Current or modern politics in the United States

[tsunamiSD]

Another non-surprise...

EPA keeps scientists from speaking about report on climate

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency kept three scientists from speaking at a Monday event in a move condemned by researchers and Democratic members of Congress as an attempt by the agency to silence a discussion of climate change.
The scientists were scheduled to discuss a report on the health of Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest estuary. Among the findings in the 500-page report is that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish.

Several people involved in the report and members of the state’s congressional delegation likened it to scientific censorship. They cited EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change.
During a news conference releasing the report on Monday, John King, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island and the chair of the science advisory committee for the estuary program, compared the decision to the opening move of a chess game.
“It’s the opening gambit. Can we censor science and get away with it? I would say I hope not,” King said, adding a message that he directed to Pruitt. “Our job is to inform policy. Hopefully it becomes good policy. Let us do our job, without fear of losing our jobs.”
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said it made him sick to his stomach that federal scientists would not be allowed to discuss climate change in public.
“Because this was going to be about climate change ... they simply don’t want to allow those words to be said, and they don’t want people from their agency to be caught saying them,” he said. “It’s just been a constant effort at trying to silence conversation about climate change.”

*****

And in a related matter:

GAO: Climate change already costing US billions in losses

WASHINGTON (AP) — A non-partisan federal watchdog says climate change is already costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars each year, with those costs expected to rise as devastating storms, floods, wildfires and droughts become more frequent in the coming decades.
A Government Accountability Office report released Monday said the federal government has spent more than $350 billion over the last decade on disaster assistance programs and losses from flood and crop insurance. That tally does not include the massive toll from this year’s three major hurricanes and wildfires, expected to be among the most costly in the nation’s history.

GAO undertook the study following a request from Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“This nonpartisan GAO report Senator Cantwell and I requested contains astonishing numbers about the consequences of climate change for our economy and for the federal budget in particular,” said Collins. “In Maine, our economy is inextricably linked to the environment. We are experiencing a real change in the sea life, which has serious implications for the livelihoods of many people across our state, including those who work in our iconic lobster industry.”

Earlier this month Trump nominated Kathleen Hartnett White of Texas to serve as his top environmental adviser at the White House. She has credited the fossil fuel industry with “vastly improved living conditions across the world” and likened the work of mainstream climate scientists to “the dogmatic claims of ideologues and clerics.”
White, who works at a conservative think tank that has received funding from fossil-fuel companies, holds academic degrees in East Asian studies and comparative literature.

Now, are those any qualifications at all for that post???

[Jack Tripper]

On reading the past few pages...

I can't believe that people are still playing the game of Dems vs. Reps. If anything I would have thought that the last election cycle would have proven to everybody that both parties are equally corrupt and dishonest.

Both Trump and Clinton were very very bad and would have been bad for the country in different ways.
A good metaphor for it would be: voting for Trump would be like being stabbed in the arm, and voting for Clinton would be like getting stabbed in the leg. Over the past year the basic discourse over this has been "But If I had voted for Clinton then at least my arm would be fine." "But if I had voted for Trump then at least my leg would be fine."
People continue to do this without ever realizing that maybe your politicization shouldn't stab you at all. That all of this really shouldn't be a choice of which limb you like best.

Of course, this is exactly the kind of back and forth that the parties want people to have because it creates a lot of noise and keeps people busy while the politicians do whatever they want in the backgrounds. The media then spins this noise into a circus and profits of it.

The only way to really get out of this is to stop playing the partisan game. To see that both parties are fucked and neither of them are on your side.

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by Jack Tripper

The only way to really get out of this is to stop playing the partisan game. To see that both parties are fucked and neither of them are on your side.

With republicans wanting to repeal the ACA and cut Medicare and Medicaid to aid in tax cut's for the rich, the elimination of the estate tax, again something that only favor's the rich, cutting corporate taxes, favoring the rich, I'll take my chances with the democrats. At least they appear to want to keep me alive, if only to pay my taxes. The republicans appear to just want everybody who makes less than 30K a year to hurry up and die.

[tsunamiSD]

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) used to be in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton (and investigating and investigating and investigating and investigating…) and back then, he insisted it was not about politics. Now, he's in charge of investigating Donald Trump and of course, when anyone tries to press this investigation forward, Gowdy tries to block it, saying it's just about politics. Gee, I wonder what's changed.

Republican Investigator Trey Gowdy Stops Pretending, Admits ‘This Is Politics’

Trey Gowdy has been running point for the House Republican investigation into the Russia scandal, at times going so far as to act like Jared Kushner’s personal defense lawyer. Gowdy’s response to the New York Times about the Russia probe is a world-weary pose of realism. “Congressional investigations unfortunately are usually overtly political investigations, where it is to one side’s advantage to drag things out,” says Gowdy. “The notion that one side is playing the part of defense attorney and that the other side is just these white-hat defenders of the truth is laughable … This is politics.”
That explanation might not sound outrageous on its face. It is certainly true, after all, that both parties in Congress tend to follow their partisan self-interest in conducting (or impeding) investigations. But we have crossed a new threshold when the leader of such an investigation no longer even pretends otherwise.

