Realistically, until January 2019 the Republicans will control both houses of Congress, and the Republican rank and file are solidly behind Trump. Unless and until that changes, impeachment and conviction would splinter the Republicans and possibly eliminate them as a major party. Trump is likely to cost the Republicans dearly in the 2018 elections, but at best that isn't going to give the Democrats more than a bare superiority in the Senate, however the House goes. I don't think he's going to run in 2020, and will almost certainly not win, so what changes in Congress for those elections isn't going to matter in reference to replacing Trump.
More to the point, the 25th requires Cabinet officials, who are Trump appointees, and many of which wouldn't be in office long after a competent President took office, to go against him.
I believe we're still #1 in per capita carbon dioxide production, so we certainly can do better. China and India put out so much CO2 partly because they have much larger populations. A 10% decrease in CO2 production will mean different things for someone in the US and someone in China.
Any change is going to hurt some people. Having no change is going to hurt some people. If we avoid doing things because individuals will suffer, we'll be paralyzed - and that paralysis will cause suffering.
Environmental regulation can, and often has, improved lives in general and raised standards of living. There are cases where environmental regulation has resulted in economic gain, because it pushed industries into doing something different. (IIRC, when Kodak couldn't just spew silver out the chimneys, they found that the silver recovered more than paid for the silver reclamation system.)
It seems best to generally have regulations that specify what is to be accomplished rather than what is to be done. A carbon tax, for example, would build in a tradeoff between economics and global warming, and would allow industries to deal with it efficiently.
Trump is dishonest and unpredictable, and his previous politics haven't been hard-right Republican. There was some hope he might have a reasonable amount of decent policies.
I don't know what the laws were in place, but the President doesn't have carte blanche to ignore laws. However, there's plenty to impeach Trump on. If and when to do it is a purely political decision (and it would be if there wasn't plenty to impeach him on).
As usual, Trump supporters use false equivalence. Obama shared intelligence with the Russians, sure, but that doesn't mean that any transfer of intelligence to Putin is either legal or a good idea.
Intelligence agencies have statutory authority and duties, which don't necessarily include doing whatever the heck the President wants. Besides, not telling the President something is nowhere near treason.
It's possible to be at war without declaring war. We were at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941, before either side had issued a declaration. Since the formation of the UN organization, the words in use have changed, but it's still war. The post-WWII wars we've been in had Congressional authorization without a formal declaration.
Yup. Was Reagan fit to be president by the late 80s? There were a lot of rumors that Nancy was running the show (other rumors saying it was based on what her astrologer told her).
Snowden released a lot of information, some pertaining to internal spying and some pertaining to external. He pretty much handed it over to journalists, who published things I think should have stayed unpublished.
People have been providing reasons why Manning did what she did. Attempting to do it a legal way simply wasn't going to work, so if it was worth doing it was worth breaking the law to do. Moreover, laws aren't perfect, and breaking one for a good reason doesn't mean the law should be changed.
Suppose the HOA rules called for you to do something you think immoral, and you were sure that you couldn't get that rule changed. Then what?
The killing of civilians as part of military operations is not a war crime per se. The laws of war recognize that people get killed in war zones, and that collateral damage and death occur. IIRC, the video shows people who presented an apparent threat in a war zone. That's unfortunate.
The US military is not legally required to provide anything the media might want.
Why do you consider transsexuals to be "sexually confused?" Don't you know half are straight?
What does "straight" have to do with it? I have friends and family who aren't straight, and they're not confused. They know what their biological sex is, what their gender is, and who they're attracted to.
My ideology is to help people, and be flexible about the means. You appear to be rigid about the means, regardless of the consequences.
Also, I'm explicitly not trying to tell you what's good for you. You know your situation far better than I do, you may have different ideas of what's good, and you have much more incentive to figure out how you can live a happy and productive life than I do. Any limits I suggest on your actions are for the good of others.
We both agree that people have to be limited in their actions where it hurts others. You've mentioned that you want private property rights strictly enforced. At that point, what we've got is something like a continuum in which as a society we've got to decide what's acceptable behavior even though it might harm others, what's unacceptable because of possible harm to others, and of course there's a gray area in between. (We also have to make the distinction between socially unacceptable and against the law; there's lots of acts I consider immoral that I very much want to stay legal.) We differ on where we want the fuzzy lines to be.
As far as the end user is concerned, the vendor (if still in business) isn't going to come up with a rewritten driver for free. Moreover, upgrading the OS of a piece of medical equipment will require expensive re-certification, or the equivalent where the government doesn't have certification requirements. This is to upgrade a piece of equipment that's already sold and paid for. The vendor may be happy to suggest buying the new Windows 10 model, for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm blocked from the sites I'd need here at work, but I saw an ad for a 30-amp charger, and another claiming 240V. That is 7200 watts. Over an eight-hour night, that's the equivalent of about 6 liters of gasoline. Even if we figure that electricity is four times as efficient as gasoline, that's a lot smaller than my gas tank. If we're to charge for longer trips, we'll need upgraded power to houses.
Electric vehicles make good commuting vehicles now, but it's going to take a lot of development of batteries to make them much more. Carbon taxes are unlikely to make ICEVs unaffordable, although they'll shift the market heavily towards smaller and more economical models. Unless absolutely banned, there will be new ICE cars sold for the next decade or two, and heavier vehicles will be slower to change. The infrastructure will go away slower than the vehicles, although not by much.
Self-driving cars will be popular if they don't cost much more than manually driven cars, but at least in the US that's not going to affect car ownership by much for a long time. A private car has advantages that a fleet car doesn't, such as a customized and predictable environment. My car is where I am. I don't have to summon it. Given the nature of rush hour, there won't be that great a savings in numbers of cars required. There will be a movement toward not owning a car, but it will be pretty slow for commuters.
Legislation that will ban the use of a large numbers of low-end cars will be bitterly opposed, as it would have a tremendous impact on the working poor. It will follow the general acceptance of self-driving cars rather than drive it.
Photo shops disappeared largely without replacement. I can order a digital camera from Amazon and take pictures and look at them without dealing with any brick-and-mortar store. Gas stations will require large-scale replacement. There will have to be more chargers than gas pumps, since it takes a lot longer to pump electrons. The electrical grid will need changes to support all the car charging. It will still happen sometime, but it's going to be a lot slower than the vanishing of film.
Slashdot Mirror
Flint has terrible drinking water because of the decisions of State officials, not local.
Realistically, until January 2019 the Republicans will control both houses of Congress, and the Republican rank and file are solidly behind Trump. Unless and until that changes, impeachment and conviction would splinter the Republicans and possibly eliminate them as a major party. Trump is likely to cost the Republicans dearly in the 2018 elections, but at best that isn't going to give the Democrats more than a bare superiority in the Senate, however the House goes. I don't think he's going to run in 2020, and will almost certainly not win, so what changes in Congress for those elections isn't going to matter in reference to replacing Trump.
More to the point, the 25th requires Cabinet officials, who are Trump appointees, and many of which wouldn't be in office long after a competent President took office, to go against him.
Our GHG emissions may be trending down, but it's from an awfully high start. We need to keep pushing to keep the trend going.
I believe we're still #1 in per capita carbon dioxide production, so we certainly can do better. China and India put out so much CO2 partly because they have much larger populations. A 10% decrease in CO2 production will mean different things for someone in the US and someone in China.
Any change is going to hurt some people. Having no change is going to hurt some people. If we avoid doing things because individuals will suffer, we'll be paralyzed - and that paralysis will cause suffering.
Environmental regulation can, and often has, improved lives in general and raised standards of living. There are cases where environmental regulation has resulted in economic gain, because it pushed industries into doing something different. (IIRC, when Kodak couldn't just spew silver out the chimneys, they found that the silver recovered more than paid for the silver reclamation system.)
It seems best to generally have regulations that specify what is to be accomplished rather than what is to be done. A carbon tax, for example, would build in a tradeoff between economics and global warming, and would allow industries to deal with it efficiently.
Trump is dishonest and unpredictable, and his previous politics haven't been hard-right Republican. There was some hope he might have a reasonable amount of decent policies.
I don't know what the laws were in place, but the President doesn't have carte blanche to ignore laws. However, there's plenty to impeach Trump on. If and when to do it is a purely political decision (and it would be if there wasn't plenty to impeach him on).
As usual, Trump supporters use false equivalence. Obama shared intelligence with the Russians, sure, but that doesn't mean that any transfer of intelligence to Putin is either legal or a good idea.
Intelligence agencies have statutory authority and duties, which don't necessarily include doing whatever the heck the President wants. Besides, not telling the President something is nowhere near treason.
It's possible to be at war without declaring war. We were at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941, before either side had issued a declaration. Since the formation of the UN organization, the words in use have changed, but it's still war. The post-WWII wars we've been in had Congressional authorization without a formal declaration.
