Republicans hold Ohio. Blue Wave fizzles.

I suspect finding ways to draw voting district boundaries to reflect near equal voter preference can & will be a challenge, it's one worth the effort. Your idea of eliminating parties is in tune with the founding fathers, who didn't want and didn't anticipate their formation. Some countries have tried having only one legal political party, but that didn't help. Factions with that party fought each other savagely, often leading to winners incarcerating losers or worse. I've sometimes thought that any candidate for any state office should be elected state wide rather than by voting district. Perhaps candidates from any party simply run for the House, and depending on the number of seats available in that particular election, those candidates getting the highest number of votes automatically become the new Congressmen. Every idea has its strengths & weaknesses, so finding a workable solution might be a challenge. But, again, it would be worth it.

 

something odd... clicking on that link brings you to the page but 'logs you out' of the forums...

 

both links in the quoted post log me out... this being first time i clicked a 'link back' to a thread... time to ask a mod, a site issue?

 

Since the Paris Accord is the specific case you mention, I believe that Trump made the right move there. It was never a treaty. Obama basically just made a symbolic promise that he had no constitutional authority to make. There was no enforcement, so the whole thing was just a big virtue signal, and businesses are just as free to refrain from polluting now as they were under the agreement.

 

You made a BASELESS allegation that " I don't think there is as much excitement in the Democrats to vote this cycle" which was exposed as a FALLACY by the RECORD Primary voting turnout.

Your NON SEQUITUR response was equally baseless so you are just PROJECTING your own groundless opinion onto what you desperately hope might occur since you have NO FACTS to support it.

 

Yes, it must be a site issue because the same thing happens to me and not just with those particular links either. Any link to another thread causes the same [Log in or Sign up]
result.

 

Then we need to fix that. Where's the leadership for that fix?

 

I made a statement and it was not an allegation. Your self victimization is showing. After I gave facts with (link included) you offered no facts to refute it but are doing a fine job of trying to use a tantrum as a rebuttal. Maybe try stomping your feet. That might make your argument look more credible.

 

You were asked to substantiate your baseless allegation about the Dems and failed to do so.

That is entirely your problem, not mine!

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/oh/ohio_senate_renacci_vs_brown-6331.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/oh/ohio_governor_dewine_vs_cordray-6426.html

​

​

 

Lol this post reminds me of your threads from the 2016 election. Let's go dive back in those to get your wild predictions again.

Oh wait. We're not allowed to do that because the 2016 election is over. So that means your predictions are now deleted from memory.

 

Fix what, exactly? The fact that the Paris accord wasn't a treaty? The fact that the President doesn't have the authority to implement domestic policy without congressional approval? Or the fact that businesses could stop polluting now without the President wagging his finger at them? Big business causes the pollution, and Chevron, ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Apple, Nike, Google, and others all lobbied to stay in the Paris deal. But if these companies are so keen to "save the planet" through this deal, why do they need government to tell them to do it? No one is telling them that they can't go as green as they want.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/news/trump-paris-climate-change-business/index.html

 

You make some good points. I suppose your post points to the reluctance of companies to spend money on projects that would be beneficial to the world around them as well as themselves, unless forced to do so. That's a sad statement to make, but the evidence would support the fact that government intervention is required to accomplish the blocking and reduction or reversal of global warming.

 

Please feel free to post my "predictions" if you dare.

 

My opinion is that these companies just want to pay lip service, and supporting a toothless agreement like Paris lets them do just that.

As to your latter statement, you may be right; government intervention may be required. On the other hand, it may not be. There are at least two emerging technologies (that I know of) which have the potential to address global warming. One filters carbon out of the air and makes carbon nanotubes, a high value product. The other is a metamaterial which radiates infrared heat at a wavelength which cuts right through greenhouse gasses (commercial use:cooling). These technologies might take off organically. But if not, and government intervention is required, maybe the most effective way to intervene would be to promote and even fund those technologies. Rather than trying to hinder worldwide utilization of resources. It is the most forward thinking approach, because a high standard of living (which we presumably want for all people) leaves a larger footprint. We can't just tell people to have a smaller footprint; that just translates to "have a lower standard of living." We need to innovate our way out. Wipe our own asses as we go, so to speak. Someone just needs to invent toilet paper.

 

I may log on in the next days and write some ideas about this once again. Wait and see.

 

That would be nice to see!

BTW I think that you would find @Meta777 ranked voting threads to be interesting.