Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#81

Post by throw20180101 »

_m8fo wrote: post #3

All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…

The democracy is nominally functioning "by design" and by that I mean the law is still being followed.

I'm convinced there are spiritually two Americas here and I'm not sure the founding fathers could have forseen that. There are slow-motion economic wars happening. They are happening at a global level between China and the US and they are happening at a national level in the US between the red and blue states.

I don't think the founding fathers could have forseen the exponential growth in the haves and have nots.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#83

Post by vkou »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #66
RKoutnik wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

But how is it any more fair to let three large metro areas override the preferences of most of the rest of the country?

Right now, the electoral college lets large metro areas override the preferences of rural voters in their state. The rural voter in Michigan gets outsized representation, the urban voter in California gets downsized representation, and the rural voter in California gets no representation at all.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#84

Post by dang »

ams6110 wrote: post #53

Did the Times change the title? It now reads EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

NYT does do that sometimes, but I think in this case the submitter probably rewrote it—which please don't, unless it's misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#85

Post by enraged_camel »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #62
overcast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign trails are also designed with the electoral vote in mind. Saying Hillary would have won if the election was based on popular vote, is not necessarily true.

This. Trump optimized to win the election, and Hillary ignored a bunch of states she thought she'd easily win (some of which she didn't).

I'm not sure Trump optimized for anything. Rumors from his inner circle suggest he didn't expect to win, and was surprised when he did.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#86

Post by daenz »

twr wrote: post #48
daenz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say he denies climate change, are you referring to climate change itself, or man made climate change? I know man made climate change deniers who fully believe in climate change. But the term "climate change denier" gets thrown around so loosely (sometimes I wonder if that's intentional), that I don't know what people are actually referring to.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838... Edit: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/40897761692683059... https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/41854213789949132...

Didn't he admit in an interview that this was a joke? Edit>> Found the source http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-china-created-cl...

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#88

Post by dragontamer »

basicplus2 wrote: post #25
cmdrfred wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other form of government do you propose?

One where one person in power, president or not, can not do pretty much what ever they like

Trump can do what he wants because his party now has control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House, AND the Supreme Court.

It was a huge, overarching win granting Republicans unprecedented power. Much like Obama's 2009 win which gave Democrats a ton of power.

There's nothing "single person" about Trump's victory. The fact of the matter is that Republicans won more States, Representatives, and Senators in local elections across the country. So yeah, the Democracy is working fine, as long as you sorta ignore the electoral college stuff.

Believe it or not, that's what people "wanted". The Democrats IMO were just too lazy with the get-out-to-vote attempts and support Clinton. The Republicans wanted victory more, and managed to pull it off.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#89

Post by baddox »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #66
RKoutnik wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

But how is it any more fair to let three large metro areas override the preferences of most of the rest of the country?

That isn't the alternative. The alternative is to let the sum of each equal individual vote determine the outcome. Metro areas don't vote. Neither do farms. People vote. Just like most of us presumably agree that gender, ethnicity, etc. shouldn't affect the impact your vote has, I don't think that the amount of land you own or the population density of the area you live in should affect the impact of your vote.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#90

Post by volkadav »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #66
RKoutnik wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

But how is it any more fair to let three large metro areas override the preferences of most of the rest of the country?

"most of the rest of the country" by square miles, perhaps, but citizens are not square miles. Why should someone's vote count less because they happen to live in a more densely populated area?
Post reply on HN