2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Cackalacky]

The point is that causing businesses to move to Mexico or China or wherever could have a net negative effect on the global environment along with a guaranteed negative effect on the U.S. economy. I don't think your post responds to that assertion. You are essentially talking about a utopia, not reality.

I understand what you are saying. My point is it is irrelevant if the net negative effect for the environment occurs in Mexico or the US. Basically what you guys are arguing is that a less negative effect is desirable because it keeps jobs. Regardless and ultimately that is an unsustainable position to maintain.

 

[wizards8507]

In political strategery news, Rush Limbaugh ran something called "Operation Chaos" in 2008 where he encouraged Republicans in open primary states to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary to draw out the campaign against Obama. There are reports that Democrats might be doing something similar with Donald Trump, either because the blue collar Dems actually support him or because they want the GOP to nominate the most easily defeated candidate.

Ohio's 'dirty little secret': blue-collar Democrats for Trump | Reuters

Separately, the Rubio people are out telling their supporters to vote for Kasich in Ohio.

Rubio's campaign tells Ohio supporters to vote for Kasich - POLITICO

 

[Cackalacky]

THAT'S RUBIO'S POINT! You AGREE with Rubio but you're either deliberately twisting or simply misunderstanding what he said. His exact POINT is that it's a GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issue so the United States, a country, can't fix it.

This is ridiculous.....He is saying that there is no point in doing anything so lets plug ahead as we are. There is nothing good about this POV. I do not agree with him. Other countries are already moving into renewable and adopting much more sustainable lifestyles. Meanwhile this POV is maintained because it amounts to keeping up with the Jones'. It does nothing to help and only makes things worse. I absolutely disagree with him on this and his overall statements on being for mitigation and against fixing the ROOT CAUSE which is infinitely more intelligent and rigorous and conservative policy to hold.

America is a part of the planet, jut like China, just like India, just like Finland, just like any other country. We are all in this together. He seems unwilling as the potential leader to engage anyone to chart a new path. Again this should be a core conservative principle both morally and economically and globally, but he is making a local pro business argument.

 

[gkIrish]

I understand what you are saying. My point is it is irrelevant if the net negative effect for the environment occurs in Mexico or the US. Basically what you guys are arguing is that a less negative effect is desirable because it keeps jobs. Regardless and ultimately that is an unsustainable position to maintain.

Let's use math because I don't think we are on the same page.

Let's assume that 10 companies in the U.S pollute.

X = negative effects on the environment.

Let's say because of lack of regulations in Mexico, a company located in America = 5X and a company located in Mexico = 10X

We are saying that if we cause 5 of those 10 Ameican companies to move to Mexico, you are causing a 50X impact on the environment rather than a 25X negative impact. We aren't saying it's going to be 50X in either country.

 

[IrishLax]

What I think you are saying is...companies are leaving because they don't want to do what is right, but what is easy and cheapest.

Yes.

They blame the regulations. When in fact it could be said that they don't want to change the way they do things, and instead move to a place where they can continue doing what they have been unfettered.

None of this negates the damage they are still doing because they refuse to adopt practices that do not create pollution. What is perplexing is you blame the mere presence of the regulations as detrimental to businesses when they are in fact there for our protection.

No.

First, we should stop conflating pollution with emissions/climate change for a second. domestic regulations (rightfully) exist to safeguard the public from pollution and toxins. This is common sense and ethics 101, it's also directly inline with what I've been saying this entire time about how corporations operate and are motivated.

But second, my point is that with respect to attempting to address global climate change that passing additional domestic regulations and/or taxes on emissions, etc. does not effectively combat climate change and instead -- in many cases -- actually increases global emissions if you look at everything from a sum-zero point of view.

For example, the company might've been operating at a level where they produce X emissions in the United States... and then you pass regulations saying you can't do that or that they're going be taxed more... and then their shareholders/executives say they aren't profitable anymore and should move to China/India/etc. They get there and they produce 2X emissions and then spend Y in carbon footprint shipping the goods back to the US.

The end result is that the world loses, and this comes from over-legislating domestically to try to fix a global problem. It's not logical, it doesn't work, and it hurts everyone.

 

[Cackalacky]

Let's use math because I don't think we are on the same page.

