The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's interesting too to go back a little further and see who people thought would win the nominations in October 2007, 7 months further along in the process than we are now. Hillary had more than 3X more votes than Obama. A lot of Huckabee and Guliani predictions on the Republican side at the start, but McCain did win in that poll by the end. People stopped voting in the Dem thread pretty early, I guess because it was assumed that Clinton had it wrapped up. The Republican thread went on longer.

(Politics): Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

The moral - maybe we don't have 2016 figured out yet.

You can check in 2022 - my predictions:

Republican - some old white guy who may be a moderate but is forced to sound like Hitler due to the idiots on the fringe

Democrat - someone who wants universal everything and thinks people can't decide for themselves

[Dutch]

The Republicans definitely need new leadership.. I'm on board with that. And maybe some media support that being conservative and capitalist isn't far right thinking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wish I could find a candidate that was hawkish on economics and foreign policy and liberal on social and religious concerns

In other words, a faux-conservative candidate that I'd stay home rather than vote for.

Without getting the social positions correct, the rest of the stuff ultimately doesn't matter afaic. All the money in the world ain't worth a damn to me if I'm spending it in a world unfit to live in.

Point here isn't to rip on you, point is simply how difficult it is to find a Frankenstein candidate that can get both of us to the polls

[lungs]

Curious of what the conservatives around here think of Scott Walker?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

Curious of what the conservatives around here think of Scott Walker?

He'd make a dynamite Secretary of Labor.

Based on a quick pull of position quotes, he's too weak on other issues -- illegal immigration for starters -- for me to seriously consider him for anything higher. Maybe a VP slot, that's nearly useless barring a death.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He'd make a dynamite Secretary of Labor.

Based on a quick pull of position quotes, he's too weak on other issues -- illegal immigration for starters -- for me to seriously consider him for anything higher. Maybe a VP slot, that's nearly useless barring a death.

Yes, the farm lobby here in WI has kept him from going right on immigration. He did say something recently that would be construed as moving right on immigration but I'm positive he won't be advocating the shoot on sight approach you would prefer for border security.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

Yes, the farm lobby here in WI has kept him from going right on immigration. He did say something recently that would be construed as moving right on immigration but I'm positive he won't be advocating the shoot on sight approach you would prefer for border security.

While I recognize that I'm unlikely to get a wholly satisfactory position out of a candidate, once he backed "pathway" notions, he'd pretty much rendered himself inadequate for me in that regard.

Not sure any amount of backtracking now (or between now & election time) will convince me of his good intentions.

Still, he has some uses & I'd consider him for a cabinet position if he could be kept away from broader issues where he's weak.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In other words, a faux-conservative candidate that I'd stay home rather than vote for.

Without getting the social positions correct, the rest of the stuff ultimately doesn't matter afaic. All the money in the world ain't worth a damn to me if I'm spending it in a world unfit to live in.

Point here isn't to rip on you, point is simply how difficult it is to find a Frankenstein candidate that can get both of us to the polls

Maybe, you're not the only one that tells me I'm reaching. But what the hell, Reagan took 49 states and he was as faux as they come (actor), I just need to find some dude like that to run the party.

[Izulde]

I hate Scott Walker more than any politician ever. He's completely ruined Wisconsin, and is turning it into Mississippi North.

[stevew]

Ted Cruz in it to win it.

[NobodyHere]

It's nice how conservatives suddenly believe that someone born outside the country can be a natural born citizen.

Maybe you just have to be white.

[JPhillips]

www.tedcruz.com

tee hee

[albionmoonlight]

I saw a bullet point list of Ted Cruz's main foci. One was to keep NASA's focus on space exploration.

I am asking this question honestly and not in a trolling way. Did I miss something? I thought that was what NASA did. What is the complaint about?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I saw a bullet point list of Ted Cruz's main foci. One was to keep NASA's focus on space exploration.

I am asking this question honestly and not in a trolling way. Did I miss something? I thought that was what NASA did. What is the complaint about?

I believe he wants them to focus on that than this alluded climate change bizness.

Follow-up: NASA’s Cruz Control.

