Well it wasn't just BP's fault, Transocean and Halliburton were also partially to blame. But I think perhaps you've hit the nail on the head whilst it isn't soley a US problem from an outside perpsective it's seems as if the US is deeply politically divided moreso than perhaps many other developed nations.
Global warming causes trouble in Siberia
- Thread starter YellowSubmarine
- Start date
Well it wasn't just BP's fault, Transocean and Halliburton were also partially to blame. But I think perhaps you've hit the nail on the head whilst it isn't soley a US problem from an outside perpsective it's seems as if the US is deeply politically divided moreso than perhaps many other developed nations.
Yeah, every single thing has become political now. We can't even fund our own government without it being a fight. Although it has increasingly become a fight between the sane Republicans and the insane ones.
That would be the Tea Party wing of the GOP, and Speaker Boehner general reluctance to bring things to the floor of the House for a vote unless it will pass with only GOP votes. And I take it you are referring to the fiasco regarding funding the DHS and the partial US Governemnt shutdown in 2013. And their futile efforts to overturn the PPACA, sure I get it they don't like it but there is no way Pres. Obama is going to sign a bill which cancels his signature policy and they don't have the two thirs majority needed to verturn a Presidential veto (if my understanding of the US system is correct). If they want to get rid of it they should concentrate on winning the Presidency next year and retaining control of Congress.
The ACA votes, like all of their futile efforts, are not in vain: they're red meat for the base. They're meant to fail, so when they run next time they can talk about how Obama's kept them from doing the will of the people, and that's why you need to vote Republican in 2016!
It's definitely going to be a part in history books where future generations are stunned that it even happened. They're a national embarrassment.
It's called the "Hastert Rule", because it's something former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert followed - and it makes sense if your party is in a big enough majority.
I also believe the Democrats followed the rule.
But the recent DHS funding bill was passed with 182 Democrats and 75 Republicans voting for. Too many Republicans wanted to attach some immigration language but Boehner realized it was a political disaster waiting to happen.
Not as sexy, but there was also a Amtrak funding bill that passed 316-101. All Democrats and 132 Republicans voted for the bill. 101 Republicans against.
As much as a disagree with Boehner in his politics, I think he's starting to realize that there's no excuse to not pass legislation. The House and Senate are both in Republican control so there's now an expectation to get things done. If it requires the help of the minority to get over the objections of the conservative wing, so be it.
Perhaps, but it's not uncommon for elections held out side of main election year (General/Presidential) to go against the party in power at tha time). I also believe that there has been a cerain amount of gerrymanding distrcits to favour one party over the other.
Thats the main issue is it not, the more conservative wing of the Republican Party is hindering the passaging of legislation as if they vote against a peice of legislation it might need Democrats to vote in favour of it to pass.
But what is stopping the GOP from creating and passing a seperate peice of lgislation on immigration that would override Obama's EO should he not veto the legislation instead of attaching it as an ammendment to the DHS funding bill? they do after all control Congress.
Atmitadely being a Brit I don't know a huge amount about American Politics but it seems to have become more polarised over the last several years.
Who said anything about caves? What I've read is people saying we need to immediately become a zero CO2 emitting civilization. How do you suggest we do that right now?
Please, don't try to speak for me as you'll continue to get it wrong. I'm mostly here to read.
---------------
That's pretty much it. Less people vote in the mid-term elections and the ones who do are mainly Republican. The districts were also redrawn to favor Republicans in 2010. If you look at the actual poll numbers, Democrats got votes from a larger percent of the population. The districts will likely be redrawn in 2020, which is also a Presidential election and there has been some movement to make it more balanced.
The President's party doing poorly in a midterm election, especially at the 6-year mark, is a pretty common thing in American politics. You can almost bet on it! Happened to Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Technically, redrawn districts don't matter until the election following the census year, since it takes time to redraw them after the census is done. So, 2010 wasn't really affected, but 2012 was. Likewise, 2022 is when we'll see the effects of the next redistricting. This is why Republicans controlling governorships and state legislatures is such a big deal: they get to decide how the redrawing is done, and do they ever!
Technically, redrawn districts don't matter until the election following the census year, since it takes time to redraw them after the census is done. So, 2010 wasn't really affected, but 2012 was. Likewise, 2022 is when we'll see the effects of the next redistricting. This is why Republicans controlling governorships and state legislatures is such a big deal: they get to decide how the redrawing is done, and do they ever!
The same things happen in by-elections in the UK, the Governing Party tends not to do as well as when the seat was contested at the last General Election. Same with voter turnout it tends to be lower. But we are approaching election time in the UK as we are only some 60 or so days away from our General Election on the 7th May.
Since the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports humanities contribution to climate change, denying it would be a delusional position to take.
You would think so, however some people refuse to believe that the 3% of scientists are wrong and we should do something about it whilst. Whilst most believe the 97% of scientists are right and we should do something about it, and if it turns out they were wrong we'll have likely improved the quality of the air, reduced dependancy on oil from less stable parts of thee world etc... So if 97% are wrong then they are wrong, if 3% are wrong well I'm likely not to be around then to see what happens so why should I care, might be how some of them think. At the end of the day it's quite simple if 97% are wrong we are no worse off and likely better off but if 3% are wrong we are likely to be worse off. You would think any rational person would err on the side of caution. After all if you had $100 and it cost say $97 dollars to feed yourself for a month and you thought I'll buy some lotto tickets with the $3 left you never know. However I don't think anyone would say you know I'll spend $97 on lotto tickets and leave myself $3 for food for the month.
It's a problem for Boehner (as he's essentially the party leader in the House and not getting the entire GOP to vote his way is a sign of a weak and ineffective Speakership) and the ultra-conservative Republicans who are getting left out in favor of the Democratic party.
But, since I'm a Democrat and stuff is actually getting passed... I wouldn't say it's really all that much of an actual problem.
In the Senate (upper house), there's a 60 vote threshold to avoid a filibuster. The party in power doesn't want it ever to be invoked as it puts a massive amount of media coverage onto the minority opinion. The GOP doesn't have 60 votes in the Senate so just the threat is enough to make the Senate not take up such hot-button issues.
And since anything passed by the House has to be agreed on by the Senate, something of that nature would probably not make it to the floor for a vote. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the position we're in now.
You're right. It's been happening since we got ourselves into Iraq and getting worse every year.
Science. You fail it.
As well as cooler stuff, such as nuclear reactors that are more efficient, and can recycle nuclear waste for fuel, rather than putting the stuff in the ground, and satellites in space that beam solar energy to power plants, where and when solar panels wouldn't work, such as during rain storms, not to mention nuclear fusion, which I think we're getting pretty close to being able to use in a practical manner.
I'm counting on fuel cell technology for automobiles.
It's actually so pathetic really that it'd be hilarious if not for the very possibly dire consequences that could follow.
Which would be really bad, given the current atmosphere. Nothing like overzealously devout religious fanatics to really give you a really bad day.
At least we still have microwave reactors, as long as we can keep the satellites from being hacked, and of course nuclear fusion, which I think would be better than any nuclear fission reactor anyways.
