Political Roundtable Part XII

[dckingsfan]

Interesting - pretty much a mix of politics and public labor lobbying. I wonder if we will see Trump try to challenge the federal public labor unions. I think he might have a pretty good chance of winning once he gets his Supreme Court nominee through.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

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.

Sadly, you are probably right. But one could argue that we should do our part even if others aren't doing their part. And FAH pointed out that they (China) are also investing in renewables.

[FAH1223]

Interesting - pretty much a mix of politics and public labor lobbying. I wonder if we will see Trump try to challenge the federal public labor unions. I think he might have a pretty good chance of winning once he gets his Supreme Court nominee through.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

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.

Sadly, you are probably right. But one could argue that we should do our part even if others aren't doing their part. And FAH pointed out that they (China) are also investing in renewables.

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

India on the other hand is an issue. I was in Delhi and a few northern cities last year. While there is awareness and push for renewables, they have other issues such as trash burning and lack of recycling... which messes up the air quality. Zero waste and sustainability of waste management was part of my project with an advocacy NGO I consulted with. The air quality in Delhi is the worst in the world.

Southern India from what I've heard has better air quality and waste management.

We really take for granted our sanitation systems here. We aren't perfect but our clean air definitely has to do with our natural gas and culture of recycling

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

lol at anyone who voted for this clown

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

lol

[verbal8]

6 months leading up to the election, I thought Clinton was vulnerable. I thought Sanders would have fared much better against Trump than Clinton. I also thought she was running a poor campaign, and turns out it was even worse than I thought.

I think Sanders also would have done a lot better in a crowded primary field(like Trump had) vs. basically competing with the establishment candidate head-to-head from day one.

Sanders would have run his campaign on the issues that he cares about. I think Clinton would have been a competent president, but as a candidate she didn't offer much more that a third term of Obama without the charisma. Free college probably isn't practical - but it fits very well into a soundbite. Also some who may not agree with it entirely are attracted to the messenger who is proposing something better than the current situation of unaffordable tuition and large student loan burdens.

Issues are where Trump is vulnerable, he often can't stay consistent in the same week. If it is all about Trump, while his antics are an appeal to a minority of voters they increase the excitement of his base. If he doesn't have to put it into real policies, his punch Washington and the liberal media in the face message has a significant appeal.

As far as having a mandate, Trump does not have a strong one despite winning the electoral margin. He still had 3 million votes less votes than Clinton. And that doesn't even include the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein who didn't like either candidate. There are certainly more people who dislike Trump than like him, although the same applies to Hillary Clinton.

I think Hillary would have lost in a landslide(at least electoral) against a more likeable and typical Republican politician. I am not sure a typical politician would have been enough for the Democrats to hand Trump a huge loss, but a Democratic candidate with the right appeal would have done so. I think the most anti-Trump candidate probably has a mix of progressive politics and actual business success.

[verbal8]

The coastal elites who live in racially and ethnically diverse centers of commerce are the ones who are out of touch

Actually, we were in this last election cycle

We weren't out of touch...we had 3 million more votes on our side. We just didn't get out the vote like we needed to in Penn., Mich., Wisc. and other key states

The Dems and Hillary should not have taken these states for granted. It won't happen again.

I saw an analysis of results(I think someone here linked in a post) that indicated basically the non-swing states were the same overall in 2012 and 2016 in terms of vote breakdown. The Republican gains show up in the swing states. One frightening possibility for the Democrats is that Obama had a special appeal in the swing states and a lot of potential Democratic candidates will struggle with the electoral map.

While the long-term demographic shifts do seem to favor the Democrats - there are a few caveats children don't affect voting at all and young adults vote at lower rates. In the short-term the Republicans seem to be restricting voting at least as fast as the demographics shift against them.

[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.

[dckingsfan]

Actually, we were in this last election cycle

We weren't out of touch...we had 3 million more votes on our side. We just didn't get out the vote like we needed to in Penn., Mich., Wisc. and other key states

The Dems and Hillary should not have taken these states for granted. It won't happen again.

