Tim Kaine on Energy, Sea Level, and Climate

July 25, 2016

Washington Post:

Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, questions climate change just like Trump himself does.

By contrast, a peek into the recent past of Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, suggests he takes the issue seriously and has paid particular attention to how it is affecting his constituents in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, which faces some of the largest rates of sea level rise in the country. The link also underscores the strong connection between climate change and national security, because one of the key players that must grapple with sea level rise in the area is Naval Station Norfolk, “the largest naval complex in the world.”

And it suggests that by approaching the issue in this way — focusing on regional vulnerability and on national security — Kaine has actually been able to make some significant bipartisan progress.

To understand why the Hampton Roads region is so vulnerable, it helps to think about how it’s like another region that is often cited as the only one in the United States that’s worse off — New Orleans. As in New Orleans, in the Hampton Roads area it isn’t just that seas are rising, but also that land itself is getting lower.

“The land is sinking at about three or four millimeters a year, and sea level is rising, three or four millimeters per year,” said Larry Atkinson, an oceanographer at Old Dominion University in Norfolk. “So that adds up to two feet per century. And then there’s a bunch of new evidence that show that the whole North Atlantic Ocean is changing, and as it changes, the Gulf Stream slows down, we see sea level rise.”

Some of these factors, like subsidence, may be partly natural and geologically driven (though subsidence is also caused by humans pumping water out of the ground). But rising seas — at an accelerating rate — is a phenomenon reflecting global warming. The Gulf Stream changes, too, are thought to be due to climate change.

According to the Center for Sea Level Rise at Old Dominion University, Hampton Roads ranks 10th globally when it comes to the value of assets that are exposed to rising seas.

Which brings us to Kaine. In 2014, ODU launched a “pilot project” to begin to address sea level rise by coordinating all the parties involved — local, state, federal — to address the issue. That’s when Kaine got really involved, Atkinson said.

“Several years ago we started working to get the Navy and the federal agencies and the cities to start to work together,” he said. “Kaine, after he heard we were doing that, he called a briefing where he got all of the elected representatives down here to get up on stage together to listen to this from the Corps of Engineers and the Navy.”

Blue Virginia:

Check out the video, above, of Tim Kaine speaking in 2012 at a clean economy roundtable held at cleantech strategic marketing firm Tigercomm (based in Arlington). Kaine stressed the need to move from dirty to clean energy for environmental and other reasons. Four years later, it makes even more sense, given the plummeting cost of solar and wind power. Anyway, here’s a summary of Kaine’s main points, courtesy of Tigercomm’s blog, Scaling Green:

  • It’s time for opponents of clean energy to stop acting like the reign of fossil fuels as our dominant energy source constitutes some sort of inviolable theology.
  • Even for those who don’t “believe” in climate science, or who think clean energy is a science project, it’s still common sense to move ahead aggressively with energy efficiency and clean energy. Unless, of course, they want America assigned permanent international follower status on the technologies other counties want to lead.
  • If we find out in 50 years that the climate science was wrong, we’re still ahead by getting off the dirty stuff. If the 98% of practicing climate scientists were right and we let clean energy pass us by, we’ll deeply regret it.
  • Clean energy adoption is being slowed by an inherent, incumbent advantage that fossil fuels have and are using to block innovative new technologies.
  • We don’t have a level playing field for clean energy because even the way we currently price electric power provides little incentive for energy efficiency and conservation.
  • An important step is to “take all the incentives that we currently put on heavy carbon and move them to mid-carbon, low-carbon and no carbon [energy sources]…we don’t need to subsidize mature industries and we shouldn’t be subsidizing the Big 5 oil companies.”


34 Responses to “Tim Kaine on Energy, Sea Level, and Climate”

  1. Tim Kaine may accept the science of climate change, but he is unwilling to buck the climate-wrecking fracking industry. He is a big promoter of fracking and of fracked-gas pipelines (including the Atlantic Coast pipeline). Apparently, he thinks 40 or so years of an economy dominated by fracked gas is a path to a safe climate. And that’s to say nothing of all the other harms linked to fracking (most recently asthma and pre-term births and much more). So, he is no climate champion. Unfortunately.

    • There is a class action lawsuit against the DNC and Debbie filed by those who donated money to Bernie’s campaign.

      It is demanding the refund of the donations to Bernie (some $220 Million) due to the fraud committed by the DNC in supporting Clinton.


