• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Trump is going to withdraw USA from Paris climate agreement (1 Viewer)

What was it about Clinton's platform that you found so objectionable? Good, solid, middle-of-the-road stuff from beginning to end as far could see (though personally I would've preferred someone further to the left).
I quickly looked at her platform, which I didn't find too objectionable. It was her as a person. I didn't document my findings (sorry, I do it as a flurry of activity around the election cycle then I move on), but basically I found her incredibly dishonest and in league with others I found distasteful. Her history and track record made me cringe.

I looked at Trump, and on the surface, parts of that platform made sense too. But the person, oh hell no. Knew even his best platform ideas would be implemented poorly..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Knew he'd find the worst way to implement a good idea.

I don't generally vote mainstream democrats or republicans, just so you know...I generally find them abhorrent. I also immediately throw-out any politician that engages in consistent attack ads (especially on their main platform web site); that's just an ethical bar I insist upon. I also toss any politician without a useful web site, since I rely on the web for research among other things (the Google Fu is strong with this one).

I tend to trend democratic and liberal, but with odd amounts of conservative, and likely "towards center" no matter how I look at it. I vote my conscience, which means I have voted all over the map in national and local elections: democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens, etc. I lost track, but think I've voted for just about every political party at one time or another.
 
I quickly looked at her platform, which I didn't find too objectionable. It was her as a person. I didn't document my findings (sorry, I do it as a flurry of activity around the election cycle then I move on), but basically I found her incredibly dishonest and in league with others I found distasteful. Her history and track record made me cringe.

I looked at Trump, and on the surface, parts of that platform made sense too. But the person, oh hell no. Knew even his best platform ideas would be implemented poorly..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Knew he'd find the worst way to implement a good idea.

I don't generally vote mainstream democrats or republicans, just so you know...I generally find them abhorrent. I also immediately throw-out any politician that engages in consistent attack ads (especially on their main platform web site); that's just an ethical bar I insist upon. I also toss any politician without a useful web site, since I rely on the web for research among other things (the Google Fu is strong with this one).

I tend to trend democratic and liberal, but with odd amounts of conservative, and likely "towards center" no matter how I look at it. I vote my conscience, which means I have voted all over the map in national and local elections: democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens, etc. I lost track, but think I've voted for just about every political party at one time or another.

You replied to my last while I was in the midst of adding a line or two on the "lesser of 2 evils" question. It would appear we're completely at loggerheads. I care nothing about a candidate's personal characteristics but pay attention only to party and platform as I have no faith whatever in the efficacy of individual virtue in solving our problems. As a result, I voted a straight Democratic ticket last election, have done so in all previous elections, and will almost certainly continue doing so in the future.

We're paired in one of those eternal binaries, I'm afraid, like faith vs works or Sharpie vs Coop. . .. ;)
 
+1 :t:
Trump could have been ... someone who could navigate the future sustainably, and with real vision - someone who could dismantle the political elite, who could reign in government waste, and introduce business efficiencies to the streamlined bureaucracy. Someone who could leverage and develop emerging clean technologies into sustainable business prosperity .....

An opportunity lost already, and the vitriol and hatred spewed forth from the left (as exemplified here on BF too unfortunately) only confirming the very reason they lost, and are still unfit to govern.


Chosun :gh:

No, Trump could not have been any of those things you suggest unless, of course, he was an entirely different character with different interests, abilities and temperament who backed entirely different interest groups, listened to what science was telling him, etc., etc. In which case, of course, he wouldn't be remotely similar to the person we see in the White House today.
As for the "vitriol and hatred spewed forth from the left" I think you'll find no shortage of the same (and often far worse) from Trump, his associates and many of those who supported him. Given Trump seems to think that the main function of the President is to play golf and tweet half-baked, semi-literate, ill-informed comments then it is ironic that you seem to think that those on the left are 'unfit to govern'. Frankly, President Tweet et al are so far to the right that its the centre and left that oppose him. Need I remind you too that the 'left' as you call them (in European terms centre-right) actually won the popular vote and Tweet was only elected thanks to a quirk in the American system. Let's not beat about the bush, for everything most here hold dear, Trump is an unmitigated disaster.
 
Fuhrer....laffin. Ain't buyin' your hypocritical sh*te, Fugs.

