GB54;842488622 said:
The money is obscene on both sides. This is why I applaud insurrection whether it is the tea party or operation Wall Street because they are the only people who promote change. Left to their own, the Republicans and Democrats are only interested in bribery and self perpetuation of the oligarchy. Up the revolution
sycasey;842488623 said:
Sadly, that is what's needed to run a campaign these days. Some countries tightly restrict the amount of money that can be spent in a political campaign, but we opened Pandora's Box a long while ago (in the name of "free speech," which IMO is a terrible argument). Not sure how we're going to fix this problem now.
Rushinbear;842488633 said:
We can start by saying that you can't touch any of the left-over money. Hill is far ahead of any and all Reps. And, I don't think she will be able to spend anywhere near that, if she runs (looks slightly less likely than two months ago). Do you honestly think that she will not put the left-overs in her pocket? Sadly, the Reps do it, too. It's just that the Clinton's deny everything (when confronted) while the Reps get the sheepish grin...and then resign.
I believe that you cannot have free speech in campaigns without money. And, you cannot have the state deciding how much or you'll have Big Brother in three election cycles.
Incidentally, the Founders faced this very same issue and took care of it (for the most part, there was some vote buying, literally) through having honest leaders and a reasonably (for the times) educated electorate.
dajo9;842488637 said:
The Clinton's are corporate for sure, but they've done nothing they should be resigning for.
Rushinbear;842488633 said:
.. And, you cannot have the state deciding how much or you'll have Big Brother in three election cycle..
bearister;842488650 said:
I thought we already had the Big Brothers in all the election cycles.
OdontoBear66;842488640 said:
"they've done nothing" may not be true. They haven't been caught with ample evidence to date may be better stated. To date, we are still not sure, but to say "they've done nothing" is given overstatement.
NYCGOBEARS;842488652 said:
We already have Big Brother... Obama.
OdontoBear66;842488655 said:
Very good NYC----And if not proclaimed by others I am sure he would give himself the mantle.
Rushinbear;842488633 said:
We can start by saying that you can't touch any of the left-over money. Hill is far ahead of any and all Reps. And, I don't think she will be able to spend anywhere near that, if she runs (looks slightly less likely than two months ago). Do you honestly think that she will not put the left-overs in her pocket? Sadly, the Reps do it, too. It's just that the Clinton's deny everything (when confronted) while the Reps get the sheepish grin...and then resign.
Rushinbear;842488633 said:
I believe that you cannot have free speech in campaigns without money. And, you cannot have the state deciding how much or you'll have Big Brother in three election cycles.
BeachyBear;842488504 said:
dajo9, refuting Newsmax with Media Matters isn't an upgrade in credibility. I'm not taking sides, I'm just sick of my FB newsfeed being full of garbage news from agenda "journalists" on both the left and right. We're Cal, aren't we better than this?
\dajo9;842488630 said:
It's amazing to me when people don't recognize the dominance of corporate money in our politics. I feel like my party, the Democratic Party, is overrun by corporate interests. But at least there is a side to the Democratic Party that is resistant to that. In my view the Republican Party operates for the benefits of those corporate interests.
One can look at the donations or at the revolving door of jobs provided by big business to politicians or the huge corporate lobbying that takes place on a daily basis. It is by far the number one influence in our politics.
oski003;842488692 said:
\
Yes, there is no side to the Republican Party that is not overrun by corporate interest. Sarcasm.
dajo9;842488637 said:
The Clinton's are corporate for sure, but they've done nothing they should be resigning for.
FCBear;842488727 said:
So more "settled science"? Jfc....the email thing alone should disqualify her....
dajo9;842488693 said:
Even the Tea Party crowd completely toes the corporate line without even realizing it.
BearGoggles;842488743 said:
Right, because their stupid. Anyone who doesn't agree with you clearly is stupid or foolish. What other explanation could there be?
dajo9;842488637 said:
The Clinton's are corporate for sure, but they've done nothing they should be resigning for.
