291–300 of 1001 posts
Apart from the content, why is it even called a "contract"? There's no terms and obligations for the "American voter" in there.
I have no power to decline or negotiate this contract. I did not vote for this, nor did the majority of Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. - Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation." - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do…
> Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes. What the hell. How ignorant is that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)
Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.
Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are dumping all their profits back into the local economy.
As a country/world we’d be better off paying former coal workers a living wage indefinitely, no strings attached, for nothing in return but keeping the coal in the ground.
The US already employs more people in the solar industry than the coal industry. We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever.
The Impossible Dream...
Why? Remember Trump ran as a Populist..but both political parties are somewhat Corporate Shrills...
Not saying it cannot happen..but probably not in his two terms..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. Regulations are constantly being codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. It's about 175,000 pages. It's printed at about 55 lines per page, which makes it about 10 million lines. About the same size as the Linux kernel. That's big, but it's not "we don't even know what's in here" big.
> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. Regulations are constantly being codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. It's about 175,000 pages. It's printed at about 55 lines per page, which makes it about 10 million lines. About the same size as the Linux kernel. That's big, but it's not "we don't even know what's in here" big.
> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America has enough shale oil to be a net energy exporter, which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. So I dunno, I can see why developing those resources might be in our interest.
>> which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened? They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USDS, in its current form, is probably toast. It was a special initiative of Obama and is housed directly within his executive office. To my knowledge it exists solely at the President's discretion. Trump is not a digital guy, and not likely to want to hold over Obama folks (and vice versa). 18F is housed within GSA and so is somewhat isolated from political interference. That said, private contractors don't like it…
I disagree on USDS. My understanding is that the money to fund USDS is already appropriated through the end of 2017, and there is bipartisan support to extend that money. A bill was introduced to do just that, actually (though nothing has been done with it since it was referred to committee). Lots of people like USDS on both sides of the aisle because it actually does make things more efficient. Not saying it will su…
Without that sort of personal investment from the president (or someone else very high up), I don't know how effective the USDS can be, even if it is funded. In my experience the main ingredient in organizational change is will, not technological know-how.
And again, the question is who in technology wants to be associated with a Trump administration. Even the tech-savvy Republicans I know cannot stand Trump. Maybe that will change as the reality sinks in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. Many people don't believe in Global Warming, or at the very least don't want to even slightly impact the economy. The Democrats weren't going to hold office forever, and neither will the Republicans. The best thing for everyone would be for market-based solutions that have clear advantages. Solar, wind, electric cars, nuclear, etc. Republicans, for example, will put solar on…
> Many people don't believe in Global Warming I spent a lot of time reading the "Ask Trump Supporters" Reddit this cycle. Climate Change was one issue where almost all of them broke with their candidate, which was pretty interesting to me.
Just read the comments of any Wall Street Journal article on solar, coal, or even Elon Musk. People don't want electric car rebates or carbon credits.