This from the side of black masks, quelled free speech, destroyed property and those who are routinely beating others. Hell, the worst of them are educators!

If the Antifa hypocrites (your side) bring their brand of politics to our small town they'll limp home.
We're peaceful, law-abiding folk, but won't stand for your brand of violent rationality.
Lying scumbags, and don't think the American people haven't noticed, it is why we have Trump to begin with; own it, snowflake.

Hope this helps--

http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx
 
I'm a state scientist with our state's natural resource department and am friends with scientists all over the country working in federal, state, and private agencies. We are all pretty terrified about Trump's continued attack on our natural resources; most things a politician does can be easily reversed, but damage to our resources and our environment are forever destructive and potentially irreparable.

Hopefully dems will get their stuff together and actually vote in the Mid-terms. If you look at numbers, Trump simply won because people who voted Dem for Obama and Bill simply didn't vote.

I find it hilarious that Choson seems to think Trump is open to discussion to renegotiate the deal; he hasn't negotiated once during his tenure and has blatantly fired those who disagree with his policies on several occasions.
 
Last edited:
No, Trump could not have been any of those things you suggest unless, of course, he was an entirely different character with different interests, abilities and temperament who backed entirely different interest groups, listened to what science was telling him, etc., etc. In which case, of course, he wouldn't be remotely similar to the person we see in the White House today.
As for the "vitriol and hatred spewed forth from the left" I think you'll find no shortage of the same (and often far worse) from Trump, his associates and many of those who supported him. Given Trump seems to think that the main function of the President is to play golf and tweet half-baked, semi-literate, ill-informed comments then it is ironic that you seem to think that those on the left are 'unfit to govern'. Frankly, President Tweet et al are so far to the right that its the centre and left that oppose him. Need I remind you too that the 'left' as you call them (in European terms centre-right) actually won the popular vote and Tweet was only elected thanks to a quirk in the American system. Let's not beat about the bush, for everything most here hold dear, Trump is an unmitigated disaster.
John,

Trump sees things very simplistically - good deal/bad deal. The present seems to carry much more weight with him than the future. For this he makes a poor leader - not visionary at all. He's a good horse and buggy man! ;)

It is a pity that the Ivanka/Tillerson voices lost out on this occasion. I'm quite liking them. I think Trump's patience would be tested for the time frames of putting together any new deal - but then he could easily live with the alternative. It is going to be a major election issue.

I don't buy all the guff about him not winning the popular vote. It's a furphy to quibble about a couple of million votes when ~90 million! Americans didn't even vote. If he's such a disaster then it should be pretty easy to move on from him.


Chosun :gh:
 
I'm a state scientist with our state's natural resource department and am friends with scientists all over the country working in federal, state, and private agencies. We are all pretty terrified about Trump's continued attack on our natural resources; most things a politician does can be easily reversed, but damage to our resources and our environment are forever destructive and potentially irreparable.

Hopefully dems will get their stuff together and actually vote in the Mid-terms. If you look at numbers, Trump simply won because people who voted Dem for Obama and Bill simply didn't vote.

I find it hilarious that Choson seems to think Trump is open to discussion to renegotiate the deal; he hasn't negotiated once during his tenure and has blatantly fired those who disagree with his policies on several occasions.
J, It is true That environmental damage is not easily (or even at all) repairable. It's cost (real or potential) has never been truly accounted for, and that is of great concern, but Trump seems to be bringing a new level of oblivion.

I was just going off reports of Trump's willingness to negotiate http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-announces-us-withdrawal-from-paris-climate-deal/ Whether negotiating a new deal that will fit with his simplistic good/bad framework is realistic remains to be seen - it is likely the next Presidential election will roll around anyway before there is any substantive progress.


Chosun :gh:
 
Actually ignoring climate change maybe is risky for large companies, because sooner or later a next administration may implement cancelled regulations. So long term thinking is to acommodate to such possible regulations perhaps, just in case of their restoring.
But Paris agreement is many decades late, even it were respected.
 
Worth pointing out that, due to the way the US elections are set up, voting third party is pretty much as effective as voting for Darth Vader or Winnie the Pooh. At best you are having no impact; at worst you draw off votes from a party that is ideologically closer to you, allowing the other party to win.
 
. Need I remind you too that the 'left' as you call them (in European terms centre-right) actually won the popular vote and Tweet was only elected thanks to a quirk in the American system.

