Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan

"The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions"

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is simply a bandaid. The only genuine "solution" would be to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. As the report that was just released points out we are already in the effects of Climate change. What it doesn't point out is that the system is elastic, based on the levels of carbon dioxide we have in the atmosphere we expect much higher effects, it simply takes time to kick in since this change has happened in a "split second" in geologic time.

All the plan intended was to reduce the rate at which the levels increase, not to actually reduce them. Also, Obama's plan only had force in the US, 5% of the world's population. So if successful he would reduce the rate at which 5% of the world is polluting. Again, a band aid.

Third, these plans are voluntary. What happens when all social order collapses like it has in Guatemala, or the Honduras, of Syria, Yemen, Puerto Rico, etc. As these areas are hammered they are not going to pay any attention, if they need to use extremely dirty generators after a catastrophe they will.

Have you considered how much carbon dioxide went into the air from the California fires. Is that factored in? Do they now say "Oh, sorry California, you have completely used up your quota in the fires", no? Then the whole plan is bogus, even if you did keep it the "exceptions to the rule" could easily outweigh any small reduction. It was a bandaid, not going to solve anything. Brace for impact.

Those who have been most active in the research and battle to do something no longer are focused on reducing emissions, rather they are looking at ways to adapt to the new reality. Floating cities, things like that. Maybe in the 70s we had a chance to make some meaningful changes that could have postponed judgement day, but as Arnold Schwarnegger said "judgement day is inevitable, you only postponed it".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Have you considered how much carbon dioxide went into the air from the California fires. Is that factored in? Do they now say "Oh, sorry California, you have completely used up your quota in the fires", no? Then the whole plan is bogus, even if you did keep it the "exceptions to the rule" could easily outweigh any small reduction. It was a bandaid, not going to solve anything. Brace for impact.

I say yes. California has used up their carbon quota. No more fossil fuels for them until next year. Close their gas stations. Shut down their power stations. No federal money for them.

Jerry Brown should be thrown in prison. He is mentally unstable, destroying California. Everything evil he said about Trump should now be done to him. He let all those people in Paradise die, while he played the fiddle. He is a murdering fascist, worst that Hitler, Stalin, or Nero.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If he is guilty of those things there should be a closed door hearing, let the house and senate see the evidence. The House now has a very solid Democratic majority and surely a couple of Republicans would also vote for impeachment if there was evidence sufficient to convict.

That's a naive assumption. There's plenty of evidence. https://www.economist.com/united-sta...Ed3jDOHbYFvknw What is needed is the political will.

After this last election the Republicans would have to realize that the only way to avoid being destroyed in 2 years is to support impeachment in such a case. I am all for impeaching him if you have solid evidence of a crime. I also believe that impeachment is the only first step. You can't have a sitting president also being tried in a criminal court. Impeach him, then let him defend himself.

Impeachment can have unintended political consequences as has been demonstrated in the past after A. Johnson and Clinton. The Democratic base may want impeachment, but the party leaders want to proceed with caution. If the Republicans support impeachment as you said of course that could change.

Great. Well human history does not progress in a straight line. If you are absolutely, 100% correct about him, then the benefit of his administration is twofold

1. Motivated the vote
2. Referendum on the immigration issue and the immigrants clearly won.

The immigration problem is a result of the inability of the major parties in Washington to agree on a rational policy due to politicization. The problem is made worse by Trump's fear-mongering. But, your claim that the immigrants "won" is more of the same.

I think this last election was an overwhelming victory for the Democrats. The voters are speaking. If we think of the collective wisdom the voters made it clear they were not going to let Hillary Clinton be elected and now they are not going to allow Trump to run the country either.

The victory was less than overwhelming. The Democrats won the House of Representatives. They didn't win the Senate. And there's a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They picked up some Gubernatorial seats some state legislative seats. But, the Republicans have more. The Republicans won big in Florida.

You think it's a president's job is to "run the country"? The POTUS directs one branch of the Federal Government. He's not an absolute monarch or the CEO of the USA. The US Constitution doesn't empower the POTUS to "run the country." That's not how the USA is supposed to work. Your statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the US government on your part.

In addition they have made it clear how they feel about immigration and they realize for the first time that their vote does matter and they need to become involved.

Actually there was more than one issue involved. But, right, more people are getting involved which is good for democracy which is a good thing to us who believe in that sort of thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a naive assumption. There's plenty of evidence. https://www.economist.com/united-sta...Ed3jDOHbYFvknw What is needed is the political will.

