What would it take?

Mine mostly stem around the environment and sustainable economic growth we through so much money away on externalized costs I am a firm believer you take a conservative approach with the environment everything else will follow suit.

1. In his infrastructure plan focus on improved energy efficiency. I am all for domestic energy production but lets use what we currently have more sustainably. Use the infrastructure money to decommission old coal fired power plants that generally run at 35% efficiency to build cogeneration power plants that can operate close to 80%. While not a fan of coal I accept it is the primary source of electrical generation in the U.S.
2. Hold corporations and industry accountable and internalize environmental and health costs associated. Make those that use the product be willing to pay for the problems they cause. I drive pretty far to work, I will accept an increase in gasoline prices if they are used to offset other prices I pay externally. Also transparency by companies, if you want to hydrofrack fine, but companies need to be required to disseminate what is in the hydrofracking solution as opposed to calling it a trade secret.
3. Lastly climate change, the secretary of state nominee has voiced his understanding of the science I would like to see the EPA director and the President do the same. Doing the first two will assist in doing our part, but we also need to continue to promote R&D in renewables as well as climate and meteorological research.

I don't fear that they'll be negatively influenced by anything a president has to say, my fear is that the president will come across as so obnoxious that they won't want to listen to him (or her).

At this age you just want your kids to be interested in learning more about the process - what the president does, how the checks and balances work, etc. But if they can't stand listening to him then it increases the chances that they'll show little interest. I think that's a shame.

It's a criticism of style, not substance, and it's independent of party or position.

But you're right, my wife and I steer them much more greatly than anybody else. I may have to work a little harder to get them to listen to his words.

Gotcha, wholeheartedly agree, but trust me once they hit 16, they will already know more about how politics works (and everything else in the world then you ever did) ;) [/sarc /teenknowitalls]

Hahaha, truth.

The recount thread has become less about the recounts since it's over. So how about a new question. For those who are anti-Trump, what would it take - or what would you need to see in the first 180 days to bring you to his side.


In 180 days? Nothing. He's already shown me enough with his cabinet selection to know that it's going to be a fucking disaster.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ben Carson- absolutely no experience or knowledge about HUD. Hey, if you wanted him as Surgeon General, I could get behind that pick. Let's not forget that Carson said he wasn't qualified to take on any cabinet positions.

Former presidential candidate Ben Carson says he won't join Trump's Cabinet because he has no government experience - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-ben-carson-won-t-be-joining-donald-1479231990-htmlstory.html)

Secretary of Education:
Betsy DeVos- another person with absolutely no experience in education, loans, public institutions. She thinks we should have guns in schools because of Grizzlies. (SMH)

Secretary of Energy
Rick Perry- The very guy who wanted to get rid of the Energy department, and knows jack shit about it. Hell, he didn't even know what the job entailed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary-donald-trump.html

Secretary of State:
Rex Tillerson- Yes. Let's appoint a oil company CEO who has ties and deals with Russia on the board. You know those sanctions Obama put on Russia? Those same sanctions stopped some big oil deals with Exxon. Should we even talk about his lack of experience at one of the top spots in the nation?

Attorney General:
Jeff Sessions- He's certainly qualified from an experience standpoint. His views and potential racism is very worrisome.

Secretary of Transportation:
Elaine Chao - A former Secretary of Labor has experience in being in a cabinet, but what does she know about transportation? Had this been the Labor selection, I probably wouldn't have an issue with it. As it stands, it's a good ole boy selection.


UN Ambassador:
Nikki R. Haley- I have no issues with this pick. Good to hear she acknowledge Russia's actions in Syria as war crimes. I don't particularly agree with her on the Israel thing though, but still a qualified candidate. I'd say this was Trump's best pick of them all.


Secretary of Defense:
James Mattis- definitely qualified. Just worry he'll be a war hawk and want to drag us into a war with Iran/Syria. I also worry that Trump won't listen to him either.

I could go on down the list showing you how many of these picks are because they were big donors to his campaign and not because they are right for the job. It's going to be hard for him to be successful if he's picking bad choices to lead these individual departments.

Thanks for playing NC. enjoy the resistance.

In all seriousness, I get punch, and others, but I have no idea what form of government/political structure you would support. If you think that government hasn't always formed around the rich/powerful people of a country that's simply crazy. Hell, George Washington was a military general/aristocratic land owning virginian, Hamilton may have been a "bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman", but he was also the historical equivalent of Goldman Sachs CEO. Our whole system of banking and government basically boiled down to 5 or 6 greedy white men figuring out how to make government work for them. Jefferson wanted access to government power, Hamilton wanted financial power, and here we are.

So for you, I ask what would it take for you to accept any government at all?

My big 3 -
1) failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act - while a replace option at some point could be added, the repeal is the higher priority to me. For my family, I would be content going back to the health care of the past, at least I could afford that. (selfish bastard that I am that I want to be able to cover myself and my kids first).

DO you actually think repealing the ACA is going to lower your costs? You sir have been duped into buying fools gold. Here is a spoiler for you. It's not. In fact, it's going to rise and rise fast. As noted in the article below, those uninsured health costs are going to have to absorbed by somebody. Those somebodies are you and me the insurance buyers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/congressional-budget-office-affordable-care-act.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


I really suggest you research the rise of insurance rates prior and during the ACA. You'll notice the ACA actually slowed down the rate of growth on insurance rates. But hey.....fuck Obamacare right?

Slower Premium Growth Under Obama (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/)

The problem isn't insurance rates rising, it's that wages are stagnant.
Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/09/27/health-insurance-premiums-have-continued-to-rise-faster-than-worker-wages-under-obamacare/#49b095603606)



2) making a unjustified deal with Russia. I don't think we should be Ukraine's protector, but we definitely should be committed to NATO. Any deal that trades any NATO member's security for Russian cooperation would break my faith in him.

Would him removing sanctions against Russia break your faith? I highly suspect that is going to happen. No we aren't Ukraine's protectors, but you can't allow him to take over that area where are NATO allies are.

3) a lack of efforts that specifically target improving the life of urban US cities. Both parties ignore the real needs of these populations, the democrats take them for granted, and republicans see them as unswerving opponents. I want to see Trump move beyond that dilemna.

Some many factors go into this and they go well beyond even Trump or any President. Many of these areas need to improve educationally, socio-economically, and culturally to improve. Some of it is going to have to come from within those very communities in order to break the cycle.


the least important thing that Trump promised - the wall. If it's built fine, if not, make immigration attainable, deport criminals here illegally and call it a job well done.

A wall is going to be as effective as a shredded condom. It's just a huge waste of money, and it's going to keep nobody out.I have no issues with deporting criminals here illegally or even jailing those that commit crimes.

Thanks for playing NC. enjoy the resistance.

So for you, I ask what would it take for you to accept any government at all?


I do accept government. In a fantasy land, we wouldn't need government. Everybody would act accordingly, be fair, be responsible, respect each others opinions/lifestyles and help each other out to further humanity. The difference between you and me are vastly different because you think no further than your nose on your face. You make decisions based on what's going to affect you and your family's immediate future. I make mine based on all of humanity. Why have kids if you are just fucking the world for the future generations?

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/La_Resistance.jpg

In all seriousness, I get punch, and others, but I have no idea what form of government/political structure you would support. If you think that government hasn't always formed around the rich/powerful people of a country that's simply crazy.


Ah yes. SO we should just readily accept that the rich and powerful should rule us and move along because of history? Be a good servant and go fetch these rich assholes their slippers. Maybe the blacks should have said the same thing when they were slaves as well. History of humanity has been about man fighting to make things an equal playing field. There may never be some fantasy land Utopia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. (much like anything in our lives) We should be learning from history, not repeating it.

Let me be clear, since Schneed and NC both hit. There is a place for the government to fix healthcare in this country. The affordable care act is NOT it. I'm not going to say I can write a better plan, I can't. But there are people who can, and I'm not talking about ideologues on either side of the aisle.

Things I think would make a difference (that will probably never happen):
putting reasonable limits on lawsuits
setting up a medical academy (or 2) like the military academies that produce medical doctors who commit to years of post college service
allowing cross state insurance pools
making larger use of both cataclysmic insurance pools, and minimum care guidelines
doing something, i don't know what, on prescription drugs

Like I said I don't know the best plans so whenever you want to write a primer on what are the best practices Schneed, I would love to learn.

I do accept government. In a fantasy land, we wouldn't need government. Everybody would act accordingly, be fair, be responsible, respect each others opinions/lifestyles and help each other out to further humanity. The difference between you and me are vastly different because you think no further than your nose on your face. You make decisions based on what's going to affect you and your family's immediate future. I make mine based on all of humanity. Why have kids if you are just fucking the world for the future generations?

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/La_Resistance.jpg




Ah yes. SO we should just readily accept that the rich and powerful should rule us and move along because of history? Be a good servant and go fetch these rich assholes their slippers. Maybe the blacks should have said the same thing when they were slaves as well. History of humanity has been about man fighting to make things an equal playing field. There may never be some fantasy land Utopia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. (much like anything in our lives) We should be learning from history, not repeating it.

So what is your answer for government?

You spew out a lot of idealistic bs but reality is that history shows how all the governments progress. There is no utopian government that is going to suddenly appear but we do have a rich human history of what makes better, and worse, governments.

Was Trump just doing his best Namath/Kolber imitation? Wtf was that? This is surreal.