Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Trump's not really that wrong about this.

Isn't he, though?

If Dems would do it why didn't they do it after Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat and they had to pass that abortion of a bill to get the ACA through? Why not go to 51 and edit, revise, and who knows maybe even proofread, the bill first if they were so willing to end the filibuster.

GOP senators have said the right thing in the past about keeping the filibuster, I hope they don't change their minds.

Having full control of the federal government doesn't happen that often, and when it does, you should make it count. The Constitution already has plenty of choke points against rapid change with a presidential system, a bicameral legislature, judicial review, and a very difficult amendment process. Artificially adding another choke point with the filibuster has never made sense to me.

I'm really surprised that you're making this argument. I thought you favored divided government because you don't want either party having full control of the government, so I would have thought you'd be a proponent of the filibuster. Maybe I'm romanticizing the filibuster, but I still view it as a bulwark against a potentially oppressive majority, so I'd hate to see it go.

Waking up today:

4/5 wrote:I'm really surprised that you're making this argument. I thought you favored divided government because you don't want either party having full control of the government, so I would have thought you'd be a proponent of the filibuster. Maybe I'm romanticizing the filibuster, but I still view it as a bulwark against a potentially oppressive majority, so I'd hate to see it go.

Of course, I'm looking at that from the angle of if I were a true believing Republican or Democrat, of which I'm not. From a practical standpoint I indeed don't mind most of the effects that the filibuster may have. But I would also add that the Constitution already provides enough choke points in which an artificial filibuster rule shouldn't be necessary.

Simple Torture wrote:Waking up today:

I think it took me only about 15 minutes to have enough of covfefe votes.

They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

Anders wrote:They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

If it makes you feel any better the Paris agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough we're all fucked whether trump signs it or not.

tommymtcom wrote:

Anders wrote:They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

If it makes you feel any better the Paris agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough we're all fucked whether trump signs it or not.

This is largely my take as well, but with one addition: fossil fuels, particularly coal, still need to be aggressively clamped down upon. International treaties just aren't an effective way to do it.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Waking up today:

I think it took me only about 15 minutes to have enough of covfefe votes.

Just need some of that sweet easy d to pick you back up

Green Habit wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:

Anders wrote:They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

If it makes you feel any better the Paris agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough we're all fucked whether trump signs it or not.

This is largely my take as well, but with one addition: fossil fuels, particularly coal, still need to be aggressively clamped down upon. International treaties just aren't an effective way to do it.

Economics, particularly economic incentives are one of the most effective drivers that I've seen so far to encourage clean energy investment. It makes sense on a lot of levels to promote renewable energy, the initial investment hurdle is a tough one to get over but it is happening.

tommymtcom wrote:

Anders wrote:They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

If it makes you feel any better the Paris agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough we're all fucked whether trump signs it or not.

I don't really see it as a good argument that the agreement doesn't go far enough. Surely we have to start somewhere. Pulling in the opposite direction can't be any good.

Electromatic wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:

Anders wrote:They say the US is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. Not good.

If it makes you feel any better the Paris agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough we're all fucked whether trump signs it or not.

This is largely my take as well, but with one addition: fossil fuels, particularly coal, still need to be aggressively clamped down upon. International treaties just aren't an effective way to do it.

Economics, particularly economic incentives are one of the most effective drivers that I've seen so far to encourage clean energy investment. It makes sense on a lot of levels to promote renewable energy, the initial investment hurdle is a tough one to get over but it is happening.

Problem is that coal needed to die a generation ago, and could have if we haven't been freaking out over nuclear power--a technology that has notoriously high capital costs that the market doesn't want to deal with.

The donald had a bit too much covfefe before the service it appears!

Speaking of:

ExxonMobil management fails to fend off a shareholder rebellion over climate change

ExxonMobil failed to fend off a shareholder rebellion over climate change, as investors with 62.3 percent of shares voted to instruct the oil giant to report on the impact of global measures designed to keep climate change to 2 degrees centigrade.

Although the identity of voters wasn’t disclosed, major financial advisory firms BlackRock and Vanguard have been openly considering casting their votes against management on this key proxy resolution at the annual meeting Wednesday.

So after redirecting all Russia questions to private lawyers, the admin is now communicating that policy going forward not to take any questions at all on the subject.

Meanwhile, Comey is cleared for landing.

What a maroon.