[JPhillips]

That came up last week in some hearings. Some conservatives are mad that NASA looks at global warming. I didn't realize that was an issue, but apparently it is.

[albionmoonlight]

Ah. Thanks. That makes sense and certainly fits with the overall theme of a candidate attempting to stake out the right wing of a GOP primary field.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That came up last week in some hearings. Some conservatives are mad that NASA looks at global warming. I didn't realize that was an issue, but apparently it is.

why do people not want scientists to examine the possibility of global warming? again not trolling - just really want to know the reasoning. is it because it is seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars (or at least marginally more of a waste than space exploration)?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Maybe, you're not the only one that tells me I'm reaching. But what the hell, Reagan took 49 states and he was as faux as they come (actor), I just need to find some dude like that to run the party.

Reagan came along at an interesting time, eventually insuring his legacy by having success against the greatest perceived threat we faced at the time. Whether he won the Cold War or the other guy mostly just lost it, he still benefited from being the one on the floor against them as they came apart.

Similar success -- in terms of legacy & all -- seems even more unlikely today since there appears to be a considerably greater divide about what constitutes greatest threat(s).

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

why do people not want scientists to examine the possibility of global warming? again not trolling - just really want to know the reasoning. is it because it is seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars (or at least marginally more of a waste than space exploration)?

Really? (I'm kind of perplexed)

Climate change deniers tend to want to disassociate the idea that humankind has been the root cause of the uptick in temperature fluctuation, storm intensity and rising ocean waters due to melting of the Arctic.

Most of this can be attributed to a reliance on burning of fossil fuels, population growth, and destroying our natural resources, which means donors like Energy and Agriculture and their lobbyists posit that this is just "temperature cycling" and that all is well and should not be changed.

NASA was conducting some studies into the matter and Cruz doesn't want further corroboration (especially from a Federal agency) from scientists that climate change is a real issue.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Reagan came along at an interesting time, eventually insuring his legacy by having success against the greatest perceived threat we faced at the time. Whether he won the Cold War or the other guy mostly just lost it, he still benefited from being the one on the floor against them as they came apart.

Similar success -- in terms of legacy & all -- seems even more unlikely today since there appears to be a considerably greater divide about what constitutes greatest threat(s).

Reading "Nixonland", and there is a whole side story about Reagan. Nixon was very concerned by him, enough to deal with Strom Thurmond to get the nomination for president.

Reagan frightened Nixon not because of ideology but because he was a very viable candidate who could have taken the nomination from him.

That being said, Reagan was motivated by faith, that "God would provide" and didn't have that devious drive that Nixon did. It was very close and perhaps if he had more of a political kill drive, he could have taken the nomination, but he really did seem to have an "Aw Shucks" personality.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

NASA was conducting some studies into the matter and Cruz doesn't want further corroboration (especially from a Federal agency) from scientists that climate change is a real issue.

Or, you know, doesn't want funding intended for one purpose diverted into an agenda driven fiction.

[jeff061]

Information is information, regardless of the outcome. It doesn't create itself. We should just stop looking at things that may have an unfavorable result?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or, you know, doesn't want funding intended for one purpose diverted into an agenda driven fiction.

i understand the "funding intended for one purpose" part: nasa is a space agency and should focus on that. (however, if an argument was sincerely limited only to that concern, then it would include a recommendation for which agency should study it instead.)

it's the "fiction" part i don't get: how do you know something is fiction unless scientists study it? and if, as a mental exercise, it turns out to be true, would it be important enough that a government should examine it? especially a government currently "on top" that wants to maintain the global status quo for as many centuries as possible?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or, you know, doesn't want funding intended for one purpose diverted into an agenda driven fiction.

PUHLEZE.

No Federal agency has just one program. They handle a multitude of issues and in some cases cross silos to work with other agencies (CIA can't get satellites up into space by themselves).

This is a classic Republican diversion, let's have NASA do what it's supposed to explore space (while quietly killing all funding to do so) but also keep them from corroborating that climate change/global warming is a true phenomenon aggravated by humankind.

[miked]

Rednecks hate their science. Why study things when you know what is right.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by miked

Rednecks hate their science. Why study things when you know what is right.

