Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

xp over yonder to k3v

What type of lawyer talks like that on the record to the fucking media.

a mob lawyer.

i don't turn to susan sarandon for political advice; only posted it because a feminist telling her to 'act her age' was kinda gross

marcotte is a clown

KeV <3√√√

/long post alert, sorry

As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Hillary knows there are some places where we should keep fossil fuels in the ground or under the ocean.

tbf this on its own does not sound like it is going to reverse climate change

correct - it's written in a way so that people on all sides of the issue can hear what they want to hear. when i read that excerpt, i don't think about climate change specifically, but instead about the short-term dangers that can arise from off-shore drilling (ie., another Deepwater Horizon) and fracking. if you're a gung ho hillary fan that cares about climate change, you read that section as advocacy for reducing GHG emissions as quickly as possible ("transition to a clean energy economy"! "Keep fossil fuels in the ground"!). if you're on the coast, you read it as moving toward denying off-shore drilling permits (unlike obama). if you live above the marcellus formation, you read it as opposing fracking. if you're a republican fan of oil and gas and/or a climate change denier, you read it as a continuation of obama's "all of the above" approach, which is in itself a continuation of bush's "all of the above" approach (only areas that are "too sensitive" for energy production will be taken off the table); "there are some places where we should keep fossil fuels in the ground or under the ocean." that excerpt is everything to everyone, which is why to a lot of environmentalists it's meaningless, and an indication that she's just going to be Obama II on the environment.

yes, i've read the rest of her climate plan. there are things in there that sound good:

Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.

Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.

but there's no way the solar panels thing will happen without republican support in the house, and that's not happening (unless trump brings everyone down with him). and i know it annoys everyone to hear, but the 30% below 2005 goal is likely not enough to mitigate millions and millions of people dying from climate change. those goals are set under heavy political pressure and are consensus driven - they represent the most conservative estimates from climate scientists. and hillary's record on environmental issues is mixed. it's not just her waddling on keystone (a textbook example of her refusing to take a position on principle, and instead holding a finger to the political winds). she sort of gets it, she sort of doesn't at all. again, she's obama II.

and that's why a lot of people who care about the environment, and climate change in particular, express deep skepticism that hillary clinton's positions add up to what it would take to produce a response that's commensurate to the scale of the problem. climate change isn't the kind of problem that can be solved in hedged, incremental steps.

anyway, my point is that the excerpt above is egregiously vague and could never be used as evidence of clinton's belief in the urgency of addressing climate change, one way or another, and that plenty of people who care passionately about climate change are not optimistic about her candidacy because it likely represents a continuation of incremental improvements (in the face of stonewalling by republicans, i know, i get that) which will not add up to the changes that are necessary. that's not a fringe position. that is a very common position among people who care about this.

thx KM

even when Clinton puts in an anti-fossil fuel applause line -- her recent vow "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" -- it's something not at all necessary for broadening her appeal, indeed will harden votes against her. Yeah, those damn unemployed miners....

i assumed this Marcotte is just some nitwit blogger xxxp

Sarandon went from appearing at Nader rallies with Tim Robbins in 2000 to calling him "your guy" on Bill Maher's show in 2004

meant to link this ICYMI

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/news/economy/hillary-clinton-coal-out-of-business/

even when Clinton puts in an anti-fossil fuel applause line -- her recent vow "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" -- it's something not at all necessary for broadening her appeal, indeed will harden votes against her. Yeah, those damn unemployed miners....

on top of that, it's about as bold of a claim as "i will make the sun go down tonight", because the coal mines have been going out of business anyway for a few years now, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with hillary clinton.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/good-news-theres-bad-news-for-coal/

zackly, even CNNMoney made the same point. The more safer the topic, the more HRC wants to boldly stake claim to it. Then she flubs the presentation (ie, say sumthin nice at Nancy Reagan's funeral).

so my takeaway here is that if I actually want to have a conversation about this with someone, I should just talk to Karl as he seems to be the only one willing to engage beyond a surface level

thank you very much for your response Karl; I want to talk more but can't at the moment due to an impending presentation

(I do plan to come back to it, just later)

well he's maybe the only one here who knows a lot about said issue, so yeah

when you feel your life's too hard
just go have a talk with Karl

oh, no prob. and i realize there are inconsistencies in what i said, too - chiefly that sanders would run into the same republican roadblock as clinton. but i do appreciate that his platform places an emphasis on policies that would be truly meaningful but aren't politically attractive - like a carbon tax - while clinton would probably run out of the room screaming if tried to force her to have an opinion on that. o'malley was vocal in his support of a carbon tax, too, for what it's worth.

xpost nah, no that's not true. there are lots of great posters in the climate change thread, i'd be kinda curious to see if they have an opinion on sanders/clinton/climate/the futility of it all

Not that I'm a good poster on climate change, but I figure that human civilization is irrevocably fubared, so just withdraw into your own insular world and enjoy it while it lasts.

those of us in Miami would like to thank all y'all's concern.

