Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

Real Korimyr #9 · Jun 22, 2011

ARealConservative said:
if the eventual candidate is a guy like Huntsman, we already lost. Obama/huntsman - I fail to see any significant difference.

Executive experience and a track record of success don't count for anything?

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ARealConservative said:
if the eventual candidate is a guy like Huntsman, we already lost. Obama/huntsman - I fail to see any significant difference.

Why exactly do you think a guy whose got a significant track record of success with regards to good tax policy, lowering the percent of government spending compared to GDP, passing extremely business friendly policies, and has extensive executive and foriegn policy experience is going to be show no significant difference to this current President?

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Why exactly do you think a guy whose got a significant track record of success with regards to good tax policy, lowering the percent of government spending compared to GDP, passing extremely business friendly policies, and has extensive executive and foriegn policy experience is going to be show no significant difference to this current President?

He supports Obamacare type healthcare, he supports cap and trade and he's actually more aggressive then Obama in wanting to ignore the Pentagon and run from Afghanistan.

Also, he's going to run a "nice" campaign.

Swizz · Jun 22, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Also, he's going to run a "nice" campaign.

Wow, sounds terrible :roll:

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

Swizz said:
Wow, sounds terrible :roll:

You cannot win an election with kid gloves. It sounds all mushy good at this stage of election, and the romantics in lala land sing praises to anyone claiming this, and they always.... lose.

obvious Child · Jun 23, 2011

MrVicchio said:
You cannot win an election with kid gloves. It sounds all mushy good at this stage of election, and the romantics in lala land sing praises to anyone claiming this, and they always.... lose.

Except that Huntsman actually has experience. Furthermore, cap and trade is fundamentally not a bad idea. After all, Cap and Trade was Reagan's idea and has massively reduced sulfur emissions across North America.

Renae · Jun 23, 2011

obvious Child said:
Except that Huntsman actually has experience. Furthermore, cap and trade is fundamentally not a bad idea. After all, Cap and Trade was Reagan's idea and has massively reduced sulfur emissions across North America.

Allow me to instruct you, for you are repeating lies... par for the course however...

The efficiency of what later was to be called the "cap-and-trade" approach to air pollution abatement was first demonstrated in a series of micro-economic computer simulation studies between 1967 and 1970 for the National Air Pollution Control Administration (predecessor to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation) by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour. These studies used mathematical models of several cities and their emission sources in order to compare the cost and effectiveness of various control strategies.[16][17][18][19][20] Each abatement strategy was compared with the "least cost solution" produced by a computer optimization program to identify the least costly combination of source reductions in order to achieve a given abatement goal.[21] In each case it was found that the least cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy.[22] Burton and later Sanjour along with Edward H. Pechan continued improving [23]and advancing[24] these computer models at the newly-created U.S. Environmental Protection agency. The agency introduced the concept of computer modeling with least cost abatement strategies (i.e. emissions trading) in its 1972 annual report to Congress on the cost of clean air. [25] This led to the concept of "cap and trade" as a means of achieving the "least cost solution" for a given level of abatement.
The development of emissions trading over the course of its history can be divided into four phases:[26]
Gestation: Theoretical articulation of the instrument (by Coase,[27] Crocker,[28] Dales,[29] Montgomery[30] etc.) and, independent of the former, tinkering with "flexible regulation" at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Proof of Principle: First developments towards trading of emission certificates based on the "offset-mechanism" taken up in Clean Air Act in 1977.
Prototype: Launching of a first "cap-and-trade" system as part of the US Acid Rain Program in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act, officially announced as a paradigm shift in environmental policy, as prepared by "Project 88", a network-building effort to bring together environmental and industrial interests in the US.
Regime formation: branching out from the US clean air policy to global climate policy, and from there to the European Union, along with the expectation of an emerging global carbon market and the formation of the "carbon industry".
In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and SO2 gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian Magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.[31]

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to thank me for saving you from further foolish commentary at your leisure.

obvious Child · Jun 23, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Allow me to instruct you, for you are repeating lies... par for the course however...

