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

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#101

Post by jonathankoren »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #64
_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 population limit for democracy is about 500 people. That's why we have a republic.

Republic doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#102

Post by serge2k »

cmdrfred wrote: post #9
_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…

What other form of government do you propose?

How about a parliamentary system? How about just fixing the problems of presidential elections?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#103

Post by will_pseudonym »

Joakal wrote: post #59
daenz wrote: post #30

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

Joke or not, the comparison to China or North Korea is awful, and not at all close to accurate. For example, when the BBC went to report on an independent candidate in China, plainclothes policemen blocked them from entering the building[0]. North Korea is at least an order of magnitude worse off.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38005603

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#104

Post by kup0 »

overcast wrote: post #33
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/

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 is a good point. If it was known to be a popular vote from the beginning, the strategy of the campaigns would have been different, so it's difficult to tell what would have happened. It seems common sense, but thanks for this input because it pulled my brain out of a bubble for a moment.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#105

Post by bdamm »

erklik wrote: post #32
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.

I think most, when referring to "climate change denier" mean to say "anthropogenic climate change denier". Most people who are "climate change denier"s in the above sense do actually believe in climate change in general just not the fact that we have influenced it.

There's also the folks who believe we are causing it, but don't think we should bother to prevent that.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#106

Post by Mtinie »

nerfhammer wrote: post #43
res0nat0r wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? Regulations on the corporate donors and friends of his that can't trash the environment as much as they'd like and hinder their profits.

If you ever meet one of these people, their thesis is usually that that "liberals" think climate change is real, therefore climate change must be false.

#alternativeclimatefacts

aka

#profitdecreasinginconveniences

Edit: I'll now include the obligatory "/s" tag that I should have included originally.

It's obviously a lot more complex than a hashtag.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#107

Post by elastic_church »

jowiar wrote: post #95
CamperBob2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because one person, one vote. I don't give two shits how many acres you own, you should get one vote (and that was the justification from the beginning -- a compromise so slaveholding scum would be overcounted). The country would have been so much better had Sherman executed the treasonous slavers, rather than burning the land. But alas, the story of the US is "well-meaning moderates" bending over themselves to placa…

Slavery was added to the Articles and Constitution because South Carolina's support was deemed as critical to the rebellion against Britain.

The other colonies begrudgingly added this, opting for changes to the wording of the clause to enshrine slavery into the constitution, and did everything they could to violate their constitution until South Carolina wrote them back saying it is best if South Carolina exited.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#108

Post by cmdrfred »

enraged_camel wrote: post #85
Mikeb85 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't that make Hillary's loss all the more embarssing then?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#109

Post by panzagl »

baddox wrote: post #89
CamperBob2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is how you get the Roman/Parisian mobs that were the downfall of the Roman and French Republics. All you have to do is promise the mob everything and they'll give you the support to suppress the provinces. The Founders had the Roman example to draw on, as well as Venice's devolution into an urban oligarchy.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#110

Post by cmdrfred »

notpc wrote: post #38
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/

This is a silly argument. Trump and Clinton competed for the electoral college, not the popular vote. Which means that Trump spent a lot of time campaigning for one electoral vote in Maine and almost none in courting millions of people in California and New York. It's impossible to say what the outcome would have been if the popular vote would have mattered, because both campaigns would be run totally differently.

The parties may of run entirely different candidates if it was a popular vote as well. They would likely hold entirely different policy positions as a party.
Post reply on HN