So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[talltexan]

Alright, i decreased my support for Bill Weld to $20. It doesn't seem like Mrs. TallTexan likes him, so I thought $25 was too much.

LennStar- I appreciate hearing foreign perspectives on this discussion. If life ever brings you to Charlotte, NC, (where I live now), let me know, we'll celebrate mustachian style with some of my wife's premium loose tea at my house.

[talltexan]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

[GuitarStv]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

lol

"Russia conspired with us to win the election.  Thanks Obama."

  - Sincerely, Republicans

[Tom Bri]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

I have been working my own way through the report, about 3/4 done. My take is that Mueller found that Trump's team was full of amateurs and incompetents, and that Trump himself is not well versed on election law. Gotta be even more embarrassing for the Dems that he beat Hil. Secondarily, it reads like a hit piece on Hillary.

[JLee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQzIyhoqEaM

~10min Anderson Cooper breakdown of the report's discoveries, including testimonies made under oath vs public statements that have been made.

Spoiler alert, "fake news" sometimes means "real news but we deny it."

[talltexan]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

I have been working my own way through the report, about 3/4 done. My take is that Mueller found that Trump's team was full of amateurs and incompetents, and that Trump himself is not well versed on election law. Gotta be even more embarrassing for the Dems that he beat Hil. Secondarily, it reads like a hit piece on Hillary.

I cannot help but wonder whether Clinton was a bad enough candidate that someone more traditionally Republican--say Marco Rubio or even Rand Paul--wouldn't have cleared 400 EV's against her?

[nereo]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

I have been working my own way through the report, about 3/4 done. My take is that Mueller found that Trump's team was full of amateurs and incompetents, and that Trump himself is not well versed on election law. Gotta be even more embarrassing for the Dems that he beat Hil. Secondarily, it reads like a hit piece on Hillary.

I cannot help but wonder whether Clinton was a bad enough candidate that someone more traditionally Republican--say Marco Rubio or even Rand Paul--wouldn't have cleared 400 EV's against her?

Which states that went for HRC do you think a more traditional GOP candidate could have flipped in 2016?
Minnesota and New Hampshire were two states that went for HRC that were reasonably (+/- 3%) close (constituting 10 and 4 electoral votes, respectively). 

[Tom Bri]

Would love to hear what people in this group think of this reaction to the Mueller report (written from the pro-Trump side):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

I have been working my own way through the report, about 3/4 done. My take is that Mueller found that Trump's team was full of amateurs and incompetents, and that Trump himself is not well versed on election law. Gotta be even more embarrassing for the Dems that he beat Hil. Secondarily, it reads like a hit piece on Hillary.

I cannot help but wonder whether Clinton was a bad enough candidate that someone more traditionally Republican--say Marco Rubio or even Rand Paul--wouldn't have cleared 400 EV's against her?

I seriously doubt it. The Dems were ready for any normal candidate. It was Trump's weirdness that threw them. Although Hil's refusal to run a serious race in places like Wisconsin didn't help. I doubt that Jeb or Rand would have been as brutal. But this is a bit off topic so I'll stop here.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

The idea of Putin and Kim meeting gives me a really uneasy feeling - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47972954

"North Korea's strategy always has been walking a tight-rope between the conflicts of the world powers and getting concessions that way," Park Young-ja, a researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification, told BBC Korean.
"So meeting with Russia could be a card it can play against China and the US."

What does Moscow want?
President Putin has been eager to meet with the North Korean leader for quite some time. Yet amid the two Trump-Kim summits, the Kremlin was somewhat sidelined.

[talltexan]

Russia has a compelling interest in security on the Korean peninsula. Russia was also a (good faith) partner in the Iran agreement. I applaud Kim meeting with Putin.

[sol]

Russia was also a (good faith) partner in the Iran agreement.

According to the Mueller report and associated reporting, Russia was never a good faith partner in the Iran agreement.  Rather, Obama wanted Russia to be a partner and so backed down when Mitch McConnell refused to let him publicize Russia's election interference, because it was politically advantageous for the Iran deal to not alienate Russia and Mitch at the same time.  The Iran deal was just the lever.

Just another case of incidental collusion, where Russia and the Republican party happened to want the same thing at the same time, so they teamed up to make it happen.  It sounds like Obama was outmaneuvered on this one, because like seemingly all democrats he felt obligated to play by the rules.  I'm guessing that if the parties had been reversed, Obama would have tweeted about the election interference in all caps despite Congress trying to stop him. 