HRC got more votes, true, but had the electoral system been different, Trump would have modified his campaign and deployed resources accordingly. In the UK, it takes a lot more votes (as part of popular vote) to elect a Conservative MP, compared to a Labour MP. Similarly the comparison between, say, UKIP vs SNP popular vote / number of MPs. Parties, individuals operate within the existing electoral systems. If people want to chance the systems then they have to elect parties that are committed to this.

cheers, alan
 
HRC got more votes, true, but had the electoral system been different, Trump would have modified his campaign and deployed resources accordingly. In the UK, it takes a lot more votes (as part of popular vote) to elect a Conservative MP, compared to a Labour MP. Similarly the comparison between, say, UKIP vs SNP popular vote / number of MPs. Parties, individuals operate within the existing electoral systems. If people want to chance the systems then they have to elect parties that are committed to this.

cheers, alan

all true but a few points

1) trump no doubt would have modified his campaign under a different system but there's no reason to think he'd have made up the large deficit in votes as a result.

2) for all the drawbacks of the UK system, it does undoubtedly have some positives (local representation, avoidance of hung parliaments etc.). The electoral college system used in the US has absolutely no value in the 21st century when a better way of selecting the preferred candidate (just count the votes...) exists. Imagine if the brexit vote had been 52:48 in favour of leave, but some baroque and superfluous regionalised counting system meant remain ended up winning. You'd have been pretty annoyed i imagine..

3) point 2) notwithstanding, the current UK system is loaded in favour of parties that thrive under it (tories and labour). Smaller parties that are penalised by it and might want to change the system are unable to achieve a level of influence proportional to their level of support. In other words the system is heavily biased in favour of the status quo. So the bland instruction to vote for parties that want to change the system is a bit hard to stomach. Millions of us do, and we are rewarded for our votes with virtually no say in national politics, thanks to the very system we want to change

cheers,
James
 
Worth pointing out that, due to the way the US elections are set up, voting third party is pretty much as effective as voting for Darth Vader or Winnie the Pooh. At best you are having no impact; at worst you draw off votes from a party that is ideologically closer to you, allowing the other party to win.
And as long as people think that way and don't vote third party, it will most certainly stay that way.
 
all true but a few points

1) trump no doubt would have modified his campaign under a different system but there's no reason to think he'd have made up the large deficit in votes as a result.

2) for all the drawbacks of the UK system, it does undoubtedly have some positives (local representation, avoidance of hung parliaments etc.). The electoral college system used in the US has absolutely no value in the 21st century when a better way of selecting the preferred candidate (just count the votes...) exists. Imagine if the brexit vote had been 52:48 in favour of leave, but some baroque and superfluous regionalised counting system meant remain ended up winning. You'd have been pretty annoyed i imagine..

3) point 2) notwithstanding, the current UK system is loaded in favour of parties that thrive under it (tories and labour). Smaller parties that are penalised by it and might want to change the system are unable to achieve a level of influence proportional to their level of support. In other words the system is heavily biased in favour of the status quo. So the bland instruction to vote for parties that want to change the system is a bit hard to stomach. Millions of us do, and we are rewarded for our votes with virtually no say in national politics, thanks to the very system we want to change

cheers,
James

It is impossible to say either way what might have happened in the US under a popular vote system. If I don't like a football match result after 90 minutes, I can't just change the rules. It is futile to wish the rules of football were different. You win or lose under the rules of the game.

I agree with your last point - it is biased towards the status quo. If you don't support either of the two main parties (or SNP in Scotland), you should vote tactically to (try to) keep out the party who you don't want to win.

cheers, alan
 
I agree with your last point - it is biased towards the status quo. If you don't support either of the two main parties (or SNP in Scotland), you should vote tactically to (try to) keep out the party who you don't want to win.
It's worse than that due to the large number of safe seats, so both policies and campaigning are targeted at the relatively small number of swing constituencies and at particular segments of the population who might be swayed to change their vote. Hence the complaints that Labour don't understand the countryside and the Tories don't care about inner cities. And even if you support the dominant party in a safe seat your vote still doesn't matter much to them, because their majority is so large they can afford to take their core voters for granted.