Now who is being naive. In the US it is not whether or not someone is guilty, it is whether or not you can prove they are guilty.

Originally Posted by zeek

Impeachment can have unintended political consequences as has been demonstrated in the past after A. Johnson and Clinton. The Democratic base may want impeachment, but the party leaders want to proceed with caution. If the Republicans support impeachment as you said of course that could change.

There is no other option. I would absolutely reject the idea of a criminal trial a sitting president. Step 1 -- impeachment. Step 2 -- Trial. Now there is no reason that the evidence would have to be sealed, Mueller's report can be made public and if that is not enough to get powerful public support for impeachment then the case is weak. Just look at the last midterm, the public is not giving Trump a pass, not even in Mississippi.

Originally Posted by zeek

The immigration problem is a result of the inability of the major parties in Washington to agree on a rational policy due to politicization. The problem is made worse by Trump's fear-mongering. But, your claim that the immigrants "won" is more of the same.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming on both sides. Republicans claim they want to strengthen the borders, etc but the biggest violators are Republicans who really want their employees to be illegal aliens that are afraid to speak up lest they get deported. This is why I said the immigrants won because neither party would have ever done a referendum, this election was a referendum.

Originally Posted by zeek

The victory was less than overwhelming. The Democrats won the House of Representatives. They didn't win the Senate. And there's a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They picked up some Gubernatorial seats some state legislative seats. But, the Republicans have more. The Republicans won big in Florida.

Democrats did as good or better than every single projection. No one projected a victory this big. On one hand they have a very firm control of the house whereas most projections only gave Democrats good odds to win the house, not nearly in such a dominating way.

They don't control the Senate, but how much are they lacking -- 2 seats. In 2 years 33 senators will be up for election, probably 16-17 will be Republican. They saw the heavy losses in this election and they will take that into consideration. I would not be surprised if a few flip here and there. the fear of Trump has to be much less than it was, and if Mueller's report is as damaging as many say it will be (politically, not criminally) then These Republicans may be very eager to distance themselves from him.

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually there was more than one issue involved. But, right, more people are getting involved which is good for democracy which is a good thing to us who believe in that sort of thing.

Compared to the abuses of 200 years ago we have had great improvement. Democracy was an experiment 250 years ago, today it is stronger than ever with China and Russia doing a last ditch effort to undermine it, but once their lies get exposed it will make us stronger and make them look even worse.

[Ohio]

Nixon was almost impeached for spying on the Democrats and lying about it during an election season.

So Trump should be impeached for being spied on by the Democrats and lied to during an election season???

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nixon was almost impeached for spying on the Democrats and lying about it during an election season.

So Trump should be impeached for being spied on by the Democrats and lied to during an election season???

Relax, he will not be impeached unless you can convince a few Republican Senators that his crimes warrant it. That is a very high standard. They would need to see clear and convincing proof so serious that if they ignore it they won't get reelected.

[awareness]

I'm moved to say : My esteem for Geraldo Rivera has been up and down for a long time. But at the moment it's very high.

On the "not fake news" Fox “The Five” he went off script and said :

“I am ashamed." “The tear gas choked me. We treat these people, these economic refugees, as if they’re zombies from ‘The Walking Dead.’”

“These are desperate people. They walked 2,000 miles. Why? Because they want to rape your daughter or steal your lunch? No! Because they want a job. They want to fill the millions of unfilled jobs we have in the agricultural sector. They want to wash dishes in the restaurants. They want to deliver the pizzas. For goodness sake, we suspend our humanity when it comes to this issue, and I fear that it is because they look different than the mainstream.”

There's the Rivera I once loved.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Relax, he will not be impeached unless you can convince a few Republican Senators that his crimes warrant it. That is a very high standard. They would need to see clear and convincing proof so serious that if they ignore it they won't get reelected.

Have you forgotten the rules? Only a House majority in needed for impeachment, and a Senate super-majority is needed for conviction.

Both Ken Starr and Muller have proved how far off these Special Prosecutors can go. There's not a man in this country, given time with federal agents, who cannot be convicted of lying. Bill C, Mike Flynn, Popodopolous, and more have all learned this. The threshold standard for Lying is so low. General Flynn was just having a casual conversation about the election with Agent Peter Strzok at the White House, not under oath, nor represented by his atty. Yet we all know that FBI agents like Strzok never lie, so by definition, Flynn is guilty. Not guilty of collusion or obstruction or any actual crime, but guilty of working with Trump, the enemy of the Deep State.