- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
And?....Is that something you didn't already know? Remove the problem at the nest and the bees won't sting.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Republican Popular Vote
Primary turnout for 2016 high but not quite a record | Pew Research Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
There were roughly 125 million votes cast for President in the 2012 election.
In the 2016 GOP primary process, Trump got 13,300,000 votes. What that means is that just over 10% of the number of voters who cast votes for President in 2012, got Trump the nomination in 2016.
Because the pool is much smaller, the process allows a Trump to win even though he is a disaster in the general election with a much smaller electorate.
Consider that some 30 million people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 and that is less than 25% of the general election voting group. So my "15% or so" was a bit understated. But even taking it up to 23 or 24% - its still true that the smaller body permits a Trump to emerge as the primary winner when he is a disaster in the general when far more people vote.
Yes - because the GOP primary electorate is perhaps 15% or so of the November electorate and skews farther right than the normal electorate does.
Its not the same pool at all and permits somebody like Trump to win because the playing field is entirely different.
Then his detractors have nothing to worry about.
And?....Is that something you didn't already know? Remove the problem at the nest and the bees won't sting.
C'mon young lady! There is always something to worry about in politics. Like its often said - anything is possible. But in this case its far from probable, likely or a serious prospect.
The demographic numbers are just so set against Trump that a win for him simply is not at all something on the horizon.
But we can still worry. Woody Allen said he was worried he would not get lucky on his wedding night.
Donald Trump would threaten the environmental legacy of presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, according to two former Environmental Protection Agency chiefs from their administrations.
“Republicans have a long history of support for the environment dating back to Theodore Roosevelt. Donald Trump threatens to destroy that legacy of respect for the environment and protection of public health,” William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly said in a statement endorsing Hillary Clinton’s campaign Tuesday.
And now this to add to the daily defection from Trump
Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
The EPA Republicans are also deserting this particular sinking ship.
Read more: Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
Why would this be a surprise? Trump wants to drastically cut regulations. I disagree with Trump on this too.
The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen with an alleged nesting "queen" in Afghanistan (later found in Pakistan) so we should obviously concentrate our extermination efforts in Iraq.
I agree. That was something that the Bush administration uncovered after the Iraq invasion. Bush chose to invade Iraq. Bush's predecessor and a lot of Democrats even believed that Hussein had WMDs and Hussein was behind attacks on the US.
Did i miss in the article where Tom Ridge suggested that Bush invade Iraq? Did I miss any mention of Iraq, or any mention of where Ridge recommended Bush go?
And now this to add to the daily defection from Trump
Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
The EPA Republicans are also deserting this particular sinking ship.
Read more: Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
The only surprise is that they would come out publicly and endorse Clinton going beyond merely disagreeing with Trump on this issue.
Glad to hear you also disagree with him on this.
The EPA has grown into a monolithic super agency focused on a social justice agenda. Who cares what these pathway pavers think?
It should come as no surprise former EPA heads would be against reigning in the Socialist Progressive agenda the EPA now lords over the citizens.
How many republicans have to openly admit that Trump isn't capable before it's obvious to everyone?
The answer to that should be 0. It should have been glaringly obvious to anyone who bothered to rub 2 neurons together that the man is totally unsuited to the job.
Why would anybody listen to a bunch of GOP Elites?
While true without the EPA we would be living in a toxic sewer, Capitalists only care about one thing, profits. We could get rid of the EPA if we eliminated LLCs and made these greedy rich pricks personally liable for the people they made sick, or maybe a law that states the CEO and board members and their families have to live in the most polluted environments their companies create. Drink the most polluted water they created and breath the most toxic air they created.
I repeat, the EPA has grown to become a super agency focused on a social justice agenda that cloaks it's efforts under the veil of environmental protection. Citizens have little recourse, and it's actions are unilateral.
That needs to change.
It serves no purpose to automatically jump to "eliminate the EPA". That ends any discussion, and I am not aware of anyone who has suggested the EPA be eliminated.
What exactly have they done that is focused on social justice rather than environmental protection?
While true without the EPA we would be living in a toxic sewer, Capitalists only care about one thing, profits. We could get rid of the EPA if we eliminated LLCs and made these greedy rich pricks personally liable for the people they made sick, or maybe a law that states the CEO and board members and their families have to live in the most polluted environments their companies create. Drink the most polluted water they created and breath the most toxic air they created.
Because not listening to them simply because you don't like who they are is stupid.
Dismissing them simply because they may have a vested interest one way or the other is idiocy. You have to take the fact that they may have an interest in the outcome into consideration when you consider their argument but dismissing them out of hand is, as I've said, stupid.
Hasn't Trump suggested that? Trump says he'd eliminate 'Department of Environment Protection' | Washington Examiner
You can start here.
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
This effort usurps State and Local decision making, and federalizes through regulatory fiat, State and Local planning and execution. This is just one of many efforts currently underway by the EPA.