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to thank me for saving you from further foolish commentary at your leisure.

And what exactly were you trying to refute here?

That emissions trading actually works? Oh wait. Thanks for the link showing that it reduced emissions considerable.

Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[32][33] However, although it reduced emissions by 40%, the US Acid Rain Program has not reduced SO2 emissions as much as the conventional regulation applied in the EU which reduced SO2 emissions by more than 70%.[34] Therefore, the effectiveness of the emissions trading element as a mechanism has been criticised, since the EPA also used regulations to achieve the reductions, as all areas of the country "had to meet national, health-based, air quality standards that are separate from the Acid Rain Program’s requirements".[35]

Is this another example of Mr. V refuting his own argument with his own link?

The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Hmmm.

Btw, you might want to check out where C. Boyden Gray worked before the Bush H.W. Adminstration. Hint: it was the same building.

Try again Mr. V. And with less fail. Also, don't cite links that refute your own argument.

Renae · Jun 23, 2011

obvious Child said:
And what exactly were you trying to refute here?

That emissions trading actually works? Oh wait. Thanks for the link showing that it reduced emissions considerable.

Is this another example of Mr. V refuting his own argument with his own link?

The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Hmmm.

Btw, you might want to check out where C. Boyden Gray worked before the Bush H.W. Adminstration. Hint: it was the same building.

Try again Mr. V. And with less fail. Also, don't cite links that refute your own argument.

Refute myself? I'm not the one that claimed:

After all, Cap and Trade was Reagan's idea and has massively reduced sulfur emissions across North America.

Notice I highlighted dates. DATES oC. The idea was formulated in the lates 60's early 70's, first proposed in 1977, implemented in 1990... TWO YEARS after Reagan left office.

Consider yourself completely out gunned, again. Carry on oC, if you wish to continue being pummeled.

ludahai · Jun 23, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
My first impressions are as follows:

1. Jon Huntsman brings credible domestic and foreign policy experience to the campaign.

2. He has large name recognition challenges to overcome. That no major media outlet printed a transcript of his speech even two hours after his announcement, none of the Cable stations covered his remarks in their entirety, and that his own campaign website had not been launched to precede or coincide with his address points to those challenges.

3. Even as he aims to keep things positive--and his vision is a positive one even as it points to serious challenges facing the nation--the competition for office is not just a battle of ideas. It is also a battle for power and no candidate can refrain from being prepared to deal with inevitable negative attacks nor have a strategy for trying to deter them.

4. His challenge will be to translate his formidable record/experience and his vision into substantive policy prescriptions around which the public can rally.

In sum, he could start in the middle of the pack (helped by the "freshness" of his entry), but will have to work hard to push toward the front of the pack. He will need to differentiate himself from the field. If he can make a compelling argument that he would be competitive in the general election (and have polling numbers to back up the claim), he could become a serious contender. So far, unlike Tim Pawlenty who stumbled badly, Rick Santorum who is waging a battle on abortion even as the leading candidates all share his pro-life position, and Herman Cain whose recent debate performance revealed that he simply lacks the gravitas and capabilities needed to serve as President, Huntsman's debut did not hurt him. In coming weeks, he will need to build his name recognition and distinguish himself from his rivals, even as Governor Romney tries to consolidate his early lead and Congresswoman Bachmann tries to build on her debate performance, possibly using the debt ceiling debate as a stage.

He is the type of candidate who can do well in a state like New Hampshire which looks closely at all of the candidates and really puts a premium on retail politics. If Huntsman hits the ground, talks issues and offers substantive solutions to the problems that the country faces, he could finish second (I find it hard to believe anyone will beat Romney there due to the 'native son' factor). But, he will have to hit the ground there soon and be there for the NH voters... NH voters insist on seeing the candidates...

ludahai · Jun 23, 2011

Jeezy said:
Actually, "grown-up Republicans" are the ones who drag the party to success, kicking and screaming.

(Despite people like you.)

Agreed. Grown-up Republicans and Conservatives don't use phrases like RINO and reminisce for the days of Reagan's BIG TENT, not the current REVIVAL TENT of the party...

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Refute myself? I'm not the one that claimed:

But you did provide a link showing that it did massively reduce emissions (not as much as European Sulfur caps)! Furthermore, you cited the man who came up with the idea. You just left out where it came up with it, formulated it, proposed it and where it eventually got enacted. Hence why I told you look up his previous job.

Notice I highlighted dates. DATES oC. The idea was formulated in the lates 60's early 70's, first proposed in 1977, implemented in 1990... TWO YEARS after Reagan left office.

And that proves I'm wrong how? C. Boyden Gray came up with the idea within the Reagan White House. You are ignoring his because you are a hack. Second, you are deliberately ignoring that the notion of environmental controls was about as appealing as Communism in that Administration. Try think about that for a moment.

Consider yourself completely out gunned, again. Carry on oC, if you wish to continue being pummeled.

Thus ends another session of Mr. V providing a link refuting himself.

Renae · Jun 24, 2011

obvious Child said:
But you did provide a link showing that it did massively reduce emissions (not as much as European Sulfur caps)!

Who where I even brought that up as being something I was discussing! YOU are focused on that, I am not. I'm focused on this lie of yours that it was "Reagan's Idea"

obvious Child said:
Furthermore, you cited the man who came up with the idea. You just left out where it came up with it, formulated it, proposed it and where it eventually got enacted. Hence why I told you look up his previous job.

I did;

by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour.

obvious Child said:
And that proves I'm wrong how? C. Boyden Gray came up with the idea within the Reagan White House.

No, it was first shown as being possible by:

by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour.

And it was first proposed into legislative form in 1977... before Mr. Gray ever stepped foot in the White House.

obvious Child said:
You are ignoring his because you are a hack.

I'm ignoring nothing, I'm looking at cold hard facts, you're stuck on trying to prove your error wasn't an error.

obvious Child said:
Second, you are deliberately ignoring that the notion of environmental controls was about as appealing as Communism in that Administration. Try think about that for a moment.

The **** are you blathering about? Is this a NEW line of discussion you've decided to assign to me? Really?

obvious Child said:
Thus ends another session of Mr. V providing a link refuting himself.

Only in your mind oC.

obvious Child · Jun 25, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Who where I even brought that up as being something I was discussing! YOU are focused on that, I am not. I'm focused on this lie of yours that it was "Reagan's Idea"

Yeah. Blanket statement rejecting the entire quote you quoted. Which happened to be about emissions reductions. And you made absolutely no specifics at all as to what you were rejecting and what you were not. You are already hard to follow. You expect me to read your mind?

I did;

No, you cited Boyd. Hence the "You just left out where it came up with it, formulated it, proposed it and where it eventually got enacted. Hence why I told you look up his previous job."

No, it was first shown as being possible by:

And it was first proposed into legislative form in 1977... before Mr. Gray ever stepped foot in the White House.

And that got nowhere. Compared to Boyd's actual piece of legislation, decades in the making. Which happened to start at, TADA, Reagan's place of work! I do find it amusing you are basically rejecting giving credit to Reagan for a proposal which ultimately saved billions in Forestry and Fishery products, thousands of jobs, thousands of lives and helped grow the economies of many states. My hate club will do anything to disagree with me it seems. Even refusing to give credit to their God.

I'm ignoring nothing, I'm looking at cold hard facts, you're stuck on trying to prove your error wasn't an error.

You and facts are diametrical opposed notions.

The **** are you blathering about? Is this a NEW line of discussion you've decided to assign to me? Really?

Hardly. It ties entirely back to Reagan. It is not my fault you are slow to pick up on the obvious.

Only in your mind oC.

And a bunch of others who pointed the same thing out too.

Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Zyphlin

Renae

Swizz

Active member

Renae

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Renae

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Renae

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Renae

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater