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

White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#141

Post by otterley »

readitalready wrote: post #123
otterley wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would she lose the general Presidential election based solely on her pro-Israel stance, if Trump also had a pro-Israel stance at that time (and still does)? That explanation doesn't make sense.

It's because it's important to make sure anyone in office that supports Israel loses, EVEN IF their opponent also supports Israel. The job of the voter is to make sure elected officials are held accountable. Remember, the voter decides based on what was already done, not what they say MIGHT be done in the future.

> Remember, the voter decides based on what was already done, not what they say MIGHT be done in the future.

How does that explain the outcome of Presidential elections that follow term limits? Donald Trump had no meaningful political record prior to the Republican primaries in 2015--and he was pro-Israel in his first term as well.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#142

Post by moogly »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #83
readitalready wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. It was the largest reason that Biden 2020 voters didn't vote for Harris in 2024, per polls that specifically analyzed the causes of her loss. (not polls that took general moods or ideas) Had she dropped support for Israel, she would have been president. And going forward, there will never be a Democratic president that supports Israel…

> The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. I'm american and I've never heard that. I've only heard her total unwillingness to be interviewed without a script. Perhaps what one hears varies across the country, of course.

> I'm american and I've never heard that.

It's been in the news for a while.

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#143

Post by alanwreath »

otterley wrote: post #61
jonfw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people thought that government spending led to massive inflation, and the republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending.

> republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending All they have is rhetoric, because their record with respect to actually doing it is not strong. Government deficits increased under every Republican administration in recent memory. They talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

So true. You can apply this to limiting federal government. The GOP used to all be about states rights to self government. It’s so reversed that it feels like that’s never been the case.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#145

Post by TOMDM »

softwaredoug wrote: post #117
TOMDM wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mandated by law how tariffs may be levied and how states may police themselves and how they may independently conduct their elections. If you think law will stop this administration then you're not paying enough attention.

The law has stopped this administration on things from offshore wind farms to tariffs. Maybe not fast enough, but it happens routinely. The issue is that SCOTUS decides to use administration to reinterpret precedent.

The issue isn't that they can't be stopped, it's that they don't fear that they will be.

If you or I knowingly and flagrantly break the law, our understanding isn't that we'll be stopped and nothing else, it's that there will be punishment, that justice will be done.

How are we at a point now where we all know the administration is breaking the law. That they know they are breaking the law. That they can be stopped months or years later, but there is no justice. Not even the hint or thought of justice.

These people should fear the consequences of their actions, but at the moment there are none.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#146

Post by otterley »

readitalready wrote: post #49
jahnu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a European who doesn’t deeply understand your partisan politics: what specifically should they have done differently? My probably wrong understanding was that people were still angry about the inflationary consequences of dealing with the pandemic and didn’t believe it was tapering off, didn’t believe that unemployment was low, didn’t believe that real wages were increasing. How could they have combated…

The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. It was the largest reason that Biden 2020 voters didn't vote for Harris in 2024, per polls that specifically analyzed the causes of her loss. (not polls that took general moods or ideas) Had she dropped support for Israel, she would have been president. And going forward, there will never be a Democratic president that supports Israel…

> And going forward, there will never be a Democratic president that supports Israel's continued existence. The Democratic base is fully against Israel. We're just waiting for the politicians to catch up.

Are you willing to put money on that?

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#147

Post by moogly »

otterley wrote: post #65
readitalready wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. It was the largest reason that Biden 2020 voters didn't vote for Harris in 2024, per polls that specifically analyzed the causes of her loss. (not polls that took general moods or ideas) Had she dropped support for Israel, she would have been president. And going forward, there will never be a Democratic president that supports Israel…

Why would she lose the general Presidential election based solely on her pro-Israel stance, if Trump also had a pro-Israel stance at that time (and still does)? That explanation doesn't make sense.

One of the most baffling things in modern history for sure. But some people did believe he would "bring peace to the Middle East".

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#148

Post by rayiner »

swed420 wrote: post #127
rayiner wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

> the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists. They killed Dems’ chances in 2024 even before Biden’s term began. And back when we had an actual primary (rigged, with an overcrowded field), Warren was the choice to appease the 'progressive' identity activists who attempted, with the help of Warren, to tar & feather Bernie…

> identity activists who attempted, with the help of Warren, to tar & feather Bernie as an old white misogynist

Yes, and I think that error had profound consequences. Democrats got so drunk on “demographics is destiny” they thought it was a good idea to shoot at their own side as long as the targets were “old white guys” and “Bernie bros.” For every white guy that left the party, two brown guys and girls would replace them.

That left them completely unprepared for an electoral environment where Trump made huge inroads with minorities and won half of foreign born voters: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (see pp. 7 and 9).

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#149

Post by triceratops »

tsunamifury wrote: post #74
jonfw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people thought that government spending led to massive inflation, and the republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending.

And in reality shifted labor markets and supply chain was the issue and the FED in 22 raised interest rates to 'regress labor back to their natural position'. Never forget: the FED did this more than any republican or democrat and their new stated position is to ensure not the enablement of the population but keeping the labor pool 'in their place.' This, beyond everything else, changed america the most in recent his…

I don't know that higher interest rates are necessarily anti-labor. Low interest rates result in rapid asset inflation and labor usually owns fewer assets.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#150

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

otterley wrote: post #141
readitalready wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because it's important to make sure anyone in office that supports Israel loses, EVEN IF their opponent also supports Israel. The job of the voter is to make sure elected officials are held accountable. Remember, the voter decides based on what was already done, not what they say MIGHT be done in the future.

> Remember, the voter decides based on what was already done, not what they say MIGHT be done in the future. How does that explain the outcome of Presidential elections that follow term limits? Donald Trump had no meaningful political record prior to the Republican primaries in 2015--and he was pro-Israel in his first term as well.

Stop thinking voters are rational.

I remember the pro Palestine groups were threatening to not vote for Kamala if the Dems didn’t push for a cease fire or whatever. All while the other side was Trump.

They didn’t go, “maybe we should do our best to prevent a worse situation“.

Even back then I had a gut feeling something like this would have cost the Dems the election.

Post reply on HN