I lean conservative but I also believe in global warming and science. However if you are going to go with the generalization about conservatives and hating science what about liberals thinking they know everything? Complete understanding of the workings of a complex economy. Check. Complete understanding of social sciences and human behavior. Check. Complete understanding of the causes of mass shootings. Check. Healthcare. Check. The list goes on and on.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

how do you know something is fiction unless scientists study it?

Very nice line there

[miked]

Originally Posted by panerd

I lean conservative but I also believe in global warming and science. However if you are going to go with the generalization about conservatives and hating science what about liberals thinking they know everything? Complete understanding of the workings of a complex economy. Check. Complete understanding of social sciences and human behavior. Check. Complete understanding of the causes of mass shootings. Check. Healthcare. Check. The list goes on and on.

I don't think any of those. I think we have no idea what causes mass shootings other than likely mental illness. I do believe really easy access to high powered guns does not help, but not sure anything other than banning guns would really work (and I'm not in favor of that). Same with economy...I believe both sides have proven really faulty on this issue and so obviously in the pockets of their campaign financers that we are stupid as a population for letting it continue.

But science is science. Judging by the actions of most in the Southern states (and parts of suburban California apparently), there is a fundamental disbelief in science and willingness to sacrifice our next generation to the stupidity of their parents.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

PUHLEZE.

No Federal agency has just one program. They handle a multitude of issues and in some cases cross silos to work with other agencies (CIA can't get satellites up into space by themselves).

This is a classic Republican diversion, let's have NASA do what it's supposed to explore space (while quietly killing all funding to do so) but also keep them from corroborating that climate change/global warming is a true phenomenon aggravated by humankind.

Under what stretch of the imagination is (the manmade) global warming (myth) part of Aeronautics or Space? Your CIA example has a clear connection, but in this case the first blush is that it's merely an agenda driven end run.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Under what stretch of the imagination is (the manmade) global warming (myth) part of Aeronautics or Space? Your CIA example has a clear connection, but in this case the first blush is that it's merely an agenda driven end run.

The one grounded in reality.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Under what stretch of the imagination is (the manmade) global warming (myth) part of Aeronautics or Space? Your CIA example has a clear connection, but in this case the first blush is that it's merely an agenda driven end run.

On Instagram last week NASA Goddard posted a time lapse of the the winter Arctic ice sheet. Saying it has now reached its maximum and is the smallest on satellite record. 2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record | NASA

Is that a misuse? Political? It would seem the use of this information by others is what makes it political, not the information in itself.

[Qwikshot]

NASA on climate change (Jon I know you won't read it but here's the link)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The agency's research encompasses solar activity, sea level rise, the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, the state of the ozone layer, air pollution, and changes in sea ice and land ice. NASA scientists regularly appear in the mainstream press as climate experts. So how did the space agency end up taking such a big role in climate science?

NASA’s planetary program had a lot to do with scientific and congressional interest in expanding the agency’s role in Earth science. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA's lead center for planetary science, sent Mariner series probes to Venus and Mars. Astronomers considered these to be the "Earth-like" planets in the solar system, most likely to have surface conditions able to support life.

But that's not what they found. Venus had been roasted by a super-charged greenhouse effect. In contrast to Earth, Venus had about 300 times more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, no significant water vapor and a surface temperature hotter than molten lead. Mars, on the other hand, had an atmospheric pressure about 1 percent of that of planet Earth and temperatures far below freezing. Pictures showed no surface water - it would have been frozen anyway - but they also seemed to show that it once had liquid water.

These discoveries left planetary scientists with unanswered questions. How did Earth, Venus and Mars wind up so radically different from similar origins? How could Mars have once been warm enough to be wet, but be frozen solid now? These questions revolve around climate and the intersection of climate, atmospheric chemistry and, on Earth, life.

But just as planetary scientists began confronting these questions, Congress lost interest in planetary exploration. NASA's planetary exploration budget sank dramatically starting in 1977, and the Reagan administration threatened to terminate planetary exploration entirely. This was partly due to high inflation in the U.S., and partly due to the agency's focus on the space shuttle, which could only reach low Earth orbit. The shuttle focused agency leaders’ attention on studying the Earth from orbit, not on the other planets.

It had been known since 1960 that humans were increasing the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Would this warm the climate noticeably? Scientists also knew that human emissions of aerosols could cool the Earth. Which effect would dominate? A 1975 study by the U.S. National Academy of Science said, in effect, "We don't know. Give us money for research." A 1979 study of carbon dioxide's role in the climate put it slightly differently. They had found "no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."

Declining planetary funding and growing scientific interest in the Earth's climate caused planetary scientists to start studying the Earth. It was closer, and much less expensive, to do research on. And NASA followed suit, starting to plan for an Earth observing system aimed at questions of "global change." This phrase included climate change as well as changes in land use, ocean productivity and pollution. But the Earth science program that it established was modeled on NASA’s space and planetary science programs, not the old Applications program. NASA developed the technology and funded the science. In 1984, Congress again revised the Space Act, broadening NASA’s Earth science authority from the stratosphere to “the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth.”

These capabilities -- nearly 30 years of satellite-based solar and atmospheric temperature data -- helped the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change come to the conclusion in 2007 that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." But there's still a lot to learn about what the consequences will be. How much warmer will it get? How will sea level rise progress? What will happen to soil moisture, and therefore agricultural production, in a warmer world? NASA scientists and engineers will help answer these and other critical questions in the future.

[Qwikshot]

Cruz wants NASA to quit worrying about climate change - Business Insider

These "other functions" include satellite programs that measure things like Earth's ozone layer, air quality and sea ice thickness. These missions are crucial to our understanding of how climate change is affecting the Earth and what we need to be doing to prepare for it. As a known climate change denier, it seems like Cruz is just trying to yank funding away from essential climate change research.

"It is absolutely critical that we understand Earth's environment because this is the only place that we have to live," Bolden said. "We've got to take care of it, and the only way we can take care of it is that we know what's happening, and the only way we know what's happening is to use instruments that we develop at NASA — and we do it better than anybody else."

Cruz's argument is really just a thinly veiled attempt to discourage climate change research.

Read more: Cruz wants NASA to quit worrying about climate change - Business Insider

[lungs]

Originally Posted by miked

Rednecks hate their science. Why study things when you know what is right.

Of course you could say the same thing about city slicker liberals and aspects of food production.

I believe there is a (large?) chunk of the population that loves science when it confirms their beliefs but hates it when it doesn't. I see it all the time with farmers that think climate change is a big hoax yet use science to persuade people that GMOs (one example) are harmless. And you can flip flop the two and get the same thing. Sometimes I feel alone in this world as somebody that believes GMOs are harmless and climate change is real (and humans are a big contributor).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by lungs

Sometimes I feel alone in this world as somebody that believes GMOs are harmless and climate change is real (and humans are a big contributor).

I agree with you. So that's 2 of us. Only 5,999,999,998 people to go!

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Really? (I'm kind of perplexed)

Climate change deniers tend to want to disassociate the idea that humankind has been the root cause of the uptick in temperature fluctuation, storm intensity and rising ocean waters due to melting of the Arctic.

Most of this can be attributed to a reliance on burning of fossil fuels, population growth, and destroying our natural resources, which means donors like Energy and Agriculture and their lobbyists posit that this is just "temperature cycling" and that all is well and should not be changed.

But why would climate change deniers want to disassociate this idea?

Your assertion that it is somehow driven by Energy and Agriculture lobbyists just doesn't hold water. I doubt JiMGa (or any other climate change denier you know in your day-to-day life) is getting one red cent from the Energy or Agriculture lobby. It might explain why a politician does what he does, but not for us regular joes. I also reject the 'rednecks hate science' argument: I really doubt that an intelligent guy like JiMGa or other smart conservatives you know would really, if pressed to answer, reject the usefulness of the scientific method. I'm still left wondering...

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Under what stretch of the imagination is (the manmade) global warming (myth) part of Aeronautics or Space? Your CIA example has a clear connection, but in this case the first blush is that it's merely an agenda driven end run.

Can you expound on why you describe global warming as a myth or fiction?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

I lean conservative but I also believe in global warming and science. However if you are going to go with the generalization about conservatives and hating science

Is it just me, or did anyone else find it amusing that in response to "Rednecks hate their science", panerd got offended the he was referring to conservatives in general.

Are all conservatives rednecks to you, panerd?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree with you. So that's 2 of us. Only 5,999,999,998 people to go!

3!! We're causing a mass movement right here!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by lungs

Of course you could say the same thing about city slicker liberals and aspects of food production.

I believe there is a (large?) chunk of the population that loves science when it confirms their beliefs but hates it when it doesn't. I see it all the time with farmers that think climate change is a big hoax yet use science to persuade people that GMOs (one example) are harmless. And you can flip flop the two and get the same thing. Sometimes I feel alone in this world as somebody that believes GMOs are harmless and climate change is real (and humans are a big contributor).

If you can go with "safe" instead of "harmless" I think a lot of people would agree.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

3!! We're causing a mass movement right here!

4! Get ready to march on Washington!

[miked]

Make it 4!! But of course there need to be some larger controlled studies done on specific GMOs (we in the science field know that exposure to certain growth factors leads to diseases, it's just a matter of which ones). I do think it's crazy that tons of shit they put in food here in the US that we buy and eat are banned in Europe. I guess they are socialists or something, but the fact that Kraft makes different products to sell here (and are cheaper) does give me a little pause...

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree with you. So that's 2 of us. Only 5,999,999,998 people to go!

And Kodos makes three!

[ISiddiqui]

No, Kodos makes 6

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

But why would climate change deniers want to disassociate this idea?

Your assertion that it is somehow driven by Energy and Agriculture lobbyists just doesn't hold water. I doubt JiMGa (or any other climate change denier you know in your day-to-day life) is getting one red cent from the Energy or Agriculture lobby. It might explain why a politician does what he does, but not for us regular joes. I also reject the 'rednecks hate science' argument: I really doubt that an intelligent guy like JiMGa or other smart conservatives you know would really, if pressed to answer, reject the usefulness of the scientific method. I'm still left wondering...

My assertion that it doesn't hold water? In what way?!?

Climate skeptic Willie Soon funded by industry - Business Insider

National Review

His reasons for why global warming is a good thing, Hughes told the Capital Journal, is that “atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production,” “thawing permafrost would increase by one-seventh Earth’s landmass open to extensive human habitation,” and “if the sea level did rise, there would be a global economic boom,” among other arguments.

Read more at: National Review

So in a nutshell, after years of admitting there is no climate change, the National Review is stating "hey it'll be good for the economy".

Teddy Cruz on Climate Change:

"Many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. In particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming."
— Ted Cruz on Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 in an interview on "Late Night with Seth Meyers"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...last-17-years/

He said Cruz recently voted to affirm that climate change is real (though the statement voted on did not attribute those changes to human activity, a key point for climate-change activists who say changes to human activity will be required to keep the environmental impact from worsening).

Of course Fox News:

On climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."
— Dana Perino on Monday, February 9th, 2015 in a broadcast of "The Five" on Fox News

Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data | PunditFact

But hey, I mean, this is all recent. If you don't think Energy and Agriculture (not all mind you) like funding against this.

There was a time when this was okay to believe too:

[IMG][/IMG]

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, Kodos makes 6

Haha, y'all's inability to count is what has me skeptical.

[ISiddiqui]

Are you fucking kidding me?!!

Israel stole classified US information and used it to help congressional Republicans - Vox

The Wall Street Journal's Adam Entous dropped a huge story Tuesday morning: Israel acquired classified US information while spying on the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and leaked the stolen information about the emerging deal to American lawmakers in an attempt to sabotage the Obama administration's outreach to Tehran.

Just... no words.

[JPhillips]

And absolutely nothing will be done about it.

[ISiddiqui]

And what most annoys me are the morons going around saying "everyone spies on each other" as if that's the actual issue here (or that the US really is mad that Israel spies on the US - that's basically a given).

[JPhillips]

Yeah, Israel has long been one of the most active espionage countries. It made me laugh out loud to read their denial:

A senior official in the prime minister’s office said Monday: “These allegations are utterly false. The state of Israel does not conduct espionage against the United States or Israel’s other allies.