91–100 of 211 posts
Does FOIA cover previously released studies that have been revoked "pending review"?
Maybe, but I don't think FOIA will last long, to be honest, given the steps the current administration has taken in the first 5 days.
http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-court-ok-to-charge-f...
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/
> It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. She has, in many respects, just as many problems as Trump. If the US used the popular vote, we would just be screwed in a different manner. This is not a "patchable" problem with some implementation detail. It's a fundamental problem with trying to force hundreds of millions of people with dozens of vastly different cultures to live under the same over…
Arguably the US 2 party system is still better than the Yugoslav 1. And while the multiparty system common in much of EU is crazy inefficient, it sure makes This Current Problem high unlikely.
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 United States isn't a democracy. It's a Republic. A lot of the apparent jingoism was first WWII propaganda, then cold War propaganda. Prior to that, Americans simply considered the rest of the world to be mostly irredeemably corrupt. I don't know if we can determine Trump's actual opinion on climate change. He's opportunistically jumping on a bandwagon.
None of them are democratic.
Canada is not a republic. The United Kingdom is not a republic.
Those countries are democracies.
The United States is a republic... And a democracy.
All that being a republic means is that you are not governed by a monarch. Whether or not you are a democracy is completely orthogonal to whether or not you are a republic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has been a climate change denier for a long time now. I think he genuinely believes -and surrounds himself with people that believe- that climate change is a disputed fact.
Show me a photo of water side cities or homes that have changed at all in the past 100 years. Google can show you dozens whose waterlines have not changed at all.
Water lines are not necessarily indicative and we didn't have satellite pictures or detailed measurements 100 years ago but you can definitely see the sea rise affecting some areas in the world, like islands in the Pacific Ocean or the extensions of salt water marshes. In satellite pictures is posible to appreciate the change the shape of the shores in some points of the globe, if you have a good resolution capture, comparing pictures of just a decade ago.
Here's the kicker. You don't even need to see pictures. We have constant detailed measurements of sea levels (better than water lines) taken all around the planet going back to several decades.
If you want to check them, NASA has a great page for it. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (and yes, they have pictures too).
And if you think NASA is somehow biased, you can check pretty much any other environmental agency or space agency in the world.
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?
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 United States isn't a democracy. It's a Republic. A lot of the apparent jingoism was first WWII propaganda, then cold War propaganda. Prior to that, Americans simply considered the rest of the world to be mostly irredeemably corrupt. I don't know if we can determine Trump's actual opinion on climate change. He's opportunistically jumping on a bandwagon.
I'm really really tired of this misinformation.
A republic simply means that you're a democracy without a king.
Whether it's direct or representative democracy is immaterial.
Unless you somehow think that Canada is a republic and France is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
47% of votes went to Trump. I don't think 47% of American voters are coal miners. Focusing on them seems exaggerated.
Unfortunately, the popular vote doesn't matter. Clinton lost Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, the entire damn south (aside from New Mexico), etc. etc. If Clinton had slightly better showing with manufacturing-based southerners or the energy sector, she would have won.
Clinton lost because she wasn't able to get out her base in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
If Trump lost Texas you wouldn't be talking about how he failed to reach voters in Washington.
So I'm confused what has actually happened here. "(epa transition communications direector) said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review." Then what is actually going on? This article is very confusing on that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also worth noting that 90 million people who are eligible to vote didn't vote at all.
It's also worth noting the first past the post system encourages duopolistic government (Almost China and NK's monopolistic government ;) ) People vote against their sincere choice by voting for one of the two most popular candidates instead. Some other systems: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_HOR.htm http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system
That's one of the most perniciously false equivalence I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. The US has elected congressmen, elected senators, elected governors and an elected president. Even the top two presidential candidates are chosen from a wide field in primary elections. Portraying that as a stark choice between only two options and saying it's practically the same as China and North Korea, which provide no choice whatsoever, is really pretty disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.
This is a bad thing how? Serious question. The US would be a much happier and healthier place if it were more like the EU.
The average German has less say in EU politics than the average Luxembourger.
Similarly, the average Californian has less say in US politics than the average Wyomingite.