Let's assume that 10 companies in the U.S pollute.

X = negative effects on the environment.

Let's say because of lack of regulations in Mexico, a company located in America = 5X and a company located in Mexico = 10X

We are saying that if we cause 5 of those 10 Ameican companies to move to Mexico, you are causing a 50X impact on the environment rather than a 25X negative impact. We aren't saying it's going to be 50X in either country.

I did get it. But in terms of math my point is that with climate change the realized quantities of pollution are demonstrably exponential so we should be talking about it in terms of e^x not linearly. SO there is not much difference on the exponential damage curve we are currently on. All we really talking about is the point of origin and someone doing the wrong thing in an easy way in order to make more money.

 

[wizards8507]

First, we should stop conflating pollution with emissions/climate change for a second. domestic regulations (rightfully) exist to safeguard the public from pollution and toxins. This is common sense and ethics 101, it's also directly inline with what I've been saying this entire time about how corporations operate and are motivated.

Eh. I'd argue that allowing class action lawsuits for the harm caused by pollution would be at least as effective as EPA fines because they'd be even more financially detrimental to polluters while directly benefiting the victims. But I don't want to muddy the waters, as I agree with you on substance.

 

[wizards8507]

I did get it. But in terms of math my point is that with climate change the realized quantities of pollution are demonstrably exponential so we should be talking about it in terms of e^x not linearly. SO there is not much difference on the exponential damage curve we are currently on. All we really talking about is the point of origin and someone doing the wrong thing in an easy way in order to make more money.

But the global pollution curve will accelerate if we pass domestic regulations because polluters will move from dirty practices in the United States to dirtier practices in Mexico or dirtiest practices in India or China.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yes.



No.

First, we should stop conflating pollution with emissions/climate change for a second. domestic regulations (rightfully) exist to safeguard the public from pollution and toxins. This is common sense and ethics 101, it's also directly inline with what I've been saying this entire time about how corporations operate and are motivated.

But second, my point is that with respect to attempting to address global climate change that passing additional domestic regulations and/or taxes on emissions, etc. does not effectively combat climate change and instead -- in many cases -- actually increases global emissions if you look at everything from a sum-zero point of view.

For example, the company might've been operating at a level where they produce X emissions in the United States... and then you pass regulations saying you can't do that or that they're going be taxed more... and then their shareholders/executives say they aren't profitable anymore and should move to China/India/etc. They get there and they produce 2X emissions and then spend Y in carbon footprint shipping the goods back to the US.

The end result is that the world loses, and this comes from over-legislating domestically to try to fix a global problem. It's not logical, it doesn't work, and it hurts everyone.

Good post. I get it. As I said above in my response to gkirisk it really should be thought of in terms of exponential growth not linear growth. We need to be decreasing exponentially, not worrying about where a a more or less exponential pollution occurs.

 

[IrishLax]

Eh. I'd argue that allowing class action lawsuits for the harm caused by pollution would be at least as effective as EPA fines because they'd be even more financially detrimental to polluters while directly benefiting the victims. But I don't want to muddy the waters, as I agree with you on substance.

The EPA is dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws on the books (including criminal prosecution) for unsafe practices.

Laws lead to design standard and industry practices that safeguard the public, which is a lot more straightforward than having to try to litigate justice after harm is already done.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I know we already talked about this, but did anyone actually watch the video from CNN on this?

Donald Trump rally attendee charged with assault - CNNPolitics.com

A few things:

- It's shocking that the protester was arrested on the spot, but the man that punched him remained at the rally.
- I was unaware that the man also said "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him." That's ridiculous.
- It's appalling that Trump has chosen to have no comment on this man.

The protester who got punched wasn't arrested. He was just escorted from the rally after being disruptive and shouting insults at the crowd. The old man, John McGraw, who punched him WAS arrested (as he should've been).

“No one should be subjected to such a cowardly, unprovoked act as that committed by McGraw,” Sheriff Earl Butler said in a statement posted to Facebook. “Regardless of political affiliation, speech, race, national origin, color, gender, bad reputation, prior acts, or political demonstration, no other citizen has the right to assault another person or to act in such a way as this defendant did. I hope that the courts will handle this matter with the appropriate severity for McGraw’s severe and gross violation of this victim’s rights.”

