Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (986222)	12/8/2016 1:25:06 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570483

We need to set some definitions straight first. We can't look at the last 200 years in terms of party. We have to look at it in terms of liberal and conservative. Those are the only definitions that hold constant.. In a nutshell the liberals were in the Republican Party until the turn of the last century. They were the Northeast liberals living in free states and the conservatives were the southeast people living in the slave states. Lincoln was a liberal. A hard-core liberal. At the turn-of-the-century the liberals switched to the Deocratic party after the kerfuffle with Teddy Roosevelt. FDR was a hard core liberal. So it was the liberals that champion the workers and all liberal policies like the EPA all through the 20th century. It seems like you're okay with that to this point? But in your piece which is fairly thought out and one of the few times I've ever seen a conservative admit that the parties changed, you completely overlook Bernie Sanders! Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party. Hillary and the establishment Democrats she represents are on their way out. And if it had not been for her wrapping up the super delegates before the election started and that she got a huge block vote from African-Americans, especially in the South, Bernie Sanders would've beat her. So if you want to talk about the Democratic Party, you need to talk about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and they are foursquare with the worker And Trump, was lying to the workers. He lies all the time. Right now what you seeing him doing is organizing the major plutocrats/rich people in this country backed by the military and a Republican Congress to literally tear down the very social fabric of this country, and especially those portions that support the worker and the poor. Every single cabinet appointment he has made is exactly the wrong choice. The people he put into the EPA, health and social services, and education have been put there to destroy them. All of them have railed against those departments their entire political career. Trump will only remain strong as long as he can continue to fool people. And make no mistake he intends to rule with an iron hand and enact policies that will greatly weaken workers wges and benefits and protection. He is management and management always does it best to hire workers as cheaply as they can. When has that ever been different? <<You still think that the Republicans are the party of management. Are you really sure of that? Read the following article. It will tell you about the political tilt of a typical modern CEO:

To: Bilow who wrote (986222)	12/8/2016 1:32:16 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b locogringo Respond to of 1570483

Trump EPA Pick Puts Target on Job-Killing Regulations lifezette.com by Steven Capozzola \| Updated 08 Dec 2016 at 9:11 AM President-Elect Donald Trump has tapped Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to serve as director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt’s nomination is certain to worry environmental activists focused on global warming issues. But Pruitt, who has led Oklahoma’s challenge against President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), could guide the EPA back to its core mission of environmental protection, rather than continue its recent obsession with reducing industrial carbon dioxide emissions. In selecting Pruitt, the president-elect has staked out a clear position on the looming debate over U.S. energy independence vs. climate change austerity. While serving as Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt argued that the Clean Power Plan infringes on state sovereignty over power generation — a view shared by 27 other states currently challenging the measure. President Obama has unilaterally imposed stunning costs on the nation’s power sector based on a potentially flawed ideology. Overall, the choice of Pruitt suggests that the president-elect is on track to roll back some of the more onerous initiatives of the Obama administration. Significantly, the CPP is one of three efforts that have combined to help dismantle much of America’s coal industry. Opponents of the plan note that it would vastly expand the EPA’s authority to regulate state power grids — a move never previously interpreted in the Clean Air Act. And the plan would impose harsh costs on coal-fired power generation to achieve a theoretical 0.018 degrees Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2100. If the Clean Power Plan were not enough to shut down the domestic coal industry, President Obama has also prepared a “Stream Protection Rule” (SPR) that duplicates existing state and federal controls on coal mining. The rule, which was drafted without the input of coal-producing states, has been written so broadly as to potentially designate half of all U.S. coal reserves off-limits to mining. And where the coal industry has already shed 68,000 jobs in recent years, a fully realized SPR could potentially cost another 78,000 jobs. The Obama administration’s hostility to coal also extends to the recent moratorium on federal coal leases. Under the guise of seeking a more equitable leasing program, the administration launched a review of the federal coal program that generated revenues of $1 billion for American taxpayers in 2014 while also producing 40 percent of the total coal-generated electricity in the United States. Overall, this trifecta of regulations has grievously burdened the nation's coal producers while also driving up the cost of power generation in at least 13 states that rely principally on coal-fired power. At the same time, the president has happily subsidized measures to ramp up wind and solar power. That such renewable energy continues to prove expensive and intermittent (since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine) has mattered little to green advocates. Ironically, this investment in green energy has yielded only modest returns even as the domestic coal industry has made enormous investments to reduce emissions. Modern U.S. coal plants are 90 percent cleaner than 30 years ago, thanks to impressive advances in scrubbing technologies. Thus, the same money being generously funneled to wind and solar projects could also yield even cleaner coal — which would be a sensible priority since coal has formed the backbone of reliable, robust, and affordable domestic power generation for decades. The measures implemented by President Obama have obviously been aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But the president's guiding assumption has been that global warming is a principally man-made phenomenon. Unfortunately, this discounts the work of climate activists who continue to argue that increased solar activity, not rising carbon dioxide, has driven recent climate trends. And so, President Obama has unilaterally imposed stunning costs on the nation's power sector based on a potentially flawed ideology. Pruitt's selection for the EPA has sparked yet another round of divisive climate debate. But there are reasons to appreciate his nomination since Pruitt appears to recognize the benefits of affordable power for the working people of the United States. It's worth noting that cleaner coal and expanded natural gas production provide sturdy, reliable power generation. Along with nuclear power, they are the only proven means of reliably producing the massive supplies of electricity needed to treat municipal drinking water, for example, and to process the enormous waste water and sanitation byproducts of large metropolitan areas. And so, there are valid reasons to prioritize such environmental safety issues for the American people. President Obama's rush to dismantle coal without assuring a robust alternative could actually threaten the sanitary living conditions of major cities. And so, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA could help to foster a wider debate on the growing energy needs of America's expanding population. While green activists may rush to condemn him, there are important priorities to consider. President-Elect Trump's choice of Pruitt could redefine some of these pressing environmental concerns, even as the new administration prepares to take office. Steven Capozzola has served as media director for both the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) and the U.S. Business & Industry Council (USBIC).