NYCGOBEARS;842488658 said:
I do believe that amongst his imtimates, he is known specifically as "Soul Brother #1".
BearGoggles;842488746 said:
The only reason they shouldn't resign is that neither is currently in public office.
To his credit, Sycasey is at least honest when he says " I will probably vote for Hillary anyway because she'll still be better aligned with my values than whatever joker comes out of the Republican primary."
Things Hillary and Bill have done wrong - not all illegal but certainly morally suspect:
1. Raising money for the Clinton Foundation in contravention of the agreement Hillary signed with the Obama administration as a condition to being appointed secretary of state . She breached the agreement - that is wrong.
2. Failing to disclose all donors to the CF, as she had promised. Lying (or breaking a promise) is wrong.
3. Knowingly and greedily taking money (both BIll's fees and CF donations) when they knew that, even when viewed most favorably, it created the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons are far too smart to leave a smoking gun for a quid quo pro. But it doesn't matter. It looks horrible and that is reflective of poor judgment, hubris, and greed. Wrong.
4. Setting up a separate email server for herself and her aides in contravention of State Department (and Obama administration) directives (if not the law). Failing to immediately turn over said emails upon leaving office. Was this illegal? I'm not sure. But it was wrong. She purposefully set up the separate email system to avoid congressional oversight and hide those emails from Freedom of Information requests. Possibly illegal (hard to prove), but clearly wrong as it was intended to frustrate the clear purpose of oversight and FOIA.
5. Deleting emails when she knew congress (and possibly federal prosecutors) would want to review those emails. It doesn't matter if it was illegal (which I think it was - see 18 USC Sections 1505 and 1519). It was wrong. And if you defend this, then you're basically saying that Nixon should have destroyed the tapes. Think about that - Hillary did something that even Nixon didn't dare do.
6. Lying about why she set up the separate email system.
Notice I didn't even have to go into other things that are more political in nature (Benghazi) or older in time (miraculously finding a box of missing Whitewater documents).
I have a bold prediction for you - Hillary will be attacked with equal vigor from those on the left who hate her policies (support for wars, wall street interests) more than her character. I can see her losing the nomination for that reason.
This is a great article on the Clintons' recent wrongdoing.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/the-proof-of-the-clintons-wrongdoing-20150427
BearGoggles;842488743 said:
Right, because their stupid. Anyone who doesn't agree with you clearly is stupid or foolish. What other explanation could there be?
BerlinerBaer;842488764 said:
I know the talk has moved on from China, but this is relevant to yesterday's discussion
http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i17/China-Reduces-Coal-Use-CO2.html
The Chinese say coal use was down last year compared to 2013. They also invested $90 billion in renewables last year.
Quote:
New Electric Production Capability Added in China During 2013
The new year brought some deserved celebration of the advance of renewable energy in China, as the government announced nearly 8 gigawatts of wind power additions and 3.6 gigawatts of new solar installed during 2013. But as I've previously pointed out, it is important to keep this laudable progress in perspective compared to the still staggeringly large annual increase in new China coal power capacity.
Not everyone did so. In a January 4 article entitled "China Roars Ahead with Renewables," for example, The Ecologist magazine claimed: "Reports of China opening a huge new coal fired power station every week belie the reality China is the new global powerhouse for renewable energyIt means that the growth of its electric power system that underpins the entire modernization and industrialization of the country is now being powered more by renewables than by fossil fuels." The report concluded, "These results reveal just how strongly China is swinging behind renewables as its primary energy resource"
Unfortunately, this rosy picture is not justified by the numbers. Once again, in 2013, coal was the big winner. As the graph below shows, when adjusted for capacity factor (the amount of energy each gigawatt of capacity puts out in a year), it's clear that new fossil energy output in China, most of it coal, exceeded new wind energy by six times and solar by 27 times:
Quote:
Similarly exaggerated is the article's claim that this trend "will have a dramatic impact on China's carbon emissions, slowing their growth and hastening the year when they will actually start falling." Given the relative youth of China's coal plants the vast majority of them have been built since 1990 they are unlikely to be bulldozed anytime soon. If their carbon is not abated, they will be emitting for another half century, with a carbon overhang of centuries.