The guy who got punched was part of a small group who went to the rally with the intention of disrupting it and provoking the crowd. They were looking for a reaction and hoping to provoke someone into acting out so they could then say, "Look how awful these people are." When they did, the cops escorted them out and the guy was giving the finger to the crowd. The old man, McGraw, punched him for it. The cops escorting the victim didn't initially see the punch, but after being told what happened and seeing the video, they soon went back and arrested McGraw. The guy who got punched certainly did his part to provoke, but McGraw had no right to punch him.

 

[wizards8507]

Good post. I get it. As I said above in my response to gkirisk it really should be thought of in terms of exponential growth not linear growth. We need to be decreasing exponentially, not worrying about where a a more or less exponential pollution occurs.

The problem is how you're defining "we," and this is Rubio's point. As you've argued yourself, to the extent this is an issue it's a global issue. "We," the United States, and to an even lesser extent the President of the United States himself, can do virtually nothing to drive the global trajectory that "we," the world, are on. Most of the control that "we," the United States, may choose to exercise would actually worsen the trajectory of "we," the world.

 

[Cackalacky]

But the global pollution curve will accelerate if we pass domestic regulations because polluters will move from dirty practices in the United States to dirtier practices in Mexico or dirtiest practices in India or China.

What is the real difference of an exponential curve with out reversing the course of the exponential growth. We are ALREADY going to get there. Agian you guys are all making the same assumption that the somehow less exponential damage is better than more exponential damage. I am making the argument and I think the argument should be made that the exponential growth needs to be reversed. Slowing it down is pointless. Therefore worrying about where the exponential growth of pollution occurs is pointless.

 

[gkIrish]

I did get it. But in terms of math my point is that with climate change the realized quantities of pollution are demonstrably exponential so we should be talking about it in terms of e^x not linearly. SO there is not much difference on the exponential damage curve we are currently on. All we really talking about is the point of origin and someone doing the wrong thing in an easy way in order to make more money.

You can't have it both ways. If it's exponential then the U.S. doing something unilaterally is going to have a negligible effect on the environment. If it's not exponential, then there is a difference if companies move to Mexico.

 

[Cackalacky]

The problem is how you're defining "we," and this is Rubio's point. As you've argued yourself, to the extent this is an issue it's a global issue. "We," the United States, and to an even lesser extent the President of the United States himself, can do relatively nothing to drive the global trajectory that "we," the world are are and that most of the control that "we," the United States, may choose to exercise would actually worsen the trajectory of "we," the world.

The Scandinavian countries are all doing well on this front and are leading by example. We here in the US scoff at them while they are building up a green economy and we are playing in the poopy sandbox with India and China.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Ben Carson for Trumps VP?

Ben : Donald
Blythe : Underwood

(HoC reference)

 

[wizards8507]

What is the real difference of an exponential curve with out reversing the course of the exponential growth. We are ALREADY going to get there. Asian you guys are all making the same assumption that the somehow less exponential damage is better than more exponential damage. I am making the argument and I think the argument should be made that the exponential growth needs to be reversed. Slowing it down is pointless. Therefore worrying about where the exponential growth of pollution occurs is pointless.

I'm not saying that less exponential damage is better than more exponential damage. I'm saying that there's nothing we can do to reverse the exponential damage no matter what laws we pass.

 

[Cackalacky]

You can't have it both ways. If it's exponential then the U.S. doing something unilaterally is going to have a negligible effect on the environment. If it's not exponential, then there is a difference if companies move to Mexico.

I don't want it both ways. I want everyone on the planet to reverse course. You can't reverse course like we need to when everyone is worrying about the cost of doing business in one country or another. I am trying to get you guys to see the scope of the problem. Its not strictly a business decision. It is ultimately a moral one and will be decided on our moral claim in the argument. One that Conservatives are WELL positioned to make if they choose to do so.

 

[gkIrish]

I don't want it both ways. I want everyone on the planet to reverse course. You can't reverse course like we need to when everyone is worrying about the cost of doing business in one country or another. I am trying to get you guys to see the scope of the problem. Its not strictly a business decision. It is ultimately a moral one and will be decided on our moral claim in the argument. One that Conservatives are WELL positioned to make if they choose to do so.

So do I. I think everyone would rather live in a cleaner world. Where we disagree is that you think change can happen by the U.S. doing something where I think that's not realistic and I'm not willing to sacrifice my paycheck or the paychecks of other Americans to find out whether we can lead by example and convince India and China to change.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm not saying that less exponential damage is better than more exponential damage. I'm saying that there's nothing we can do to reverse the exponential damage no matter what laws we pass.

This is where i disagree. I think we can totally make some good thing happen. But it requires some sacrifice and readjusting our principals and it will take a lot of political action and leadership. I did not get that in Rubio's response. Based on his previous quotes and such he is very disinterested in addressing it and is openly critical of any argument for its validity.

We put a man on the moon. In ten years. If we set it as a global goal, I think we could make some serious changes and progress. This is me being hopeful though. Old Man Mike may stop by and tell us how we are all too far gone now anyway so we might as well enjoy the ride.

 

[wizards8507]

I want everyone on the planet to reverse course.

That's not a policy position. I want an end to murder and for no child to ever get sick again, but neither Marco Rubio nor Bernie Sanders are going to make that happen.

 

[Cackalacky]

So do I. I think everyone would rather live in a cleaner world. Where we disagree is that you think change can happen by the U.S. doing something where I think that's not realistic and I'm not willing to sacrifice my paycheck or the paychecks of other Americans to find out whether we can lead by example and convince India and China to change.

Oh no... I dont want to infer that just the US doing something would matter, but we that we as a global leader in all things need to sack up and move in the right direction, not try to keep up with our lagging competitors.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's not a policy position. I want an end to murder and for no child to ever get sick again, but neither Marco Rubio nor Bernie Sanders are going to make that happen.

:eyeroll:

 

[wizards8507]

:eyeroll:

Wh...

This is the problem with the Democrat party. Lofty goals that get judged by noble intentions rather than actual results. Heal race relations, free college, save the planet, no more war, unite the country. Then when you call them out with "that's impossible," you're mocked.

 

[Cackalacky]

Wh...

This is the problem with the Democrat party. Lofty goals that get judged by noble intentions rather than actual results. Heal race relations, free college, save the planet, no more war, unite the country. Then when you call them out with "that's impossible," you're mocked.

I don't think they are that lofty though. So yeah.... we put a man on the moon because of a political philosophy and 400,000 American citizens working with private and government institutions to do so. We can do it again if certain people would get out of the way or join along.

 

[woolybug25]

Wh...

This is the problem with the Democrat party. Lofty goals that get judged by noble intentions rather than actual results. Heal race relations, free college, save the planet, no more war, unite the country. Then when you call them out with "that's impossible," you're mocked.

So what exactly is the result of "do nothing" in regards to the actual problem of climate change?

Because last I checked, I cannot remember the last serious Republican candidate that had any other environmental stance.

Teddy Roosevelt, I suppose.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So what exactly is the result of "do nothing" in regards to the actual problem of climate change?

Because last I checked, I cannot remember the last serious Republican candidate that had any other environmental stance.

Teddy Roosevelt, I suppose.

Ike maybe?

NVM. Meant Nixon. Got my years messed up.

 

[Cackalacky]

So what exactly is the result of "do nothing" in regards to the actual problem of climate change?

Because last I checked, I cannot remember the last serious Republican candidate that had any other environmental stance.

Teddy Roosevelt, I suppose.

Nixon. Though that was the result of some serious political pressure and not sure he was fully in on environmental policy. It would have to be Roosevelt. Ironically I find it interesting that this is when the Progressives split from the Republican party. The progressives then joined the Dems which split over Civil rights issues and the racist Southern Dems joined the Republican party. LOL.

 

[Cackalacky]

The EPA is dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws on the books (including criminal prosecution) for unsafe practices.

Laws lead to design standard and industry practices that safeguard the public, which is a lot more straightforward than having to try to litigate justice after harm is already done.

Correct. Industry standards and practices are of significant importance.

 

[wizards8507]

So what exactly is the result of "do nothing" in regards to the actual problem of climate change?

Do nothing: No improvement unless China and India change

Penalize and regulate: No improvement unless China and India change, waste loads of money, destroy economy

One of those seems worse than the other.