[JLee]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2019/04/23/white-house-instructs-official-ignore-democratic-subpoena-over-security-clearances/

A former White House personnel security director has been instructed by the White House not to show up Tuesday for questioning by the House Oversight Committee.

The move appears to be the latest effort by the Trump administration to push back against congressional inquiries targeting the White House, which have proliferated since Democrats took control of the House in January.

White House deputy counsel Michael M. Purpura wrote a letter Monday asking the former security director, Carl Kline, not to show up as the committee had requested. Kline is now working at the Defense Department.

In a letter to Kline’s lawyer obtained by The Washington Post, Purpura wrote that a committee subpoena asking Kline to appear “unconstitutionally encroaches on fundamental executive branch interests.”

In a separate letter Monday, Kline's attorney, Robert Driscoll, told the panel that his client would adhere to the White House recommendation.

“With two masters from two equal branches of government, we will follow the instructions of the one that employs him,” Driscoll wrote in the letter addressed to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

Seems the Trump administration is simply ignoring subpoenas now.

[nereo]

Seems the Trump administration is simply ignoring subpoenas now.

Technically they aren't ignoring them.  They are refuting the legislature's legal authority to issue subpoenas to oversee the executive branch, calling the subpoenas: "unconstitutional" and directing (ordering) those under the executive branch NOT to comply. 
Their stated reasoning is that these subpoena lack a bona fide 'legislative purpose'.

To me this is way more scary than simply ignoring subpoenas. It will be insightful to see how quickly this moves through the courts, and what the ultimate interpretation is.

[JLee]

Seems the Trump administration is simply ignoring subpoenas now.

Technically they aren't ignoring them.  They are refuting the legislature's legal authority to issue subpoenas to oversee the executive branch, calling the subpoenas: "unconstitutional" and directing (ordering) those under the executive branch NOT to comply. 
Their stated reasoning is that these subpoena lack a bona fide 'legislative purpose'.

To me this is way more scary than simply ignoring subpoenas. It will be insightful to see how quickly this moves through the courts, and what the ultimate interpretation is.

Fair point - it's outright rejection of the checks and balances and a direct challenge to the validity of the entire concept of our structure of government.

[sol]

Technically they aren't ignoring them.  They are refuting the legislature's legal authority to issue subpoenas to oversee the executive branch, calling the subpoenas: "unconstitutional" and directing (ordering) those under the executive branch NOT to comply. 
Their stated reasoning is that these subpoena lack a bona fide 'legislative purpose'.

That's the exact same rationale they used to tell the IRS to refuse to furnish Trump's tax returns to Congress. 

This is how dictatorships happen.  What's the point of checks and balances, if nobody is going to check or balance?

[nereo]

Technically they aren't ignoring them.  They are refuting the legislature's legal authority to issue subpoenas to oversee the executive branch, calling the subpoenas: "unconstitutional" and directing (ordering) those under the executive branch NOT to comply. 
Their stated reasoning is that these subpoena lack a bona fide 'legislative purpose'.

That's the exact same rationale they used to tell the IRS to refuse to furnish Trump's tax returns to Congress. 

This is how dictatorships happen.  What's the point of checks and balances, if nobody is going to check or balance?

Yup.  That's why I'm so keen to see how these challenges go through the courts.  If SCOTUS refuses to uphold the legislative branch's authority as a check on the executive branch they will simultaneously neuter their own importance.  Hopefully at least Roberts sees and understands this.

[DavidAnnArbor]

The conservatives on the Supreme Court seem pretty united in allowing the citizenship question on the US Census. Just another chess move toward dissolving our democracy.

On Census Citizenship Question, Supreme Court’s Conservatives Appear United
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/politics/supreme-court-census-citizenship.html

"By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might not be counted."

This response from one of the NYTimes commenters says it all,

"Jack Toner
Oakland, CA40m ago
Times Pick
@Conservative Democrat The actual purpose of this question is to discourage immigrants from filling out the census form thus understating the total population in certain places. Places which do tend to trend Democratic.

Perhaps you're enough of a Conservative Democrat (aka a Republican) to think that's perfectly okay.

But since you're so conservative I would think you'd want to see what our Constitution has to say:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"Other persons" was a euphemism for slaves which no longer exist, there are no longer any Indians who aren't taxed nor any indentured servants. So what we're left with is all people. It then stipulates that there be an "actual enumeration" for this purpose. So we're supposed to count everyone.

