7 ms·

You're not joking.. The guy who's in charge of Trump's EPA transition thinks that climate change is a hoax, that the Clean Power Plan is illegal, that the Enda

You're not joking.. The guy who's in charge of Trump's EPA transition thinks that climate change is a hoax, that the Clean Power Plan is illegal, that the Endangered Species Act should be repealed, that the Paris Climate Agreement is unconstitutional. The likely pick to head the DOE is a lobbyist for the oil industry who wants to open up Federal lands for energy exploration. Good lord this election is going to have far-reaching consequences.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago
My understanding is that there are other options he could go with, but it is indeed alarming that the seeming "top pick" would be this guy of all people. It's a shame.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Yeah, Myron Ebell is the person I'm referring to for the EPA. He's the odds on favorite to get the job in the end, but today he's leading the team to transition the department to a Trump White House. Even if he doesn't end up with the job, he's the person picking the eventual department head.
losteric 10y ago
It's not just Trump, the entire government is seeing red. The Republicans have control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and they will take control of the Judicial branch as well. It's a conservative wet dream. In four years, we'll either have a 1-party system or an N-party system.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Given the republican track record, in 4 years we'll be in a serious economic crisis, at least one war, and they'll be incredibly unpopular. Fortunately for them, they're well funded and well gerrymandered.
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    There will be redistricting in 2020.
    - daveguy 10y ago
      That will only make a difference if people are voting for Democrats for their state legislators and governors. The gerrymandering feeds itself. Also the wide land mass vs population centers split between Republican and Democratic bases doesn't help either.
- s4vi0r 10y ago
  >It's a conservative wet dream. Man, c'mon - why you gotta lump all conservatives in with these people? You can be a conservative without being an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic.
  - oxide 10y ago
    you can be a liberal without being a bleeding-heart. but you can't vote liberal without voting in bleeding-hearts. it's the same for conservatives. sooner or later you're going to have to vote for an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic. when partisanship trumps all, almost none of it is so black and white. it becomes shades of grey.
    - Taek 10y ago
      That I think is a huge problem in our government. Why can't I vote for both smaller military and bigger NASA at the same time? Why when I decide climate change is super important do I also have to align with 15 other unrelated policies as well? Parties are all-or-nothing and that's painful. Because I find that no party represents me in more than like 20% of my political positions. I should be able to delegate better.
      - jlarocco 10y ago
        That's a self-imposed problem. There were 22 choices for president on my ballot. Until people wake up and start looking at the other 20 parties the current system is what we get.
        ethbro 10y ago
        It's an electoral system problem. From a game theory standpoint there is no reason to ever vote third party. If we'd had a more nuanced system that allowed voting negative in addition to positive... pretty sure Johnson would have won.
        10y ago
- odbol_ 10y ago
  Also, no forests or animals.
- micaksica 10y ago
  > In four years, we'll either have a 1-party system or an N-party system. This is the same thing I heard from Democrats in 2000 and 2004, and the same thing I heard from Republicans in 2008. It is unlikely to actually happen. People are too complacent, and a good chunk of America will be perfectly satiated by cheap prices at the pump.
dv_dt 10y ago
Not that Trump's gov't doesn't need watching, but I'd note that Clinton's pick for her transition team was a lobbyist for the oil industry. The root failure wasn't in the general election it was during the primaries.
- scottmmjackson 10y ago
  "One algorithm crashes on load but the other is a little slow. They're exactly the same, right?"
  - dv_dt 10y ago
    One crashes on load and the other slowly corrupts data...
    - sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
      As far as this metaphor goes, the data is already corrupting. Climate change needs to be acknowledged, and the President shoving his head up his ass about this issue isn't going to help.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        At least he hasn't started a war yet and it doesn't seems like he is planning to either. Between * extra energy consumption based on war efforts on both sides and rebuilding countries afterwards, * as well as oil fields being literally set on fire, that is a few tons of CO2 as well.
        jamespo 10y ago
        "hasn't started a war yet" - he was elected yesterday!
        reitanqild 10y ago
        Yep. That is the "funny" part about it. I don't like him but unless certain folks I respect that Americans disliked him less than the alternative. This is known as "respect for the Democracy". That said it seems he is less likely to start a war than the other candidate.
NumberCruncher 10y ago
I am sorry for you guys and girls from the US of A. You seem to be really traumatized by the result of the election. But keep calm: the fact that the majority (OK, a small minority) of the land of the free voted on the wrong/right mascot won't change the outcome of the game. Or do you really think that the people sitting on billions of dollars would risk loosing their power because of your vote? They didn't get there where they are because of paying attention to your opinion but because of ignoringt it. So relax, everything will be OK. Or not. But not because of Trump.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Disregarding the rules of the game because "the elite cheats anyway" is a terrible idea. There's a reason those rules still exist and politicians pay their lives and livelihoods to get to and stay in power. There are cheaters and people making.. "clever use of game mechanics", let's say. But the vote does matter. In fact, one of the main reasons the system is so broken today is because there isn't enough vote. Trump, like Obama, was able to get to power by inspiring people to vote. > They didn't get there where they are because of paying attention to your opinion but because of ignoringt it. You know, if it was that easy, I'd be the one sitting on billions of dollars right now.
  - NumberCruncher 10y ago
    >> Disregarding the rules of the game because "the elite cheats anyway" is a terrible idea. We have to play games all the day where "the other party cheats anyway". But there are only two games where your efforts to make things work out are divided by 140.000.000. Election and lottery. >> There are cheaters and people making.. "clever use of game mechanics", let's say. But the vote does matter. Yes, votes does matter. And your vote matters as well. But its relevance is divided by 140.000.000. Good luck, man! >> In fact, one of the main reasons the system is so broken today is because there isn't enough vote. And this is because the non-voters have better things to do with their lives than playing the sucker's game. >> You know, if it was that easy, I'd be the one sitting on billions of dollars right now. Only because we could not cheat our way to the top does not mean that the people at the top are saints. Maybe they are just better cheaters than you and me.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago

My understanding is that there are other options he could go with, but it is indeed alarming that the seeming "top pick" would be this guy of all people. It's a shame.

mikeyouse 10y ago
Yeah, Myron Ebell is the person I'm referring to for the EPA. He's the odds on favorite to get the job in the end, but today he's leading the team to transition the department to a Trump White House. Even if he doesn't end up with the job, he's the person picking the eventual department head.

losteric 10y ago

It's not just Trump, the entire government is seeing red. The Republicans have control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and they will take control of the Judicial branch as well. It's a conservative wet dream. In four years, we'll either have a 1-party system or an N-party system.

M_Grey 10y ago
Given the republican track record, in 4 years we'll be in a serious economic crisis, at least one war, and they'll be incredibly unpopular. Fortunately for them, they're well funded and well gerrymandered.
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  There will be redistricting in 2020.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    That will only make a difference if people are voting for Democrats for their state legislators and governors. The gerrymandering feeds itself. Also the wide land mass vs population centers split between Republican and Democratic bases doesn't help either.
s4vi0r 10y ago
>It's a conservative wet dream. Man, c'mon - why you gotta lump all conservatives in with these people? You can be a conservative without being an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic.
- oxide 10y ago
  you can be a liberal without being a bleeding-heart. but you can't vote liberal without voting in bleeding-hearts. it's the same for conservatives. sooner or later you're going to have to vote for an absolute anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-environment/etc lunatic. when partisanship trumps all, almost none of it is so black and white. it becomes shades of grey.
  - Taek 10y ago
    That I think is a huge problem in our government. Why can't I vote for both smaller military and bigger NASA at the same time? Why when I decide climate change is super important do I also have to align with 15 other unrelated policies as well? Parties are all-or-nothing and that's painful. Because I find that no party represents me in more than like 20% of my political positions. I should be able to delegate better.
    - jlarocco 10y ago
      That's a self-imposed problem. There were 22 choices for president on my ballot. Until people wake up and start looking at the other 20 parties the current system is what we get.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        It's an electoral system problem. From a game theory standpoint there is no reason to ever vote third party. If we'd had a more nuanced system that allowed voting negative in addition to positive... pretty sure Johnson would have won.
        10y ago
odbol_ 10y ago
Also, no forests or animals.
micaksica 10y ago
> In four years, we'll either have a 1-party system or an N-party system. This is the same thing I heard from Democrats in 2000 and 2004, and the same thing I heard from Republicans in 2008. It is unlikely to actually happen. People are too complacent, and a good chunk of America will be perfectly satiated by cheap prices at the pump.

dv_dt 10y ago

Not that Trump's gov't doesn't need watching, but I'd note that Clinton's pick for her transition team was a lobbyist for the oil industry. The root failure wasn't in the general election it was during the primaries.

scottmmjackson 10y ago
"One algorithm crashes on load but the other is a little slow. They're exactly the same, right?"
- dv_dt 10y ago
  One crashes on load and the other slowly corrupts data...
  - sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
    As far as this metaphor goes, the data is already corrupting. Climate change needs to be acknowledged, and the President shoving his head up his ass about this issue isn't going to help.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      At least he hasn't started a war yet and it doesn't seems like he is planning to either. Between * extra energy consumption based on war efforts on both sides and rebuilding countries afterwards, * as well as oil fields being literally set on fire, that is a few tons of CO2 as well.
      - jamespo 10y ago
        "hasn't started a war yet" - he was elected yesterday!
        reitanqild 10y ago
        Yep. That is the "funny" part about it. I don't like him but unless certain folks I respect that Americans disliked him less than the alternative. This is known as "respect for the Democracy". That said it seems he is less likely to start a war than the other candidate.

NumberCruncher 10y ago

I am sorry for you guys and girls from the US of A. You seem to be really traumatized by the result of the election. But keep calm: the fact that the majority (OK, a small minority) of the land of the free voted on the wrong/right mascot won't change the outcome of the game. Or do you really think that the people sitting on billions of dollars would risk loosing their power because of your vote? They didn't get there where they are because of paying attention to your opinion but because of ignoringt it. So relax, everything will be OK. Or not. But not because of Trump.

scrollaway 10y ago
Disregarding the rules of the game because "the elite cheats anyway" is a terrible idea. There's a reason those rules still exist and politicians pay their lives and livelihoods to get to and stay in power. There are cheaters and people making.. "clever use of game mechanics", let's say. But the vote does matter. In fact, one of the main reasons the system is so broken today is because there isn't enough vote. Trump, like Obama, was able to get to power by inspiring people to vote. > They didn't get there where they are because of paying attention to your opinion but because of ignoringt it. You know, if it was that easy, I'd be the one sitting on billions of dollars right now.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  >> Disregarding the rules of the game because "the elite cheats anyway" is a terrible idea. We have to play games all the day where "the other party cheats anyway". But there are only two games where your efforts to make things work out are divided by 140.000.000. Election and lottery. >> There are cheaters and people making.. "clever use of game mechanics", let's say. But the vote does matter. Yes, votes does matter. And your vote matters as well. But its relevance is divided by 140.000.000. Good luck, man! >> In fact, one of the main reasons the system is so broken today is because there isn't enough vote. And this is because the non-voters have better things to do with their lives than playing the sucker's game. >> You know, if it was that easy, I'd be the one sitting on billions of dollars right now. Only because we could not cheat our way to the top does not mean that the people at the top are saints. Maybe they are just better cheaters than you and me.