I saw an analysis of results(I think someone here linked in a post) that indicated basically the non-swing states were the same overall in 2012 and 2016 in terms of vote breakdown. The Republican gains show up in the swing states. One frightening possibility for the Democrats is that Obama had a special appeal in the swing states and a lot of potential Democratic candidates will struggle with the electoral map.

While the long-term demographic shifts do seem to favor the Democrats - there are a few caveats children don't affect voting at all and young adults vote at lower rates. In the short-term the Republicans seem to be restricting voting at least as fast as the demographics shift against them.

What is also interesting is that if you remove CA from the equation, Trump won the popular vote Remove CA & NY and you have a 5.7M vote swing. Also, if you look at the house elections - the Rs won the popular vote (I was surprised by this).

My point here is that given our electoral process - the short-term control looks anything other than a sure thing.

But, we can't underestimate the inability of the Rs to govern. That could swing things much faster than anything else.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

6 months leading up to the election, I thought Clinton was vulnerable. I thought Sanders would have fared much better against Trump than Clinton. I also thought she was running a poor campaign, and turns out it was even worse than I thought.

I think Sanders also would have done a lot better in a crowded primary field(like Trump had) vs. basically competing with the establishment candidate head-to-head from day one.

Sanders would have run his campaign on the issues that he cares about. I think Clinton would have been a competent president, but as a candidate she didn't offer much more that a third term of Obama without the charisma. Free college probably isn't practical - but it fits very well into a soundbite. Also some who may not agree with it entirely are attracted to the messenger who is proposing something better than the current situation of unaffordable tuition and large student loan burdens.

Issues are where Trump is vulnerable, he often can't stay consistent in the same week. If it is all about Trump, while his antics are an appeal to a minority of voters they increase the excitement of his base. If he doesn't have to put it into real policies, his punch Washington and the liberal media in the face message has a significant appeal.

As far as having a mandate, Trump does not have a strong one despite winning the electoral margin. He still had 3 million votes less votes than Clinton. And that doesn't even include the people who voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein who didn't like either candidate. There are certainly more people who dislike Trump than like him, although the same applies to Hillary Clinton.

I think Hillary would have lost in a landslide(at least electoral) against a more likeable and typical Republican politician. I am not sure a typical politician would have been enough for the Democrats to hand Trump a huge loss, but a Democratic candidate with the right appeal would have done so. I think the most anti-Trump candidate probably has a mix of progressive politics and actual business success.

#draftMarkWarner

[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.

[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.

[sfam]

Interesting - pretty much a mix of politics and public labor lobbying. I wonder if we will see Trump try to challenge the federal public labor unions. I think he might have a pretty good chance of winning once he gets his Supreme Court nominee through.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

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

[sfam]

Just a thought on the spate of articles about Trump losing his marbles. I don't buy this for a second, and see no evidence to support this. To me, Trump seems near the same for the past 30-40 years or more. Nothing's changed, but his responsibility.

The positive is he won't be getting worse. And the question of whether Trump was perhaps among the worse qualified to ever hold that office is sort of moot now.

[nate33]

Interesting - pretty much a mix of politics and public labor lobbying. I wonder if we will see Trump try to challenge the federal public labor unions. I think he might have a pretty good chance of winning once he gets his Supreme Court nominee through.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

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.

[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.

[nate33]

I think Hillary would have lost in a landslide(at least electoral) against a more likeable and typical Republican politician. I am not sure a typical politician would have been enough for the Democrats to hand Trump a huge loss, but a Democratic candidate with the right appeal would have done so. I think the most anti-Trump candidate probably has a mix of progressive politics and actual business success.

It's possible, but I think you underestimate how much the Republican Establishment has lost the blue collar Republican base. There would have been no enthusiasm for, say, Jeb Bush. Maybe they would have shown up just to oppose Clinton, but maybe not.

[nate33]

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.

[bsilver]

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.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter