Political Roundtable Part XII

[sfam]

Bannon's views are close to his own so no problem there as well.

You think?

I consider Bolton to be a pure interventionist neocon. My impression of Bannon is the opposite. He's a nationalist who wants to disentangle us from as many foreign wars as possible, with the exception of taking out ISIS, which he considers to be a direct threat to national security.

That said, Bolton is one of the few entrenched establishment guys who completely understands the system and has also been consistently friendly to the Trump campaign, even while most other establishment types were never Trumpers. It's possible that Trump will value loyalty above ideology and tap Bolton.

That's a great point. For clarification, Bolton sees most Muslims as terrorists, sees immigrants as bad people to be blocked from impacting us wonderful white folk with superior culture, disregards facts when they don't support his ideology and has the same bizarre bluster as Trump. He is completely and utterly interventionist though - neocon to the core, which is different from Trump's earlier positions in the campaign. But this seems to have shifted. Trump's tone to Iran and early indications with ISIS seem to indicate significant military action.

[sfam]

Looks like Patraeus took himself out of the running for the same reason as Harward - he wouldn't take the job unless he was in control of his staffing and the political types weren't running a separate council.

My money's on John Bolton, purely because he's widely recognized by most of the national security establishment as completely BatS*** insane. Bolton fits like a glove and won't care about bringing in his own staffing. Bannon's views are close to his own so no problem there as well.

Many political appointees have to go through the security clearance process, but I wonder about the rules for the top positions. Petraeus certainly couldn't get a clearance. Maybe Trump just grants a waiver?
Having gone through the process many times, I'm sure Trump could never get a TS clearance if he was a regular citizen.

Agreed, and I doubt Patraeus was ever seriously considered. The issue of getting a security clearance while on probation would have been really rough. I don't believe there is a waiver, other than a pardon, which would work in Patraeus's case.

But to your question, I'm pretty sure top positions also require going through the security clearance process. If they are not approved, they cannot take the position.

[sfam]

The U.S. is a carbon sink. Because of our capitalist economic system and Western value system, we rapidly achieved population stability before we hit a high population density. Because of our high carbon-absorbing greenery per capita, we absorb more carbon than we emit.

This is one of the reasons I'm not on board with the whole global warming globalist agenda. We are not the problem and when we ultimately subject ourselves to economy-killing taxation, we still won't meaningfully address the real problem, which is China and India.

Would be great if true. Unfortunately, for like 50 years, the US per capita has been burning among the most carbon. Its only relatively recently we've started curtailing this., but we are still in the top 20 per capita. We absolutely are a huge part of the problem.

Here's a map of carbon emissions per capita from 2000

Divide that by geographical area.

What does that even mean? Bottom line, US citizens traditionally have been among the largest carbon polluters. Our industrial economy was rolling before China and India's. To claim that we don't contribute, or contribute less than the average country is both bizarre and factually incorrect. It is clearly our problem.

More to the point, this is akin to complaining that its not a problem for you that the kid next to you in the pool peed in the pool, because you are a few feet away. Whether or not you are the one peeing (you are if you are a US Citizen and we're talking about carbon pollution), the overall quality of the water in the pool which you are sitting in is still declining. The difference of course is you can't step out of the pool called earth.

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

This is sort of meaningless until like 20-30 years later. We are still revising Reagan's impact, for instance.

I do find it rather funny though that George W Bush is below Ruthefraud B Hayes!

[JWizmentality]

The earth is flat. Welcome to the dark ages. Alternative facts and science is opinion.

[pineappleheadindc]

Read on Twitter

This is sort of meaningless until like 20-30 years later. We are still revising Reagan's impact, for instance.

I do find it rather funny though that George W Bush is below Ruthefraud B Hayes!

I wonder if Gerald Ford is a few spaces underrated and Reagan is a few spaces overrated?

[sfam]

Looks like Patraeus took himself out of the running for the same reason as Harward - he wouldn't take the job unless he was in control of his staffing and the political types weren't running a separate council.