Yup. Was Reagan fit to be president by the late 80s? There were a lot of rumors that Nancy was running the show (other rumors saying it was based on what her astrologer told her).
Seriously, why are you so hung up on a pronoun for Manning? What skin is it off your nose that Manning prefers being referred to as "she"?
Snowden released a lot of information, some pertaining to internal spying and some pertaining to external. He pretty much handed it over to journalists, who published things I think should have stayed unpublished.
People have been providing reasons why Manning did what she did. Attempting to do it a legal way simply wasn't going to work, so if it was worth doing it was worth breaking the law to do. Moreover, laws aren't perfect, and breaking one for a good reason doesn't mean the law should be changed.
Suppose the HOA rules called for you to do something you think immoral, and you were sure that you couldn't get that rule changed. Then what?
0.33% of the US population is about a million people.
Sometimes I miss the old days, when I didn't have to go through a full genetic workup to take a leak.
Simple dissemination of classified material to an unauthorized person isn't treason, and a contract that goes against the Constitution is worthless.
The killing of civilians as part of military operations is not a war crime per se. The laws of war recognize that people get killed in war zones, and that collateral damage and death occur. IIRC, the video shows people who presented an apparent threat in a war zone. That's unfortunate.
The US military is not legally required to provide anything the media might want.
Try to inform yourself on these things.
FTFY.
Gender is about how we act and how we want to present ourselves, which are basically mental.
What does "straight" have to do with it? I have friends and family who aren't straight, and they're not confused. They know what their biological sex is, what their gender is, and who they're attracted to.
My ideology is to help people, and be flexible about the means. You appear to be rigid about the means, regardless of the consequences.
Also, I'm explicitly not trying to tell you what's good for you. You know your situation far better than I do, you may have different ideas of what's good, and you have much more incentive to figure out how you can live a happy and productive life than I do. Any limits I suggest on your actions are for the good of others.
We both agree that people have to be limited in their actions where it hurts others. You've mentioned that you want private property rights strictly enforced. At that point, what we've got is something like a continuum in which as a society we've got to decide what's acceptable behavior even though it might harm others, what's unacceptable because of possible harm to others, and of course there's a gray area in between. (We also have to make the distinction between socially unacceptable and against the law; there's lots of acts I consider immoral that I very much want to stay legal.) We differ on where we want the fuzzy lines to be.
As far as the end user is concerned, the vendor (if still in business) isn't going to come up with a rewritten driver for free. Moreover, upgrading the OS of a piece of medical equipment will require expensive re-certification, or the equivalent where the government doesn't have certification requirements. This is to upgrade a piece of equipment that's already sold and paid for. The vendor may be happy to suggest buying the new Windows 10 model, for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm blocked from the sites I'd need here at work, but I saw an ad for a 30-amp charger, and another claiming 240V. That is 7200 watts. Over an eight-hour night, that's the equivalent of about 6 liters of gasoline. Even if we figure that electricity is four times as efficient as gasoline, that's a lot smaller than my gas tank. If we're to charge for longer trips, we'll need upgraded power to houses.
Electric vehicles make good commuting vehicles now, but it's going to take a lot of development of batteries to make them much more. Carbon taxes are unlikely to make ICEVs unaffordable, although they'll shift the market heavily towards smaller and more economical models. Unless absolutely banned, there will be new ICE cars sold for the next decade or two, and heavier vehicles will be slower to change. The infrastructure will go away slower than the vehicles, although not by much.
Self-driving cars will be popular if they don't cost much more than manually driven cars, but at least in the US that's not going to affect car ownership by much for a long time. A private car has advantages that a fleet car doesn't, such as a customized and predictable environment. My car is where I am. I don't have to summon it. Given the nature of rush hour, there won't be that great a savings in numbers of cars required. There will be a movement toward not owning a car, but it will be pretty slow for commuters.
Legislation that will ban the use of a large numbers of low-end cars will be bitterly opposed, as it would have a tremendous impact on the working poor. It will follow the general acceptance of self-driving cars rather than drive it.
Photo shops disappeared largely without replacement. I can order a digital camera from Amazon and take pictures and look at them without dealing with any brick-and-mortar store. Gas stations will require large-scale replacement. There will have to be more chargers than gas pumps, since it takes a lot longer to pump electrons. The electrical grid will need changes to support all the car charging. It will still happen sometime, but it's going to be a lot slower than the vanishing of film.