In case you're in any doubt about the longevity of this trend, Reuters carried a story three days later entitled "China Approves Massive New Coal Capacity Despite Pollution Fears" that delivered some sobering facts (emphasis added):
China approved the construction of more than 100 million tonnes of new coal production capacity in 2013 six times more than a year earlier and equal to 10 percent of U.S. annual usage . . . The scale of the increase, which only includes major mines, reflects Beijing's aim to put 860 million tonnes of new coal production capacity into operation over the five years to 2015, more than the entire annual output of India.
As we showed in a previous post, even under the most aggressive renewable development scenarios, roughly two thirds of China's power in 2030 will come from fossil energy, the vast majority of it coal.
Much as one might wish that wind and solar (and for some, nuclear) were sending Chinese coal into the sunset, the facts suggest otherwise. Until we scale up carbon capture and storage, these ongoing China coal trends will continue to be an unmitigated climate disaster.
Quote:
China burns more than 4 billion tons of coal each year in power plants, homes, and factories. By comparison, the U.S. burns less than 1 billion, and the entire European Union burns 600 million. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest global CO2 emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. emissions by 2017. While projections for the U.S. and Europe are for steady or decreasing coal use in the coming decades, barring major policy shifts, China's coal use is expected to keep increasing.
Economists predict that by 2040, China's coal power fleet will be 50 percent larger than it is today. Once these coal-fired power plants are built, they typically run for 40 years, or longer, which means a commitment to decades of CO2 emissions. The climate impact of those emissions will be nearly impossible to reverse.
GB54;842488847 said:
Although the U.S. has reduced coal usage we have the largest reserves in the world. Whether this stays in the ground or is increasingly exported is an interesting question. Germany has increased coal burning partly for price, partly as a Green initiative against nuclear after Fukushima. Exports of course help our carbon balance sheet but not the world's
BearGoggles;842488746 said:
The only reason they shouldn't resign is that neither is currently in public office.
To his credit, Sycasey is at least honest when he says " I will probably vote for Hillary anyway because she'll still be better aligned with my values than whatever joker comes out of the Republican primary."
Things Hillary and Bill have done wrong - not all illegal but certainly morally suspect:
1. Raising money for the Clinton Foundation in contravention of the agreement Hillary signed with the Obama administration as a condition to being appointed secretary of state . She breached the agreement - that is wrong.
2. Failing to disclose all donors to the CF, as she had promised. Lying (or breaking a promise) is wrong.
3. Knowingly and greedily taking money (both BIll's fees and CF donations) when they knew that, even when viewed most favorably, it created the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons are far too smart to leave a smoking gun for a quid quo pro. But it doesn't matter. It looks horrible and that is reflective of poor judgment, hubris, and greed. Wrong.
4. Setting up a separate email server for herself and her aides in contravention of State Department (and Obama administration) directives (if not the law). Failing to immediately turn over said emails upon leaving office. Was this illegal? I'm not sure. But it was wrong. She purposefully set up the separate email system to avoid congressional oversight and hide those emails from Freedom of Information requests. Possibly illegal (hard to prove), but clearly wrong as it was intended to frustrate the clear purpose of oversight and FOIA.
5. Deleting emails when she knew congress (and possibly federal prosecutors) would want to review those emails. It doesn't matter if it was illegal (which I think it was - see 18 USC Sections 1505 and 1519). It was wrong. And if you defend this, then you're basically saying that Nixon should have destroyed the tapes. Think about that - Hillary did something that even Nixon didn't dare do.
6. Lying about why she set up the separate email system.
Notice I didn't even have to go into other things that are more political in nature (Benghazi) or older in time (miraculously finding a box of missing Whitewater documents).
I have a bold prediction for you - Hillary will be attacked with equal vigor from those on the left who hate her policies (support for wars, wall street interests) more than her character. I can see her losing the nomination for that reason.
This is a great article on the Clintons' recent wrongdoing.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/the-proof-of-the-clintons-wrongdoing-20150427
68great;842488871 said:
I would gladly take the alleged Clinton Wrongdoing over the preceding Republican President's wrongdoing.
Let's assume that most of what we hear is correct (which IMO is not correct but overblown by partisan hyperbole).
It is dwarfed by President W's.
If there is a problem with the Clinton's alleged lying. What about Lying to Congress about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq's attacks. ("We know where they are and we have seen them....The smoking gun will be a nuclear mushroom cloud...the UN inspectors are wrong or being misled...we will be welcomed as liberators...etc). It turns out the Administration KNEW that its claims were wrong and intentionally misled Congress. $3 Trillion and countless American and other nation's lives were lost. Iraq was lost as a counter-balance to Iran. The road was left open for ISIS/ISIL.
If incompetence is a concern. How about W's incompetence in failing to retain the power structure in Iraq. What about his incompetence at following up all the leads that pointed to a Terrorist attack on the WTC. So clear that one of the chief Federal investigators was in the WTC following up leads that the Bush Administration refused to follow up when the attack actually occurred. Why were the leads not followed up. They were the results of the hated Clinton administration's policies.
If personal animus is a concern. How about W's outing of a NOC agent simply because her husband was a political opponent of W's. In war time that might be considered the act of a traitor and landed the offending party in jail or in front of a firing squad. Oh wait, we were at War.
If personal money-grubbing is a concern, how about the sales by Cheney's companies' of known defective equipment to "Our Troops" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I do not recall President W or V-P Cheney stepping down in shame of the harm that they did to the country.
All politicians lie to some degree. Even Old Honest Abe Lincoln. The degree and importance of the lies is what matters. Give me a good old Clinton lie any time over the lies of his/her opponents on the other side of the aisle.
GB54;842488847 said:
Although the U.S. has reduced coal usage we have the largest reserves in the world. Whether this stays in the ground or is increasingly exported is an interesting question. Germany has increased coal burning partly for price, partly as a Green initiative after Fukushima. Exports of course help our carbon balance sheet but not the world's
BearGoggles;842488746 said:
The only reason they shouldn't resign is that neither is currently in public office.
To his credit, Sycasey is at least honest when he says " I will probably vote for Hillary anyway because she'll still be better aligned with my values than whatever joker comes out of the Republican primary."
Things Hillary and Bill have done wrong - not all illegal but certainly morally suspect:
1. Raising money for the Clinton Foundation in contravention of the agreement Hillary signed with the Obama administration as a condition to being appointed secretary of state . She breached the agreement - that is wrong.
2. Failing to disclose all donors to the CF, as she had promised. Lying (or breaking a promise) is wrong.
3. Knowingly and greedily taking money (both BIll's fees and CF donations) when they knew that, even when viewed most favorably, it created the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons are far too smart to leave a smoking gun for a quid quo pro. But it doesn't matter. It looks horrible and that is reflective of poor judgment, hubris, and greed. Wrong.
4. Setting up a separate email server for herself and her aides in contravention of State Department (and Obama administration) directives (if not the law). Failing to immediately turn over said emails upon leaving office. Was this illegal? I'm not sure. But it was wrong. She purposefully set up the separate email system to avoid congressional oversight and hide those emails from Freedom of Information requests. Possibly illegal (hard to prove), but clearly wrong as it was intended to frustrate the clear purpose of oversight and FOIA.
5. Deleting emails when she knew congress (and possibly federal prosecutors) would want to review those emails. It doesn't matter if it was illegal (which I think it was - see 18 USC Sections 1505 and 1519). It was wrong. And if you defend this, then you're basically saying that Nixon should have destroyed the tapes. Think about that - Hillary did something that even Nixon didn't dare do.