Problems with the US system are different because their elections are so much more expensive with effectively unlimited campaign spending - keeping your financial backers happy is more important than keeping your voters happy. Plus the main distortion in the system is not popular vote vs electoral college, but the 2 senators / state rather than proportional to population. Plus consideable gerrymandering and efforts by the Republicans to stop minority populations voting.
 
your football analogy is not really relevant.

I'm not talking about retrospectively changing the rules to change the outcome of a game - I know perfectly well Trump won fair and square according to the election rules.

i'm talking about changing demonstrably stupid rules in the future to prevent a repeat. the US election rules have now repeatedly delivered winning candidates that have been the second most popular (twice in the last 5 elections). Maybe under a popular vote system they'd have won anyway (highly improbable in trump's case in my opinion given the voting patterns), but why take that risk??

now I've no idea how the US would go about reforming it's democratic system to make the choice of president better reflect the will of the voters, but simply shrugging shoulders and saying "the rules are the rules" does not seem a particularly healthy way to approach things. The rules of football have been changed countless times over the years, remember Lampard's "goal" in World Cup 2010? No chance of that happening in WC 2018 thanks to changed rules.

cheers,

James
 
Plus the main distortion in the system is not popular vote vs electoral college, but the 2 senators / state rather than proportional to population.
True for the Senate, but not for the House of Representatives, which is proportional. I believe that was the founding father's goal: one side is equal by state and one is more population-driven.

However, the House does suffer from the problem of basically biasing towards "city folk," which leaves "rural folk" out of representation in this day and age.

Plus consideable gerrymandering and efforts by the Republicans to stop minority populations voting.
Now this of course screws-up the works and I just can't quite figure out why it's not illegal; probably some cryptic rules that shouldn't exist.

It's stuff like this that drive the Libertarian part of my views, but "moderate Libertarians" are a rare breed and all the ones I see on my ballots would be worse than Trump in terms of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and having long-term planning skills. With one pair of exceptions, most are batsh*t crazy.
 
Last edited:
Problems with the US system are different because their elections are so much more expensive with effectively unlimited campaign spending - keeping your financial backers happy is more important than keeping your voters happy. Plus the main distortion in the system is not popular vote vs electoral college, but the 2 senators / state rather than proportional to population. Plus consideable gerrymandering and efforts by the Republicans to stop minority populations voting.

All too true, unfortunately. Gerrymandering and voter suppression laws are currently under the purview of the individual states, and can be dealt with legislatively both at that level and at the federal (though the chances of federal involvement under a Republican administration are zilch). The electoral college and 2-senators-per-state rule are written into the constitution which nowadays is virtually unmodifiable, especially in cases such as these where partisan advantage comes into play. The 2-senators rule is particularly egregious, with California, for example, having more than 75 times the population of Wyoming.

And, then, there's the dear-old Supreme Court, the "third branch of government", supposedly non-partisan but actually not and with the Republicans currently in the majority, to which appointments are lifetime. Lifetime appointments made sense in the 18th-century when the constitution was drawn up and when death came early and often even to judicial elites, but make none at all in the context of today's vastly expanded lifespans.

So, there we are, caught between petty-mindedness, chicanery and dishonesty at the state level, and fossilization at the federal. And that, I fear, barring truly stupendous Democratic sweeps in future elections, is where we shall stay for a very long time.
 
Last edited:
your football analogy is not really relevant.

I'm not talking about retrospectively changing the rules to change the outcome of a game - I know perfectly well Trump won fair and square according to the election rules.

i'm talking about changing demonstrably stupid rules in the future to prevent a repeat. the US election rules have now repeatedly delivered winning candidates that have been the second most popular (twice in the last 5 elections). Maybe under a popular vote system they'd have won anyway (highly improbable in trump's case in my opinion given the voting patterns), but why take that risk??

now I've no idea how the US would go about reforming it's democratic system to make the choice of president better reflect the will of the voters, but simply shrugging shoulders and saying "the rules are the rules" does not seem a particularly healthy way to approach things. The rules of football have been changed countless times over the years, remember Lampard's "goal" in World Cup 2010? No chance of that happening in WC 2018 thanks to changed rules.

cheers,

James

You don't like the analogy then use it! Anyway I'm not sure the rules are 'demonstrably stupid' as you suggest - I've not reviewed the origins but presumably the electoral colleges are to add some geographical balances, in the same way that our local constituencies do and as you've acknowledged provide some stability.

cheers, a
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top