My money's on John Bolton, purely because he's widely recognized by most of the national security establishment as completely BatS*** insane. Bolton fits like a glove and won't care about bringing in his own staffing. Bannon's views are close to his own so no problem there as well.

Many political appointees have to go through the security clearance process, but I wonder about the rules for the top positions. Petraeus certainly couldn't get a clearance. Maybe Trump just grants a waiver?
Having gone through the process many times, I'm sure Trump could never get a TS clearance if he was a regular citizen.

Agreed, and I doubt Patraeus was ever seriously considered. The issue of getting a security clearance while on probation would have been really rough. I don't believe there is a waiver, other than a pardon, which would work in Patraeus's case.

But to your question, I'm pretty sure top positions also require going through the security clearance process. If they are not approved, they cannot take the position.

To your point, an Op-ed in the Wapo today hits this very point:

If Donald Trump were an off-the-street federal job applicant, he most likely would not be granted a security clearance. Measured against the standards applied to thousands of Americans involved with our national security, knowledge essential to granting Trump access to classified information simply isn’t there...

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

This is sort of meaningless until like 20-30 years later. We are still revising Reagan's impact, for instance.

I do find it rather funny though that George W Bush is below Ruthefraud B Hayes!

I wonder if Gerald Ford is a few spaces underrated and Reagan is a few spaces overrated?

Ford only served half a term, and pardoned Nixon. You can make the case that this was the right thing to do for our country, but I'd guess he doesn't rise much. What argument would you put forward?

Regarding Reagan, I wouldn't be surprised if he fell a spot or two, but honestly, his faults, which were many, are probably fairly small next to finalizing the fall of the Soviet Union. As much as I hated him at the time, he looks really good in comparison to the modern Republican party.

Regarding Carter, I wish there was a list of accomplishments post presidency. He's be right at the top.

[dckingsfan]

Bringing up the IQ thing one more time - I know sorry.

But I was chatting with one of the regional heads of HR in a large software company. It was interesting that they were hiring more on the basis of self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, empathy, interpersonal relationships, adaptability, problem solving, stress management and general mood than they were on IQ. Since they have moved to this type of hiring practice, they have been much more successful.

In the world of manufacturing - that doesn't seem to be as much the case.

Also, there have been many conversations about why high wage earners are who they are. IQ, emotional IQ/social intelligence, work ethic (hours worked), leadership skills and risk taking are roughly equal components. You can overcome IQ with work ethic but you can't overcome social intelligence.

High wage earners now work more hours than their counterparts (National Bureau of Economic Research). They tend to be risk takers and tend to get along with people.

Fascinating. My point is we may very well find that IQ will drop in importance in many well paying fields over time.

I worked in software development for 37 years before retiring in 2014. Never once was I given an iq test or worked for a company that gave iq tests. I was involved in a lot of hiring and never knew the iq of anyone I was interviewing. I don't think HR people are the ones to talk to about hiring decisions. In my experience they only do the initial screening. There hiring manager makes the decisions. I would always form an opinion about the interviewees intelligence by getting them to talk about the work they had done. It was amazing to talk to potential employees with years of experience who couldn't have an intelligent conversation about their field.

Well, it is definitely changing in that HR folks are given more leeway to narrow the field of potential candidates.

Also, since we have branched off a bit - they are now doing a lot of paired programming tests for applicants. That is something that is pretty new.

[nate33]

What does that even mean? Bottom line, US citizens traditionally have been among the largest carbon polluters. Our industrial economy was rolling before China and India's. To claim that we don't contribute, or contribute less than the average country is both bizarre and factually incorrect. It is clearly our problem.

More to the point, this is akin to complaining that its not a problem for you that the kid next to you in the pool peed in the pool, because you are a few feet away. Whether or not you are the one peeing (you are if you are a US Citizen and we're talking about carbon pollution), the overall quality of the water in the pool which you are sitting in is still declining. The difference of course is you can't step out of the pool called earth.

What I'm saying is that I don't consider carbon per capita to be the correct way to look at it. Carbon is produced by industry and absorbed by plant life. So the metric that makes sense to me is carbon produced divided by square feet of vegetation. If a nation has a low ratio of carbon produced divided by square feet of vegetation, it is responsible steward for the planet. If a nation has a high ratio it is not.

The U.S. may have a high carbon per capita ratio, but because we have an advanced economy and a stable population, we never came close to pushing the Malthusian limits on our environment. We have a very low population density and therefore have plenty of vegetation per capita to absorb the carbon we produce. Overall, the U.S. actually absorbs more total carbon than it emits.

I say that the U.S. is more responsible that a nation like Bangladesh. We emit about 30 times the carbon per capita as they do, but they have 40 times the population density that we do. Therefore, they are emitting more total carbon per square mile of land than we are. Likewise, a nation like France has 4 times the population density as we do, and we have 3 times the carbon emissions per capita as they do. The net result is we emit less carbon per square mile than they do.

[Kanyewest]

What does that even mean? Bottom line, US citizens traditionally have been among the largest carbon polluters. Our industrial economy was rolling before China and India's. To claim that we don't contribute, or contribute less than the average country is both bizarre and factually incorrect. It is clearly our problem.

More to the point, this is akin to complaining that its not a problem for you that the kid next to you in the pool peed in the pool, because you are a few feet away. Whether or not you are the one peeing (you are if you are a US Citizen and we're talking about carbon pollution), the overall quality of the water in the pool which you are sitting in is still declining. The difference of course is you can't step out of the pool called earth.

What I'm saying is that I don't consider carbon per capita to be the correct way to look at it. Carbon is produced by industry and absorbed by plant life. So the metric that makes sense to me is carbon produced divided by square feet of vegetation. If a nation has a low ratio of carbon produced divided by square feet of vegetation, it is responsible steward for the planet. If a nation has a high ratio it is not.

The U.S. may have a high carbon per capita ratio, but because we have an advanced economy and a stable population, we never came close to pushing the Malthusian limits on our environment. We have a very low population density and therefore have plenty of vegetation per capita to absorb the carbon we produce. Overall, the U.S. actually absorbs more total carbon than it emits.

I say that the U.S. is more responsible that a nation like Bangladesh. We emit about 30 times the carbon per capita as they do, but they have 40 times the population density that we do. Therefore, they are emitting more total carbon per square mile of land than we are. Likewise, a nation like France has 4 times the population density as we do, and we have 3 times the carbon emissions per capita as they do. The net result is we emit less carbon per square mile than they do.

US emits a little over 16- 17% of the total emissions a year and is only 6.6% of the total land of the world. The US is not doing its part and neither is China.

[dckingsfan]

Not sure if this helps the discussion in terms of trends...



or

[dckingsfan]

Power plants are the single largest contributor to carbon emissions. I thought Obama's push to move away from coal was a good one. I think his mistake was not to push gas harder while at the same time pushing renewables. It "felt" like the Obama administration was creating rules to curtail the development of natural gas.

I thought a more prudent approach would have been to incentivize coal burning plants to quickly switch to natural gas. At the same time pushing renewables.

[bsilver]

Bringing up the IQ thing one more time - I know sorry.

But I was chatting with one of the regional heads of HR in a large software company. It was interesting that they were hiring more on the basis of self-awareness, assertiveness, independence, empathy, interpersonal relationships, adaptability, problem solving, stress management and general mood than they were on IQ. Since they have moved to this type of hiring practice, they have been much more successful.

In the world of manufacturing - that doesn't seem to be as much the case.

Also, there have been many conversations about why high wage earners are who they are. IQ, emotional IQ/social intelligence, work ethic (hours worked), leadership skills and risk taking are roughly equal components. You can overcome IQ with work ethic but you can't overcome social intelligence.

High wage earners now work more hours than their counterparts (National Bureau of Economic Research). They tend to be risk takers and tend to get along with people.

Fascinating. My point is we may very well find that IQ will drop in importance in many well paying fields over time.

I worked in software development for 37 years before retiring in 2014. Never once was I given an iq test or worked for a company that gave iq tests. I was involved in a lot of hiring and never knew the iq of anyone I was interviewing. I don't think HR people are the ones to talk to about hiring decisions. In my experience they only do the initial screening. There hiring manager makes the decisions. I would always form an opinion about the interviewees intelligence by getting them to talk about the work they had done. It was amazing to talk to potential employees with years of experience who couldn't have an intelligent conversation about their field.

Well, it is definitely changing in that HR folks are given more leeway to narrow the field of potential candidates.

Also, since we have branched off a bit - they are now doing a lot of paired programming tests for applicants. That is something that is pretty new.

Pairing an applicant with a current employee would provide valuable information. Pairing two job applicants together would lead to some interesting situations. It would have to be closely observed - maybe even taped - to get a good idea of their capabilities.

[FAH1223]

China in 15 years will probably have cities as clean or cleaner than Europe in terms of air pollution.

eh... I won't be here on the board to call you out in 15 years - but I just don't see it. Many of the industries there are state/owned and run. There is a reason that they don't enforce certain rules. Unless you are saying that there will be a regime change in China, I just don't buy it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I have no data exact data for this (China and what they release is anything but transparent) prediction other than this:

20+ million cars are added to China annually, there standards aren't up to the US (and locally sourced cars get a big pass).

China was building a coal power plant every 10 days. These are unlikely to get mothballed within 15 years.

State owned businesses (Steel for example) are both run and monitored by the same individuals. When it comes to environmental standards or jobs/competitiveness - the latter will win.

The New Silk Road and String of Pearls is 1 leg of China's longterm strategy, they have been the largest investor in the world in renewal energy and nuclear power.

The Chinese have funded practically all the designs of 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plants to minimize risk and they are going on a building spree the likes the world has never seen before.
Another key technology is coal liquefaction and gasification, basically getting oil and gas from coal. This technology is 100 years old and has been perfected by the Germans and South Africans. China has bought all the designs and is implementing them as we speak.

The Chinese also are implementing policies targeting use of coal burning tech and vehicles. They're investments in wind and solar have been so aggressive they've had to cut down production of panels and turbines.

That's why I believe within a time frame of 10-15 years China will not require that much oil in the first place, and its smog and pollution cities are projected to be cleaner or clean as Europe. Iran is going to be selling most of its oil to India rather than China too.

They've definitely woken up in the last five years over how bad the pollution is. There's more urgency and Beijing's pollution levels have gone down, Delhi has been #1 by a good margin for a couple years now.

India's bureaucracy at the Federal Level is definitely an issue for more aggressive investments in renewables and moving away from fossil fuel..

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I'm about Fed up with the over the top reaction from Democrats regarding Trump. The insults, the protests, the violence, the destruction of property, burning the flag, and absolute exaggerated hysteria, all of which is completely unfounded and unwarranted.

Trump is not anti-immigrant, his wife IS AN IMMIGRANT. He is against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, which is a principal law of our country. Being the Commander In Chief it is his job to enforce the law. Borders and laws are what makes a country a country, not just a free open area of land. He wants to keep out Terrorists. Please stop lumping LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in with law breaking ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and TERRORISTS. Legal immigrants deserve our respect.

He is not a racists. I am tired of people talking about Trump like he is some KKK member from the deep south 70 years ago. He is a New York business man for crying out loud, who has been in the public eye and dealing with people for 40 years without these accusations.

These tactics by liberals are unscrupulous and downright lies. They call him a fascist when their propaganda, indoctrination, and absolute refusal of any opposition opinions are the roots of fascism. They have become completely unhinged.

I don't like everything Trump does or says but I am willing to give him a chance. All this overreaction and he's only been in office a month and hasn't even done anything yet! What I like is he's an outsider, not an entrenched part of the corrupt government establishment. I like that we wants to improve the economy, lower taxes, and reduce regulations. He wants to improve our security, military and national defense. He wants to improve our inner cities, and infrastructure. Stop protesting and stonewalling and complaining.

Personally, I've seen my neighborhood decimated by an increase in crime and gangs. I had my car stolen. I have not gotten a raise in 7 years while my rent has gone up significantly over the same period of time, and my medical insurance premiums have gone up and my deductible has gone from $250 to $2000.

Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinsky's, her campaign colluded to be anointed the Democratic nominee, was provided with debate questions, paid protesters to cause violence in Chicago to frame Trump supporters, and you don't hear anything about it.

I'm also tired of this narrative that America is this evil empire. If we are so terrible why do people WANT to come here? The dirty deeds of our past are admittedly ugly, but not unique to nations of power throughout history. What is unique is that America ended slavery, and has proceeded to liberate and empower more people throughout the world than any other civilization.

I, like ALOT of Americans, believe in CAPITALISM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, a LIMITED federal government, separation of powers, a strong military, and as much choice and power as possible staying at the local level of state, county and most importantly the INDIVIDUAL. I want to earn what I keep and keep what I earn, and I want the government and media to stop telling what to think and stay out of my business.

http://blackamericansfortrump.net/index.php/2016/09/10/jesse-jackson-praised-trump-in-1999-for-lifetime-of-helping-african-american-community/

Watch on YouTube

https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

[Induveca]

I'm about Fed up with the over the top reaction from Democrats regarding Trump. The insults, the protests, the violence, the destruction of property, burning the flag, and absolute exaggerated hysteria, all of which is completely unfounded and unwarranted.

Trump is not anti-immigrant, his wife IS AN IMMIGRANT. He is against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, which is a principal law of our country. Being the Commander In Chief it is his job to enforce the law. Borders and laws are what makes a country a country, not just a free open area of land. He wants to keep out Terrorists. Please stop lumping LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in with law breaking ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and TERRORISTS. Legal immigrants deserve our respect.

He is not a racists. I am tired of people talking about Trump like he is some KKK member from the deep south 70 years ago. He is a New York business man for crying out loud, who has been in the public eye and dealing with people for 40 years without these accusations.

These tactics by liberals are unscrupulous and downright lies. They call him a fascist when their propaganda, indoctrination, and absolute refusal of any opposition opinions are the roots of fascism. They have become completely unhinged.

I don't like everything Trump does or says but I am willing to give him a chance. All this overreaction and he's only been in office a month and hasn't even done anything yet! What I like is he's an outsider, not an entrenched part of the corrupt government establishment. I like that we wants to improve the economy, lower taxes, and reduce regulations. He wants to improve our security, military and national defense. He wants to improve our inner cities, and infrastructure. Stop protesting and stonewalling and complaining.

Personally, I've seen my neighborhood decimated by an increase in crime and gangs. I had my car stolen. I have not gotten a raise in 7 years while my rent has gone up significantly over the same period of time, and my medical insurance premiums have gone up and my deductible has gone from $250 to $2000.

Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinsky's, her campaign colluded to be anointed the Democratic nominee, was provided with debate questions, paid protesters to cause violence in Chicago to frame Trump supporters, and you don't hear anything about it.

I'm also tired of this narrative that America is this evil empire. If we are so terrible why do people WANT to come here? The dirty deeds of our past are admittedly ugly, but not unique to nations of power throughout history. What is unique is that America ended slavery, and has proceeded to liberate and empower more people throughout the world than any other civilization.

I, like ALOT of Americans, believe in CAPITALISM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, a LIMITED federal government, separation of powers, a strong military, and as much choice and power as possible staying at the local level of state, county and most importantly the INDIVIDUAL. I want to earn what I keep and keep what I earn, and I want the government and media to stop telling what to think and stay out of my business.

http://blackamericansfortrump.net/index.php/2016/09/10/jesse-jackson-praised-trump-in-1999-for-lifetime-of-helping-african-american-community/

Watch on YouTube

https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Bravo

[Induveca]

Bravo

[dckingsfan]

China in 15 years will probably have cities as clean or cleaner than Europe in terms of air pollution.

eh... I won't be here on the board to call you out in 15 years - but I just don't see it. Many of the industries there are state/owned and run. There is a reason that they don't enforce certain rules. Unless you are saying that there will be a regime change in China, I just don't buy it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I have no data exact data for this (China and what they release is anything but transparent) prediction other than this:

20+ million cars are added to China annually, there standards aren't up to the US (and locally sourced cars get a big pass).

China was building a coal power plant every 10 days. These are unlikely to get mothballed within 15 years.

State owned businesses (Steel for example) are both run and monitored by the same individuals. When it comes to environmental standards or jobs/competitiveness - the latter will win.

The New Silk Road and String of Pearls is 1 leg of China's longterm strategy, they have been the largest investor in the world in renewal energy and nuclear power.

The Chinese have funded practically all the designs of 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plants to minimize risk and they are going on a building spree the likes the world has never seen before.
Another key technology is coal liquefaction and gasification, basically getting oil and gas from coal. This technology is 100 years old and has been perfected by the Germans and South Africans. China has bought all the designs and is implementing them as we speak.

The Chinese also are implementing policies targeting use of coal burning tech and vehicles. They're investments in wind and solar have been so aggressive they've had to cut down production of panels and turbines.

That's why I believe within a time frame of 10-15 years China will not require that much oil in the first place, and its smog and pollution cities are projected to be cleaner or clean as Europe. Iran is going to be selling most of its oil to India rather than China too.

They've definitely woken up in the last five years over how bad the pollution is. There's more urgency and Beijing's pollution levels have gone down, Delhi has been #1 by a good margin for a couple years now.

India's bureaucracy at the Federal Level is definitely an issue for more aggressive investments in renewables and moving away from fossil fuel..

In this particular case as with all things Beijing - I have to see it before I will believe it.

[dckingsfan]

I'm about Fed up with the over the top reaction from Democrats regarding Trump. The insults, the protests, the violence, the destruction of property, burning the flag, and absolute exaggerated hysteria, all of which is completely unfounded and unwarranted.

Trump is not anti-immigrant, his wife IS AN IMMIGRANT. He is against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, which is a principal law of our country. Being the Commander In Chief it is his job to enforce the law. Borders and laws are what makes a country a country, not just a free open area of land. He wants to keep out Terrorists. Please stop lumping LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in with law breaking ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and TERRORISTS. Legal immigrants deserve our respect.

He is not a racists. I am tired of people talking about Trump like he is some KKK member from the deep south 70 years ago. He is a New York business man for crying out loud, who has been in the public eye and dealing with people for 40 years without these accusations.

These tactics by liberals are unscrupulous and downright lies. They call him a fascist when their propaganda, indoctrination, and absolute refusal of any opposition opinions are the roots of fascism. They have become completely unhinged.

I don't like everything Trump does or says but I am willing to give him a chance. All this overreaction and he's only been in office a month and hasn't even done anything yet! What I like is he's an outsider, not an entrenched part of the corrupt government establishment. I like that we wants to improve the economy, lower taxes, and reduce regulations. He wants to improve our security, military and national defense. He wants to improve our inner cities, and infrastructure. Stop protesting and stonewalling and complaining.

Personally, I've seen my neighborhood decimated by an increase in crime and gangs. I had my car stolen. I have not gotten a raise in 7 years while my rent has gone up significantly over the same period of time, and my medical insurance premiums have gone up and my deductible has gone from $250 to $2000.

Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinsky's, her campaign colluded to be anointed the Democratic nominee, was provided with debate questions, paid protesters to cause violence in Chicago to frame Trump supporters, and you don't hear anything about it.

I'm also tired of this narrative that America is this evil empire. If we are so terrible why do people WANT to come here? The dirty deeds of our past are admittedly ugly, but not unique to nations of power throughout history. What is unique is that America ended slavery, and has proceeded to liberate and empower more people throughout the world than any other civilization.

I, like ALOT of Americans, believe in CAPITALISM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, a LIMITED federal government, separation of powers, a strong military, and as much choice and power as possible staying at the local level of state, county and most importantly the INDIVIDUAL. I want to earn what I keep and keep what I earn, and I want the government and media to stop telling what to think and stay out of my business.

http://blackamericansfortrump.net/index.php/2016/09/10/jesse-jackson-praised-trump-in-1999-for-lifetime-of-helping-african-american-community/

Watch on YouTube

https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/opinion/sunday/are-liberals-helping-trump.html?src=me&_r=0