US Politics

Raoul said:
She would make for a fairly viable contender. I'm sure Trump would love it if she ran as well.
Click to expand...
All he has on her is the Pochahantas thing. She's got a very good message that I think speaks to a lot of the voters in those key states. Think Trump would much rather run against a traditional DNC establishment candidate. You'd also hate to lose her from the Senate though, one of the few people in DC actually working for people's interests.
 
Raoul said:
:cool:

Click to expand...


This fella is a special kind of shitbag.

Two excerpts that stick out from his indictment:

Federal Grand Jury said:
116 - Duncan Hunter's wife told him to buy shorts at a golf pro shop "so they could falsely describe the purchase later as 'some [golf] balls for the wounded warriors.'"

157 - After spending $14,000 in campaign funds on a lavish trip to Italy, Rep. Hunter hastily tried to set up a visit to a naval base, then subsequently told his chief of staff: "tell the navy to go feck themselves" when it didn't pan out.
Click to expand...

For anyone unfamiliar, the Wounded Warrior Project (as referenced in count 116) is a non-profit group to help disabled veterans returning from war.

And for anyone keeping track, the third person to endorse Trump was Jeff Sessions.
 
Raoul said:
It should be...but it would require a majority of Congress to divest portions of the portfolios which suggests they would have no interest in voting on something like this.
Click to expand...

It should be real easy to get a fund manager to manage your stocks while you are congress though. you can easily separate stuff.
 
fishfingers15 said:
It should be real easy to get a fund manager to manage your stocks while you are congress though. you can easily separate stuff.
Click to expand...

They could but they wouldn't have any control over buying and selling individual equities. They could also do mutual funds and enter/exit themselves depending on market conditions.
 
The Trump administration proposed its plan Tuesday to gut a controversial Obama-era rule to cut carbon pollution from power plants, dealing a death blow to an ambitious regulation designed to be the backbone of the United States’ strategy to stave off climate catastrophe.

The new regulation, which Acting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed Monday, is called the Affordable Clean Energy rule. It gives states leeway to set their own, drastically lower greenhouse gas emissions targets and restrict what states can do to force coal plants to improve efficiency.

The increased carbon dioxide released under the new rule could lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths each year by 2030, according to the EPA’s own analysis. When asked about the deaths during a 10 a.m. call with reporters, Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, sputtered through his answer, repeatedly noting that the agency had the “abundant authority” to make the changes it proposed.
...
The proposal outlines plans to cut CO2 emissions below 2005 levels by between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent by 2030, roughly equivalent to taking between 2.5 million and 5.3 cars off the road, according to a Washington Post analysis published before the EPA’s announcement. The EPA’s own estimate pegged that number at 5 million cars. The plan would reduce the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that help form smog by between 1 percent and 2 percent over the same period.

That stands in stark contrast to the 2015 rule it seeks to replace. The Clean Power Plan, as it’s known, aimed to slash carbon pollution from the power sector to bring it 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, equal to taking 75 million cars off the road. The policy projected cuts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides pollution by 24 to 22 percent by the end of the decade.

In its 236-page notice to the Federal Register, the EPA questioned the continued rise of renewable energy, suggesting the trend “is not certain” because the industry uses subsidies. But solar and wind energy receives a fraction of the federal subsidies allotted to coal, oil and natural gas each year, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
...
The Obama administration calculated that the climate and health benefits of the Clean Power Plan ― including 90,000 fewer asthma attacks and 3,600 fewer premature deaths per year ― would total $34 billion to $54 billion. Subtracting the cost of complying with the new rules, the net benefits ranged from $26 billion to $45 billion.
...
At one point during the hearing, Stanley Sturgill, a septuagenarian Kentucky coal miner suffering from black lung, took the microphone and pleaded with the EPA to reverse course on the repeal.

“We’re still dying ― we’re still literally dying ― for you to help us,” he said. “Just how many people must pay the supreme price of death for a few rich, greedy people to bank a few dollars?”

But the loudest voice in the room proved to be Bob Murray, the chief executive of coal giant Murray Energy Corp. and a major Trump donor who in March 2017 delivered an action plan of demands, including the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, to the Trump administration. The EPA later scheduled three more public hearings, including one in Wyoming, the top coal-producing state. Yet the demise of the Clean Power Plan proved to be a foregone conclusion.

In April, the Senate confirmed Wheeler, who served as Murray’s top lobbyist in Washington until the middle of last year, as the EPA’s deputy administrator. That put him next in line to take over the agency when Pruitt, who by then had become embroiled in high-profile personal scandals, stepped down.
Click to expand...

Reminder that there is absolutely no way at all that there's a link between capitalism and climate change.
 
berbatrick said:
Reminder that there is absolutely no way at all that there's a link between capitalism and climate change.
Click to expand...
While that's true, I'm strongly of the opinion that capitalism could solve the problem if we as society would wake up. There are countless goods which bear negative impact on society, and which are discouraged through market forces. Think cigarette fees etc. The government can and should use its power to encourage consumers to choose the better societal goods.

Unfortunately the largest producer in the western world has literally appointed a energy lobbyist to lead the environmental protection agency, so I don't hold high hopes.
 
RedTiger said:
I don't know if this goes here but it's connected with how yesterday's news was being sidetracked.

12kjpir1wnh11.png
Click to expand...

Owen's is a real piece of work.

 
Eboue said:
Click to expand...

The state of some of those comments. Can they not imagine for a second that her family might read what they've said in those tweets? Total lack of empathy, some people are beyond pathetic.
 
Eboue said:
Click to expand...

Can't we go back to a time before social media or at least Twitter? I shouldn't have read some of those comments. Truly despicable. You can disagree with a statement but still respect the situation by keeping your mouth shut like a decent human being. Maddening. If I blame and resent Trump for anything the most it's definitely empowering that kind of thinking being pushed out into the open as if it's normal.

I was just thinking in my car that whoever orchestrated all of this - whether the Russians had anything to do with it or not - accomplished something extremely damaging to this country : it probably eroded a huge proportion of sentiment among the population that this is a great country. Seeing how American exceptionalism has always been something seen as... Well.. Very American..and in many ways can be argued as an actual positive, that basically means the American sense of identity and belonging, pride of this country - probably took a huge hit to the glee of many outside these borders I would guess. Overly dramatic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.