The End of the World: A Political Thread. A New Hope coming soon!

Status
Not open for further replies.
JinCA said:
The reasons given for keeping the EC hold no water, the only voices that are silenced are people in states who always go for the party they don't belong to. There are plenty of Republicans in CA and NY and Democrats in Texas, Utah, the Dakotas, Oklahoma etc who feel that voting is pointless because at the end of the day their vote for POTUS won't count.
Click to expand...

I'm sure back in the days of the founding fathers it made a lot more sense. Today with modern communication there's just no need.

The popular vote is usually reasonably close. A few million in a country of 350 mil is close. There's definitely a lot of Republicans here in NY, especially far away from NYC. Population centers are always going to dominate the vote. We get that at the state level. What are you going to do? If Buffalo wants one thing and NYC wants another, who's going to win? Winning in Buffalo? Not gonna happen. :(
 
Kerosene31 said:
I'm sure back in the days of the founding fathers it made a lot more sense. Today with modern communication there's just no need.

The popular vote is usually reasonably close. A few million in a country of 350 mil is close. There's definitely a lot of Republicans here in NY, especially far away from NYC. Population centers are always going to dominate the vote. We get that at the state level. What are you going to do? If Buffalo wants one thing and NYC wants another, who's going to win? Winning in Buffalo? Not gonna happen. :(
Click to expand...

We elect our senators by popular vote in each state, they represent us on the national level, the POTUS represents the entire country so it should be the popular vote as well. Another reason the people who claim "the big states will rule everything" are full of it is the fact that we have a senate where EVERY state has equal representation, CA and North Dakota have the same value in the senate and the senate holds a lot of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Videodrome
JinCA said:
We elect our senators by popular vote in each state, they represent us on the national level, the POTUS represents the entire country so it should be the popular vote as well. Another reason the people who claim "the big states will rule everything" are full of it is the fact that we have a senate where EVERY state has equal representation, CA and North Dakota have the same value in the senate and the senate holds a lot of power.
Click to expand...


It used to be that the State Legislature appointed Senators. I guess an intent behind the change was it was thought backroom deals were going on to acquire senate seats, but now it's just evolved into a campaign financing issue for all offices.

I've sometimes wondered if the old way was better and if it would be simpler to do something similar for President having him or her seated by State Governors, but the people still electing Congressmen and able to boot or Recall said Governors.

I dunno, that's probably also ample opportunity for corruption, but just a thought to reduce how much of a populism media spectacle it's become.
 
Kerosene31 said:
I'm sure back in the days of the founding fathers it made a lot more sense. Today with modern communication there's just no need.

The popular vote is usually reasonably close. A few million in a country of 350 mil is close. There's definitely a lot of Republicans here in NY, especially far away from NYC. Population centers are always going to dominate the vote. We get that at the state level. What are you going to do? If Buffalo wants one thing and NYC wants another, who's going to win? Winning in Buffalo? Not gonna happen. :(
Click to expand...

It made more "sense" because of slavery. 3/5 a person and all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kerosene31 and Viktor
I actually have mixed feelings about Climate Change, but I look at green energy policies as getting us away from Dirty Power and all the problems with it like Black Lung for miners or coal slurry run off into rivers.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/climate/taylor-energy-gulf-of-mexico.html

New Estimate for an Oil Leak: A Thousand Times Worse Than Rig Owner Says


WASHINGTON — A new federal study has found that an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that began 14 years ago has been releasing as much as 4,500 gallons a day, not three or four gallons a day as the rig owner has claimed.

The leak, about 12 miles off the Louisiana coast, began in 2004 when a Taylor Energy Company oil platform sank during Hurricane Ivan and a bundle of undersea pipes ruptured. Oil and gas have been seeping from the site ever since.

Taylor Energy, which sold its assets in 2008, is fighting a federal order to stop the leak. The company asserts that the leaking has been slight — between 2.4 and four gallons per day. Oil plumesfrom the seafloor, Taylor executives have said, are from oil-soaked sediment that has formed around the platform, and any gas rising from the bottom is the natural product of living organisms
 
Nervusbreakdown said:
Click to expand...


