 12.7M lead the first time and was sure we'd had parties winning with fewer than that many votes total. Actually, at 2.7M, it's not so dramatic a comparison.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:01 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lou ... el-better/
538 says that since Louisiana Senate seat will go GOP. That means that even if Democrats defend every seat, and pick up every GOP likely opening, Democrats will still not have control of the Senate. They'll have 50 seats, and pence will vote for the GOP.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:28 pm UTC

If people who prefer the democratic party want to get back the federal government, they have to start at the state level.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:If people who prefer the democratic party want to get back the federal government, they have to start at the state level.

That's true and deceptive. There's a coalition out there that makes a winning state level map. They're called Republicans. The trick is how to scrape together a coalition that still resembles the Democratic party today. Or maybe you can't and minorities are just fucked for the next 8 years.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

The latter option doesn't really give a good path for getting back into power at the end of eight years, though.

If the Democratic party as it is today doesn't have enough appeal to get a winning coalition together, it needs to adapt. The longer it puts this off, the worse the situation'll be. They also need to not rely solely on minorities(as appears to be more and more the case in the south). Sure, a broad appeal that attracts minorities and majorities is great, but it looks like that's been neglected as a strategy. The minorities have been considered safe, and the appeal to the majorities is diminishing in many areas. There's this vast gulf between the coasts where Democrats are just bleeding support.

Biden's been floating a run in 2020. Not the worst idea, really. He's probably one of the more competitive options the Democrats have available. Not quite so far left as Sanders, fairly well liked, that sort of thing.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The latter option doesn't really give a good path for getting back into power at the end of eight years, though.

If the Democratic party as it is today doesn't have enough appeal to get a winning coalition together, it needs to adapt. The longer it puts this off, the worse the situation'll be. They also need to not rely solely on minorities(as appears to be more and more the case in the south). Sure, a broad appeal that attracts minorities and majorities is great, but it looks like that's been neglected as a strategy. The minorities have been considered safe, and the appeal to the majorities is diminishing in many areas. There's this vast gulf between the coasts where Democrats are just bleeding support.

Biden's been floating a run in 2020. Not the worst idea, really. He's probably one of the more competitive options the Democrats have available. Not quite so far left as Sanders, fairly well liked, that sort of thing.

Correct, waiting for demographics to take it's course sets up Democrats for failure for decades.

Most of the young stars of the Democrats are coming from California. I dunno how that's gonna square with either taking back the Midwest, or striking at GOP bastions like Arizona, and north Carolina. Texas is a real prize, that will gut Republicans, but it's won't happen for a decade.

I kinda wish Democrats would settle on a coalition for their young politicians. We don't know what they're gonna do, except be more liberal. That could mean anything.

Tyndmyr, how good a candidate do you think Democrats can field? A Biden clone? Obama clone? Trump clone? The last one is scary and very possible.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1074
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Biden's been floating a run in 2020. Not the worst idea, really. He's probably one of the more competitive options the Democrats have available. Not quite so far left as Sanders, fairly well liked, that sort of thing.


However, he'll be 78 in 2020. Many people were already saying Trump/Hillary were too old to be running for president, nearly 80 is a whole different kettle of fish.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

I mean, he's a bit on the old side, true. Or will be, by then.

But the bench is shallow. Sure, other good candidates need to be developed, but right now, this is something the Democrats have a problem with. Age is probably a better tradeoff than many other things. Both Trump and Clinton were kind of old, historically speaking, but it wasn't that critical of a factor in the election. And, in four years, Trump'll be a little older too. 74 v 78 is reasonably similar.

California is actively hated by most of the Midwest. Picking someone from California or NYC to appeal to rural areas is rough. I mean, a really good candidate can get past that, but it's not an advantage out of the gate.

I think the reliance on demographics being an inevitable path to victory is fundamentally broken. For one thing, there's an obvious counter-move by the Republicans to limit changing demographics by say, restricting immigration or the like. This does not require a great degree of imagination to envision happening. For another, if they keep bleeding non-minority support, they're not actually gaining. They're just making partisanship a proxy for race. This is...probably not good.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

I don't know the party farming structure for Democrats. Do they guide young politicians early on, out do they wait for them to form a coalition first? For example, if an up and coming rural Democrats wins a local race, when does the national party come in to play?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Not sure. Congressman level is probably too high now, at any rate. Deep south doesn't have any, and if you're looking at "up and coming rural democrats", the overall field looks rather bleak.

They probably need to go down to state congressman levels, find young democrats actually getting traction in rural areas, and learn from them/support them. I don't know if this is done now, but I suspect mostly not.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:20 am UTC

The Necessity of Credibility: Checker, check thyself.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Trump's EPA pick is the most terrifying yet. Did he meet with Al Gore just to turn around and spit in his face?

It's hard to imagine Senate Republicans denying any of his nominations. I feel sick to my stomach.

It's well past the point when calling them "climate skeptics" was disingenuous
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Trump's EPA pick is the most terrifying yet. Did he meet with Al Gore just to turn around and spit in his face?

It's hard to imagine Senate Republicans denying any of his nominations. I feel sick to my stomach.

It's well past the point when calling them "climate skeptics" was disingenuous

Republicans believe in climate mitigation, where there are acts of God, but can be insured against. So they won't stop emissions, but he'll save golf courses or pay for storm damage. That's probably what Gore discussed with Trump.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:55 pm UTC

Sounds expensive.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:57 pm UTC

Probably. In fairness, so is reducing emissions.

I'm all for fairly comparing the costs of both. I just have no faith that this'll actually happen. This is the guy you select to gut the EPA, not to evaluate fairly. Might not be the worst thing to happen, but it's far from ideal.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mallich and 27 guests