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by Jack Tripper

Both Trump and Clinton were very very bad and would have been bad for the country in different ways.
A good metaphor for it would be: voting for Trump would be like being stabbed in the arm, and voting for Clinton would be like getting stabbed in the leg. Over the past year the basic discourse over this has been "But If I had voted for Clinton then at least my arm would be fine." "But if I had voted for Trump then at least my leg would be fine."

The only way to really get out of this is to stop playing the partisan game. To see that both parties are fucked and neither of them are on your side.

I get your point, but what are we supposed to do? Somebody was going to win the election. Faced with unpalatable choices it comes down to who would do the least damage.

As I always do, I took a blind survey on the issues before the election. I got Bernie Sanders. Hillary was a distant second. As due diligence, I also looked at the Libertarian and Green Party candidates. Their positions sometimes bordered on absolute fantasy: "100% full employment! A job for everyone!"

Really? How?

It all boils down to being a no-win situation.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Jack Tripper

On reading the past few pages...

I can't believe that people are still playing the game of Dems vs. Reps. If anything I would have thought that the last election cycle would have proven to everybody that both parties are equally corrupt and dishonest.

Both Trump and Clinton were very very bad and would have been bad for the country in different ways.
A good metaphor for it would be: voting for Trump would be like being stabbed in the arm, and voting for Clinton would be like getting stabbed in the leg. Over the past year the basic discourse over this has been "But If I had voted for Clinton then at least my arm would be fine." "But if I had voted for Trump then at least my leg would be fine."
People continue to do this without ever realizing that maybe your politicization shouldn't stab you at all. That all of this really shouldn't be a choice of which limb you like best.

Of course, this is exactly the kind of back and forth that the parties want people to have because it creates a lot of noise and keeps people busy while the politicians do whatever they want in the backgrounds. The media then spins this noise into a circus and profits of it.

The only way to really get out of this is to stop playing the partisan game. To see that both parties are fucked and neither of them are on your side.

Here in the East Bay our main highway is I-880. Said freeway is characterized by very heavy traffic and large numbers of rude and reckless drivers. Few of us wish to rush into the unknown perils of death. But, I have noted that dying will spare me from the necessity of ever driving I-880 again, or filing a tax return, or listening to/watching another political ad, or hearing any more about the antics of one Donald J. Trump.

[SanteeFats]

Well Brian I am sure there a few neighborhoods that you could stroll around in that would be happy to take you out.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Well Brian I am sure there a few neighborhoods that you could stroll around in that would be happy to take you out.

Like I said, I've no wish to rush into death and certainly not before I have recovered the principal and interest from all those FICA taxes deducted from my paychecks over 50 years. But, you are right. Such neighborhoods are in easy walking distance from my Oakland apartment.

[Jack Tripper]

Originally Posted by hound dog

With republicans wanting to repeal the ACA and cut Medicare and Medicaid to aid in tax cut's for the rich, the elimination of the estate tax, again something that only favor's the rich, cutting corporate taxes, favoring the rich, I'll take my chances with the democrats. At least they appear to want to keep me alive, if only to pay my taxes. The republicans appear to just want everybody who makes less than 30K a year to hurry up and die.

Today they appear to want to keep us alive, tomorrow when somebody pays them enough not to, or when it's strategically better for them not to care about you, they won't.

That was largely my point, at the end of the day all politicians are only interested in lining their pockets. This is equally true on both sides.
Hating and vilifying the other side is nothing but a media game to keep people occupied and not focused on actual progress or problem solving.

We saw this in action during the 2016 election where each side just focused on attacking the other rather than creating a plan for the future. Whatever illusions and misconceptions people had about the party that they support should have been broken. The Republican voters should have woken up and seen than the misleading hate that their party has been spewing for years has created a monsters, and when faced with such a monsters the average Republican politician just bends over and takes it. Similarly the Dem voters should have realized that their party is so elitist and corrupt that they would rather prop up the most divisive and flawed candidate in history rather than support Sanders who had a much better shot at winning.

If we continue on the same way, only focused on hating the other side and making sure "our" side wins, then we have learned nothing from 2016 and nothing has changed.

And nothing has really changed on Capital Hill. The Republicans are still doing what they do, and the Dems are crushing the Sanders supporters within their party to make sure that they can be corrupt in peace. Meanwhile the media vilifies Trump as a dictator (he's too stupid to be an actual dictator) and then claims he's "being Presidential" when he sneezes into a handkerchief.

[Jack Tripper]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

I get your point, but what are we supposed to do? Somebody was going to win the election. Faced with unpalatable choices it comes down to who would do the least damage.

As I always do, I took a blind survey on the issues before the election. I got Bernie Sanders. Hillary was a distant second. As due diligence, I also looked at the Libertarian and Green Party candidates. Their positions sometimes bordered on absolute fantasy: "100% full employment! A job for everyone!"

Really? How?

It all boils down to being a no-win situation.

My post was related to now, after the election, and what we should have learned from it. To make sure that this doesn't happen again, that we don't have to pick between evil and insane.