6. Lying about why she set up the separate email system.
Notice I didn't even have to go into other things that are more political in nature (Benghazi) or older in time (miraculously finding a box of missing Whitewater documents).
I have a bold prediction for you - Hillary will be attacked with equal vigor from those on the left who hate her policies (support for wars, wall street interests) more than her character. I can see her losing the nomination for that reason.
This is a great article on the Clintons' recent wrongdoing.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/the-proof-of-the-clintons-wrongdoing-20150427
jyamada;842488880 said:
That's the way to tell them, 68Great! One thing about our republican/conservative/right wing friends.......they are very good at making mountains out of democratic mole hills. They're even better at trying to make their mountainous republican mistakes into little innocuous mole hills!
OdontoBear66;842488901 said:
My frustration on this board is the all or none type comments---Demos are all this, Repubs are all that. Does anyone get it that there are people of moderation. My guess is that Jews tend to vote more Dem than Repub because of their perception of tolerance of the two parties, and their grievances of the past. With what Obama has done to Israel I question how they can do this but it seems to be so.
At the same time, I know many Repubs who are as far from Tea Partiers as most Dems, but stay with the Repub Party for whatever reason (probably fiscal conservativism). So to assume all Repubs are in love with Dick Cheney, the Iraq War entrance, against woman's choice, against the environment is plain insanity. It makes it almost impossible to enter a rational post, as rather than response that post there is an attack and false labeling and/or associations. I, for one, was extremely successful selfishly during the Clinton years. But that does not mean I love either Bill or Hillary or their actions. Same thing with Bush. Let me take you back to the days of Mark Hatfield and Charles Dirksen (which cease to exist today) and you can understand my frustration. Cross party lines when it is for the best of the country, and stick to your principles at all times. That is gone, hopefully not forever.
OdontoBear66;842488901 said:
My frustration on this board is the all or none type comments---Demos are all this, Repubs are all that. Does anyone get it that there are people of moderation. My guess is that Jews tend to vote more Dem than Repub because of their perception of tolerance of the two parties, and their grievances of the past. With what Obama has done to Israel I question how they can do this but it seems to be so.
At the same time, I know many Repubs who are as far from Tea Partiers as most Dems, but stay with the Repub Party for whatever reason (probably fiscal conservativism). So to assume all Repubs are in love with Dick Cheney, the Iraq War entrance, against woman's choice, against the environment is plain insanity. It makes it almost impossible to enter a rational post, as rather than response that post there is an attack and false labeling and/or associations. I, for one, was extremely successful selfishly during the Clinton years. But that does not mean I love either Bill or Hillary or their actions. Same thing with Bush. Let me take you back to the days of Mark Hatfield and Charles Dirksen (which cease to exist today) and you can understand my frustration. Cross party lines when it is for the best of the country, and stick to your principles at all times. That is gone, hopefully not forever.
jyamada;842488911 said:
What would it take to make you cross over to the other side? Social issues? Economic issues? You say you did well with Clinton....I assume you meant in the market and your net worth. Were you a bit nervous with your finances at the end of GWBush's reign? I was extremely nervous and worried that I might lose all my money that was sitting in the bank. How about under Obama? Have you made up all your losses and some? My mistaken belief for the past 20-30 years was that the republicans were better for the economy. I'm a social liberal but if I truly felt the economy would be so much better and for my own selfish reasons, my own finances would be better under a republican, I might consider voting for a republican. Personally, I've seen no signs of my own finances and the country as a whole, doing better under republican rule. Maybe it's just a coincidence. I don't know but sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
I tell all my republican friends and acquaintances that they're probably better off financially with a democrat in the White House than a republican. They tell me no way....it's the republican congress that did this or the president is just a figure head and can't do much for the economy etc. Bottom line, democrats in the White House have historically done better that republicans, at least over the past 80-90 years. I was always under the impression that republicans were more into the finances and economy. Why wouldn't most republicans switch over if there was a pretty good chance that their financial situation would improve under a democrat?