Note, there's nothing about restricting this to citizens. You might like there to be. You are free to propose a Constitutional amendment to accomplish this but absent such an amendment it just ain't so.

So as a conservative I'm sure you wouldn't want to undermine the Founders' wishes that all persons be counted.

Just to be clear: those who aren't citizens are not allowed to vote but they are all to be counted. All."

[Kris]

The conservative justices on the SC should be ashamed.

Honestly. They aren't politicians. They have lifetime appointments. But they are still bought and sold by the GOP.

Good lord. I've had enough of people for today.

[GuitarStv]

The conservative justices on the SC should be ashamed.

Honestly. They aren't politicians. They have lifetime appointments. But they are still bought and sold by the GOP.

Good lord. I've had enough of people for today.

This should be mentioned the next time a Republican bitches about the Supreme Court justices 'legislating from the bench'.

[JLee]

The conservative justices on the SC should be ashamed.

Honestly. They aren't politicians. They have lifetime appointments. But they are still bought and sold by the GOP.

Good lord. I've had enough of people for today.

This should be mentioned the next time a Republican bitches about the Supreme Court justices 'legislating from the bench'.

Double standards are basically the way of life for the GOP, though. Pointing out the hypocrisy never seems to make a difference.

[Kris]

The conservative justices on the SC should be ashamed.

Honestly. They aren't politicians. They have lifetime appointments. But they are still bought and sold by the GOP.

Good lord. I've had enough of people for today.

This should be mentioned the next time a Republican bitches about the Supreme Court justices 'legislating from the bench'.

Double standards are basically the way of life for the GOP, though. Pointing out the hypocrisy never seems to make a difference.

Exactly. Basically, it must be the first lesson in GOP 101: Being a hypocrite is fine, as long as you never acknowledge it.

[JLee]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/white-house-security-clearance-investigators-1287313

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings is moving toward a vote to hold former White House personnel security director Carl Kline in contempt after he refused to comply with a subpoena for his appearance before the committee on Tuesday.

Cummings’ statement came after the White House instructed Kline to not answer questions Tuesday as part of the committee’ investigation into the White House security clearance process. It also sets up what could be the most significant clash between the two branches of government since Democrats took over the House.

“It appears that the president believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight,” Cummings (D-Md.) said.

Can someone explain to me why this itself is not deliberate and outright obstruction of justice?

[GuitarStv]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/white-house-security-clearance-investigators-1287313

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings is moving toward a vote to hold former White House personnel security director Carl Kline in contempt after he refused to comply with a subpoena for his appearance before the committee on Tuesday.

Cummings’ statement came after the White House instructed Kline to not answer questions Tuesday as part of the committee’ investigation into the White House security clearance process. It also sets up what could be the most significant clash between the two branches of government since Democrats took over the House.

“It appears that the president believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight,” Cummings (D-Md.) said.

Can someone explain to me why this itself is not deliberate and outright obstruction of justice?

Hilary Hilary Benghazi Obama?

[sol]

Can someone explain to me why this itself is not deliberate and outright obstruction of justice?

Because there is no such things as obstruction of justice as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.

Mueller outright said that there is more than enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, but that the special counsel does not have the legal authority to indict a sitting President.  Only Congress can do that, and only by impeachment, and Mitch has publicly stated that he will never allow such a vote to come up in the Senate.  So Trump is basically immune at this point, no matter what crimes he commits, because Mitch has offered him total immunity.

Not only is McConnell not ashamed of this stance, he publicly celebrates it.  He has repeatedly said that Trump is innocent precisely because the American people voted for Republicans despite knowing what he has done, and he believes that this means the public doesn't want Trump indicted and that therefor no crimes can be committed.  It's a slightly convoluted argument, but it basically boils down to "we won the election so we get to do whatever we want."

[scottish]

Not to worry.   Even if you all re-elect the cheating orange guy next year, it sounds like the end for the republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Not to worry.   Even if you all re-elect the cheating orange guy next year, it sounds like the end for the republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html

That's what worries me, whoever is elected in 2020 inherits an economy with a market at all time highs and unemployment at decade lows.  It's easy to crucify that guy/gal.  Trump probably doesn't care if he is crucified, it's just more of the same for him and he's a pro at enjoying the ride.

[MasterStache]

Not to worry.   Even if you all re-elect the cheating orange guy next year, it sounds like the end for the republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html

Ehhh, Trump embodies Republican principles these days. They aren't the party they used to be. The election of Trump pretty much solidifies that. 

[DavidAnnArbor]

Not to worry.   Even if you all re-elect the cheating orange guy next year, it sounds like the end for the republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html

Ehhh, Trump embodies Republican principles these days. They aren't the party they used to be. The election of Trump pretty much solidifies that.

The problem with the author's argument is Republican efforts at suppressing the votes of Democrats, as we've seen throughout Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, and other states that enforce rigid voter ID laws, including in North Dakota where suddenly Native Americans had to prove their address in order to vote.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, Trump has established new precedents for how political parties will operate.  Sometimes it may be in our favor (yay more access to guns and less access to abortions, not!), more likely it will be only partially in the direction of our core values (I wanted healthcare for everyone, but 50% of Medicare coverage for those under 75 and no private insurance for all = sucks for everybody!  Meh!).  I can see this new normal lasting well beyond my lifetime - not bad enough to gather up the troops to fight it but not necessarily good either. 

Hopefully I'm wrong and we'll get the next 'Obama' and a better ACA in 2020, I set my expectations low and hope to be pleasantly surprised.  But Trump supporters are fools if they think precedents set now will always result in outcomes they intended.  The next President could now very easily (and rationally) cite climate change as a national emergency and divert funds toward subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. 

You lay down with a dirty dog, you wake up with fleas.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Technically they aren't ignoring them.  They are refuting the legislature's legal authority to issue subpoenas to oversee the executive branch, calling the subpoenas: "unconstitutional" and directing (ordering) those under the executive branch NOT to comply. 
Their stated reasoning is that these subpoena lack a bona fide 'legislative purpose'.

That's the exact same rationale they used to tell the IRS to refuse to furnish Trump's tax returns to Congress. 

This is how dictatorships happen.  What's the point of checks and balances, if nobody is going to check or balance?

It is not just 'sad'  that the most free thinking nation on the planet seems to be bending toward dictatorship, but that the United States will be a dictatorship under a dynasty like the Trump family.  Might as well add a Trademark symbol (USA, part of all proceeds go to Trump).

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Well, here we are, sitting on the sidelines hoping that North Korea and Russia aren't, I guess, colluding against the US?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/asia/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-summit-intl/index.html?adkey=bn

[GuitarStv]

Well, here we are, sitting on the sidelines hoping that North Korea and Russia aren't, I guess, colluding against the US?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/asia/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-summit-intl/index.html?adkey=bn

Why would they collude against America?  Trump has bent over backwards to do exactly what Putin and Kim want so far.  They might be deciding how to make the orange puppet dance next though.

[Kris]

Well, here we are, sitting on the sidelines hoping that North Korea and Russia aren't, I guess, colluding against the US?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/asia/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-summit-intl/index.html?adkey=bn

Why would they collude against America?  Trump has bent over backwards to do exactly what Putin and Kim want so far.  They might be deciding how to make the orange puppet dance next though.

Excellent point.

God. Can you imagine what Kim and Putin's conversations about Trump are like? They probably laugh their asses off. They probably sit around snickering at what obviously overblown compliments they can give him next so he'll preen and do whatever the hell they want. Because they both know he is easy as hell to manipulate. Hell, we all do.

[LennStar]

Well, here we are, sitting on the sidelines hoping that North Korea and Russia aren't, I guess, colluding against the US?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/23/asia/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-summit-intl/index.html?adkey=bn

Why would they collude against America?  Trump has bent over backwards to do exactly what Putin and Kim want so far.  They might be deciding how to make the orange puppet dance next though.

Excellent point.

God. Can you imagine what Kim and Putin's conversations about Trump are like? They probably laugh their asses off. They probably sit around snickering at what obviously overblown compliments they can give him next so he'll preen and do whatever the hell they want. Because they both know he is easy as hell to manipulate. Hell, we all do.

Let's bet!

I think they are talking about who is the next one to do threats, and who gets the role of "mediator".

[sol]

By now, the emerging narrative of the Mueller report appears to be that it's an open invitation to impeach Donald Trump. 

It says that he's definitely guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice, but that only Congress has the power to do anything about it.  He laid out all of the evidence, clearly states that it exceeds the standard for criminal prosecution, and then declines to prosecute because he lacks the authority.  He's basically begging Congress to impeach.

Hilariously, Trump himself has tried to spin it in the exact opposite direction, by saying that the Mueller report exonerated him because it chose not to prosecute him.  He apparently didn't read the parts where it says he's guilty.

Whether or not democrats actually start impeachment hearings is another matter entirely, one governed by politics rather than facts.  Since the Senate will never vote to impeach anyway, it would seem a fruitless exercise to even go through the motions.  On the other hand, NOT starting impeachment hearings sure looks like letting a known criminal off the hook scot free.  Everyone agrees that he's clearly guilty (even William Barr, apparently), so why shouldn't there be any repercussions?

[former player]

I wouldn't put a lot of money on the majority of Trump supporters reading much more than he does, and very few of them will have even opened the Mueller Report file.    Seeing the evidence given in person will be far more effective - it will have a much bigger reach and be much harder to deny.

That means that the important next step is to get the witnesses to wrongdoing in the Mueller report to restate their evidence on camera.  Then that evidence can be replayed over and over on cable TV and youtube etc. and start to move public opinion.  That can be done in any Congressional hearings.  Impeachment can come later, once public opinion has started to move.

The other thing to remember is that the Mueller probe was limited.  It didn't cover the campaign finance crimes in which Trump is already a named co-conspirator, and it didn't cover the breaches of the Emoluments Clause which have been ongoing for the last 2 years.  Impeachment which includes those two items as well as the obstruction of justice laid out by Mueller will be harder for Republicans in the Senate to resist - although they would no doubt try.

[Kris]

I wouldn't put a lot of money on the majority of Trump supporters reading much more than he does, and very few of them will have even opened the Mueller Report file. 

Exactly right. Dear Leader has already told them what to think. And that Mueller is a biased lying liar McLiarpants. That's all they need to know.

[nereo]

I wouldn't put a lot of money on the majority of Trump supporters reading much more than he does, and very few of them will have even opened the Mueller Report file.    Seeing the evidence given in person will be far more effective - it will have a much bigger reach and be much harder to deny.

That means that the important next step is to get the witnesses to wrongdoing in the Mueller report to restate their evidence on camera.  Then that evidence can be replayed over and over on cable TV and youtube etc. and start to move public opinion.  That can be done in any Congressional hearings.  Impeachment can come later, once public opinion has started to move.

The other thing to remember is that the Mueller probe was limited.  It didn't cover the campaign finance crimes in which Trump is already a named co-conspirator, and it didn't cover the breaches of the Emoluments Clause which have been ongoing for the last 2 years.  Impeachment which includes those two items as well as the obstruction of justice laid out by Mueller will be harder for Republicans in the Senate to resist - although they would no doubt try.

I agree with you.  However, this means getting a bunch of current and former executive-branch employees to testify under oath, which in most cases will require subpoenas.  Oh look, the WH has come out against congressional subpoenas in a massive way... i wonder why that could be?

[DavidAnnArbor]

Does the Congress have to fight the White House in the court to allow it's subpoenas to be upheld ?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I know it is just minor daily environmental injustices, but so much of it happens and I wonder how aware most Americans are?  Scott Pruitt was terrible to head the EPA and Trump seems hell bent on accelerating climate change.  The latest example I came across - Trump issues updated presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline

The article is from the Oil & Gas Journal, so it paints Keystone XL in an industry favorable light.  The truth of the matter is, the project will create very few temporary jobs to construct the pipeline and will flow some of the crappiest, carbon heavy bitumen crude from Canada's oil sands to market.  Fortunately, economics like low oil price (making extracting the heavy crude barely cost effective) and the increasing supply of domestic onshore hydrocarbons from fracking are helping delay Keystone XL more than anything, but I shudder every time I read how Trump's administration is handling environmental issues.  We may have a market it all time highs, but environmental degradation is paying for it.

[former player]

There's a report on the BBC today that thousands of Emperor penguin chicks died in 2016 when their ice shelf dissolved underneath them.  Not directly linked to global warming, but half the remaining population of these penguins is at risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48041487

[LennStar]

  We may have a market it all time highs, but environmental degradation is paying for it.

And all the people already dying because of heat or flooding or draught.

Currently the farmers here in Germany worry that this summer may be like the last (the second dryest in meteorological history) - it is certainly already too dry again.

The underground water has not regenerated even with the fairly heavy rain in December. Another year like the last now... would be really devastating. Not 30% overall loss (means some nearly lost 100%), but more. Last year the global harvest of wheat was less than needed btw.