/vanity

intriguing

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/bernie-sanders-would-now-outraise-clinton-almost-2-to-1-with-small-donor-matching-funds/

great post, karl.

the sad thing is that anything short of a bill pullman independence day attitude, that fighting climate change is basically the existential threat of our age and needs to be treated like the biggest most important 'war' ever, damn the consequences and damn whoever disagrees, will likely leave the planet wrecked. sanders too falls short of this but i do think he gets it. at this point in a sane world we would basically be nationalizing all energy companies and forcing them to do what's necessary. i mean in world war ii we could basically take over detroit and even the walt disney company in order to see to it that hitler was defeated and soldiers had helpful cartoons explaining VD or whatever. we need that spirit here.

i'm becoming resigned to the idea that if most Americans can't see the enemy in human form, or it doesn't threaten them RIGHT NOW, it doesn't exist.

amanda marcotte is the same idiot who was attacking sanders for "propping up the sandinistas" in the 80s

i guess total ignorance of foreign policy is an asset if you want to feel good about supporting clinton

I don't usually catch up on the day's news till I get home. "Bruises," "lawyers," "incident"--thought maybe Trump and Cruz finally went at it, but I see it's something else.

gouge away

"It doesn’t matter who Susan Sarandon or Rosario Dawson or Killer Mike vote for, unless any of them also own homes in Miami and decide to register there (they have until 29 days before the election to do so).

"The most aggravating part of the entire aggravating conversation is that nearly every professional commentator pillorying Sarandon today is in the same boat as she—their votes in November will be purely performative. For a New Yorker or Washingtonian to march into the voting booth and pull the lever for the Democratic nominee is to engage in a symbolic gesture of political self-identification, not to participate in any meaningful way in the political process. Staying home is equally valid and equally consequential."

http://gawker.com/it-couldnt-possibly-matter-less-if-susan-sarandon-doesn-1767810152

sarandon: doesn't matter
lewandowski: really should matter but probably won't

the gross thing about Lewandowski is we'll be treated to him making it about *his* struggle and persecution and the ex-Breitbart reporter will probably get 3x the misogyny tossed her way.

trump has already said, out loud, if it was a big deal she would have screamed

if you want to know how the day is going in the life the republic

anyway, chew on this y'all:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Jill Abramson? LOL

"honesty" is not the problem i have with HRC, personally...

Live press conference on Air Force Trump rn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b340UaWj_Bw

The guy is such an asshole it's almost impossible to put into words. It's like he's operating on an entirely new level of asshole. Just one thing after another.

Like every single day.

If you've somehow combed those 26 minutes already, please share any highlights...

At 26:12 the video ends

He's campaigning hard for the MRA vote

he coulda done that by just walking on stage and going "Bitches, man...", then dropping the mic

congenital heart failure gods, please do your bidding

Just looking at a 538 discussion on Trump and women. Excellent analogy:

harry: Again, I call on the Simpsons for discussing Trump’s strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBj8r1-fDo

lol i just read that.

xpost High/lowlight includes doubling down on his defense of his campaign guy, claiming the reporter, had she been hurt, would have screamed, that she grabbed at him (Trump) first, that her bruises may have been there before, that his campaign guy is a good guy, a family man with four kids, and his life should not be destroyed because of this nothing ... just keeps going on and on. The constant threats of revealing secret information, on Cruz, on Walker, on whomever, like Trump is privy to all this shit that no one else has. Like in the Times piece, where he says North Korea's number one trading partner is Iran, and they correct him and tell him it's China, and he's all "well, that's not what my sources tell me." Fuck you, Trump. You're like some idiot relative who forwards crazy urban legends but refuses to read Snopes or whatever. "Well, you say that bigfoot doesn't exist, and I say he does, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that."

iirc it is because Bigfoot devalued the currency, that's why Trump clothing isn't made in America and why he doesn't hire American workers. Would if he could, of course, but he's a businessman and therefore must cut costs to the bone in order to survive in the rough-and-tumble business of making yet more ties (ties that are interchangeable with other ties).

CNN's got Town Hall #67 & 68 just coming on...Trump will be addressing, among other topics, bruises, Bigfoot, and Lyin' Pope Francis.

"What's your greatest weakness, and what have you learned from it?"

Cruz begins by, correctly, making fun of how silly such questions are, at least in terms of generating an honest answer--he cites the guy who says in a job interview that his biggest weakness is that he works too hard. He then goes on to basically give the exact same answer: his biggest weakness is that he's too driven.

better than what Trump would say, which is "my dick's too big"

Great!

be interesting to see what Trump's handling of the assault sitch does to his polling in Wisconsin. not a major mover, probably, but given that Cruz's odds are rising there and he's the favorite in 538's eyes, and that women hate him, it probably won't help.

granted though I'm sure he's more focused on the fact that he's so far ahead in NYC, but Cali is gonna be a big play too.

Cruz the first candidate I've ever seen quote Sonny Bono, politician. Weird, but, um, I think I like it.

Trump seems coked up tonight, more than normal.