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

61–70 of 229 posts

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

#61

Post by otterley »

jonfw wrote: post #40
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…

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.

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

#62

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

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…

Which is crazy.

Democratic voters would rather have someone opposed to their values in power and make worse the issue they supposedly care about.

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

#63

Post by spankalee »

largbae wrote: post #41
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…

I'll bite as an independent: I believe that "they" could have reverted to Clinton(Bill) or Obama's moderate stances in regards to border/immigration and gender/identity politics and maintained a sweeping majority. If the Democrats had disclosed Biden's decline and held a primary this likely would have sorted itself out.

Can you describe how Harris's policies there meaningfully differed from Bill Clinton's or Obama's?

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

#64

Post by mikeocool »

softwaredoug wrote: post #52

This fits a consistent trend: Unless Congress explicitly mandates something by law, they should expect an administration to unilaterally dismantle it. Congress delegated authority assuming it’s used in good faith and courts+executive have called Congress’s bluff. In this case it’s a facility created by NSF, but Congress doesn’t explicitly say this HAS to exist. Therefore it won’t exist any longer.

While true in the abstract, this administration has also dismantled numerous things that are mandated by congress.

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

#65

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…

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.

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

#66

Post by jauntywundrkind »

Kapura wrote: post #7
dboreham wrote: post #4

[flagged]

You're mistaking the stereotype for the people in charge of the policy. If you want to destroy GOP institutions, start with country clubs and sinking private yachts. nationalize car dealerships. break up the megacorps.

And breakup Paramount+ CBS CNN Showtime HBO Warner Bros TNT TBS MTV DC Studios Nickelodeon Comedy Central Cartoon Network. And the other media empires!

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

#67

Post by otterley »

spankalee wrote: post #57
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…

[flagged]

Don't put words in people's mouths. If you disagree with someone's position, make your own counterargument.

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

#68

Post by jedberg »

softwaredoug wrote: post #52

This fits a consistent trend: Unless Congress explicitly mandates something by law, they should expect an administration to unilaterally dismantle it. Congress delegated authority assuming it’s used in good faith and courts+executive have called Congress’s bluff. In this case it’s a facility created by NSF, but Congress doesn’t explicitly say this HAS to exist. Therefore it won’t exist any longer.

It's worse than that though. They are dismantling things that congress has mandated, and also just not making legally mandated payments, and no one is stopping them.

Congress has abdicated their duty of checks and balances. In a functioning government, the executive would have already been removed for not following legally mandated spending.

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

#69

Post by gdilla »

jahnu wrote: post #22
mort96 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... "I would do nothing different from Biden"[1] probably wasn't the right message at the peak of Biden's unpopularity. I wonder who came up with that, or if it was genuine. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-vi...

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…

Biden admin was leaps better than this crap we have but he didn't assuage white fragility - that's the republican brand.
Post reply on HN