But luckily the economy is good! We may starve, but at least we can drive 500m distances in our cars!!

[former player]

  We may have a market it all time highs, but environmental degradation is paying for it.

And all the people already dying because of heat or flooding or draught.

Currently the farmers here in Germany worry that this summer may be like the last (the second dryest in meteorological history) - it is certainly already too dry again.

The underground water has not regenerated even with the fairly heavy rain in December. Another year like the last now... would be really devastating. Not 30% overall loss (means some nearly lost 100%), but more. Last year the global harvest of wheat was less than needed btw.


But luckily the economy is good! We may starve, but at least we can drive 500m distances in our cars!!

Talking of food shortages, apparently half the pigs in China could die of African swine fever. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47956960

[MasterStache]

..... but I shudder every time I read how Trump's administration is handling environmental issues.

It's hard to give a shit about something you don't believe exist.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

..... but I shudder every time I read how Trump's administration is handling environmental issues.

It's hard to give a shit about something you don't believe exist.

And sadly, Trump is what, a very unfit 72 years old.  Not the guy you want making long range plans for the human race.  Unless the payoff is coming this year, it doesn't really matter.

[talltexan]

Is Trump's handling of Energy, Interior, and EPA different from what Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have done?

I seem to recall there being an applause line about eliminating those departments in previous GOP primaries.

Sincere question.

[Kris]

Is Trump's handling of Energy, Interior, and EPA different from what Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have done?

I seem to recall there being an applause line about eliminating those departments in previous GOP primaries.

Sincere question.

I'd say it's different from what Jeb Bush would have done.

Probably not Ted Cruz, though.

[Roadrunner53]

Perfect nickname for Trump!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-conway-donald-trump-nickname_n_5cc195efe4b01b6b3efd39c1

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Is Trump's handling of Energy, Interior, and EPA different from what Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have done?

I seem to recall there being an applause line about eliminating those departments in previous GOP primaries.

Sincere question.

I'd say it's different from what Jeb Bush would have done.

Probably not Ted Cruz, though.

I don't even think Texas Ted would've been quite so aggressive in investing in coal, slashing regulations, trying to open up Florida and California for offshore drilling and having anti-environmentalists running the EPA.  Trump basically signs everything industry wants and tramples progressive Obama regulations for fun.  Renewable energy, clean energy - why subsidize that when there's still coal in Pennsylvania?  Even Ted would not make claims like wind-farms cause cancer.  My last shred of hope is that it has become almost impossible to ignore climate change.  Sure, it's past the point of being too late already, but it's hard to get people to ignore freak snowstorms, 100 year floods that happen every year, etc.   Quite unfortunate that the US has an outsize influence, for it's population, for the amount of CO2 we generate - not the place where you want to have a pro-business, anti-climate guy in charge if you want to start addressing this.

[Glenstache]

Is Trump's handling of Energy, Interior, and EPA different from what Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have done?

I seem to recall there being an applause line about eliminating those departments in previous GOP primaries.

Sincere question.

I'd say it's different from what Jeb Bush would have done.

Probably not Ted Cruz, though.

I don't even think Texas Ted would've been quite so aggressive in investing in coal, slashing regulations, trying to open up Florida and California for offshore drilling and having anti-environmentalists running the EPA.  Trump basically signs everything industry wants and tramples progressive Obama regulations for fun.  Renewable energy, clean energy - why subsidize that when there's still coal in Pennsylvania?  Even Ted would not make claims like wind-farms cause cancer.  My last shred of hope is that it has become almost impossible to ignore climate change.  Sure, it's past the point of being too late already, but it's hard to get people to ignore freak snowstorms, 100 year floods that happen every year, etc.   Quite unfortunate that the US has an outsize influence, for it's population, for the amount of CO2 we generate - not the place where you want to have a pro-business, anti-climate guy in charge if you want to start addressing this.

Why care about climate change when the Rapture is just around the corner. While this may sound snide, there is a significant portion of the country that is not invested in long term planning literally because Jesus will take care of it all pretty soon anyways. I've been in discussion about long term planning for facilities (publicly owned effectively indefinite operation facilities) where managers of faith have indicated that 50 year planning isn't so important for that very reason. Here's some data indicating that 41% of Americans think the Rapture is just around the corner (ie, before 2050).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/

Those minds are not likely to be changed by science or rational arguments. So, yes, many people find it hard to ignore climate change. But there are a hell of a lot of people who are just fine with ignoring it. It's maddening.