One thing I appreciate about him is he's not just talking about the same old crap that comes up every election only to have nothing happen once the person gets into office. He's talking about specific issues, he's proposing things like UBI which are going to have to happen at some point there is no way around it and he isn't talking down to people he's talking to them. Does he have some ideas I disagree with? sure, I think the voting at 16 thing is silly but that'll never happen so it doesn't bother me the he's for it.
 
Plainview said:
Click to expand...


Glad she put that out, it's something that needs to be discussed AND it helps distract from her idiotic interview last week when she was asked about her platform and she had no answer. I'd take her over Moscow Mitch any day of the week but she's not someone I'd put a lot of faith in as a Democrat.
 
A little old but in case anyone hasn't seen it cause its hilarious.

 
JinCA said:
Glad she put that out, it's something that needs to be discussed AND it helps distract from her idiotic interview last week when she was asked about her platform and she had no answer. I'd take her over Moscow Mitch any day of the week but she's not someone I'd put a lot of faith in as a Democrat.
Click to expand...
Agree that she needs to run on more than not being Moscow mitch.
 
It's weird that in the age of media and internet so much time and money has to be spent flying people around and getting people into stadiums.

With that, I can't totally discount the value of the candidate meeting people in person, but it seems like there could be less emphasis on it.

I'd love to see candidates do TED Talk and be accessible that way on YouTube. I mean sure they all have YT channels, but I think TED is a great format for anyone with ideas to speak their mind uninterrupted by a moderator dickhead.
 
"She just closed a trade deal for a delivery of Canadian wood."

8kkqmsw1boi31.jpg
 
Ready to go to nuclear war with Mother Nature?


https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html

"
Behind the scenes: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, "I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?" according to one source who was there. "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?" the source added, paraphrasing the president's remarks.
  • Asked how the briefer reacted, the source recalled he said something to the effect of, "Sir, we'll look into that."
  • Trump replied by asking incredulously how many hurricanes the U.S. could handle and reiterating his suggestion that the government intervene before they make landfall.
  • The briefer "was knocked back on his heels," the source in the room added. "You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, 'What the f---? What do we do with this?'"
Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word "nuclear"; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes.
  • The source added that this NSC memo captured "multiple topics, not just hurricanes. … It wasn't that somebody was so terrified of the bombing idea that they wrote it down. They just captured the president’s comments."
  • The sources said that Trump's "bomb the hurricanes" idea — which he floated early in the first year and a bit of his presidency before John Bolton took over as national security adviser — went nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.

"
 
Spiritech said:
Ready to go to nuclear war with Mother Nature?


https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html

"
Behind the scenes: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, "I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?" according to one source who was there. "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?" the source added, paraphrasing the president's remarks.
  • Asked how the briefer reacted, the source recalled he said something to the effect of, "Sir, we'll look into that."
  • Trump replied by asking incredulously how many hurricanes the U.S. could handle and reiterating his suggestion that the government intervene before they make landfall.
  • The briefer "was knocked back on his heels," the source in the room added. "You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, 'What the f---? What do we do with this?'"
Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word "nuclear"; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes.
  • The source added that this NSC memo captured "multiple topics, not just hurricanes. … It wasn't that somebody was so terrified of the bombing idea that they wrote it down. They just captured the president’s comments."
  • The sources said that Trump's "bomb the hurricanes" idea — which he floated early in the first year and a bit of his presidency before John Bolton took over as national security adviser — went nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.

"
Click to expand...

He's not the first one to bring this up, probably the first POTUS but the idea has been around for a while. I would think he would have known better though, if it were possible to knock out a hurricane with a bomb other Presidents would have done it a long time ago.
https://www.livescience.com/24383-can-you-stop-a-hurricane-by-nuking-it.html
 
JinCA said:
He's not the first one to bring this up, probably the first POTUS but the idea has been around for a while. I would think he would have known better though, if it were possible to knock out a hurricane with a bomb other Presidents would have done it a long time ago.
https://www.livescience.com/24383-can-you-stop-a-hurricane-by-nuking-it.html
Click to expand...

The difference is that if you or I have this pop into our minds and then go and read the science behind it, we'll come to the conclusion that its bad idea as the scientists that did the work state so. If someone tells him that the scientists have already found it would be bad, in his hubris he will think it will work because he's always right and they're wrong so he just might do it one day.

Also he probably got the idea from watching sharknado, which if so makes this even scarier that he can't determine reality from fiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back