      • dumboldguy Says:

        You have got to be kidding! Did that part of the definition of treason that speaks to “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” come to anyone’s mind when they read this? It hit me between the eyes.

        This is exactly the kind of thing that the Trump campaign would like to focus on rather that lay out its (non-existent) program for moving the country forward. The blow-dried blowhard with small hands (and other parts) will now be twittering away about how he was right about the rigged system and even the Democrats agree with him, etc, etc, etc.

        Grow up and get over it, Berners. Before your self-absorbed sanctimoniusness (is that a word?) destroys the country.

        • So may blogs become ugly and a waste of time because people refuse to discuss issues with out resorting to name calling etc etc….

          Perhaps you might want to take some time to reread your comments in light of that statement and present your arguments minus the ugly rhetoric.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Ugly is as ugly does, Louise, and Donald Trump is beyond ugly in what he says, what he stands for, and the huuuuge danger he presents to the country. I could fill the page with pejoratives, nearly all based on what he himself has said and done. Are you a Trump admirer? Is that why you take offense and seem to be so anti-Clinton in your remarks? Are you a sleeper agent for Faux News?

            What I find truly “ugly” is YOUR name-calling, because that’s exactly what you are doing when you accuse me of causing Crock to “become ugly and a waste of time because people refuse to discuss issues with out resorting to name calling etc etc….” That’s actually what you’re doing—outright name calling—-in spite of your attempt to dress it up and obfuscate with your “nose in the air” fancy words. All because YOU don’t like my opinions? (which IMO can be far better supported with facts than your simplistic and biased declarations on this thread).

            Perhaps you might want to take some time to reread your comments in light of my statements and present your arguments minus the truly ugly rhetoric. I am particularly interested in the “argument” you are making by tacking “etc. etc” on the end of the first sentence. Sounds deep—-care to elaborate?

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          ” Before your self-absorbed sanctimoniusness (is that a word?) destroys the country.”

          What are you so gosh darned a-feared of? Don’t you know that Hillary is the “more electable” candidate? Why, both she AND the DNC told you so.

          Why in the world do you think you need the votes of those silly self-absorbed sanctimonious treasonous country-destroying Bernie supporters for? Man up.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I detect a little /sarc/ here. Too bad it’s just that and really begs the question of the need for the Berners to get over it and do the right thing. I was proud of the way Bernie handled himself last night—-made me glad that i had sent him $$$ for his senate campaign—-I thought the senate needed him and still think the country needs to move in the direction he’s pointing, but his perceived “electabilty” edge on Clinton grows out of the same fear, anxiety, and mindless “anti” stance by those on the left that mirrors the Trump supporters on the right. IMO, Clinton needs to strip away some of the Trump supporters and hold the middle, and the Berners don’t help by their pouting. If they stay home or vote Green or Libertarian rather than for Clinton, they will be doing exactly what Trump’s ally Putin wants and bringing a smile to his face. Yes, the word “treason” does come to mind—-and don’t forget that Trump has already declared that those who oppose him (particularly the press) will have to be “dealt with” strongly when he’s elected. Doesn’t Putin assassinate reporters and rivals? Trump just sues people (for now).

            I was appalled when some of the Berners actually walked out of the hall last night, thereby giving aid and comfort to the Trump campaign. And did you here what some Bernie supporters were up to with their planned “fart in”? The denizens of a Berner tent city in North Philly invited Bernie delegates to come there and be fed large quantities of beans before attending the convention so that they could then literally stink up the place that night (adding another sense beyond hearing and seeing to those being insulted by their behaviors).

            Bill Clinton’s speech was spectacular, as were those by Warren, Michelle Obama, and even Bernie (once he got over it) before him. I am feeling good (or at least better), and you should be too. Bernie is history as far as being the 2016 candidate—it’s time to get on board with Clinton, get her elected, and thereby keep his ideas alive.

            ” Before your self-absorbed sanctimoniusness (is that a word?) destroys the country.”

            What are you so gosh darned a-feared of? Don’t you know that Hillary is the “more electable” candidate? Why, both she AND the DNC told you so.

            Why in the world do you think you need the votes of those silly self-absorbed sanctimonious treasonous country-destroying Bernie supporters for? Man up.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Showing much bias, Howard? Putting words in Kaine’s mouth much?

      Unwilling to buck the fracking industry? A BIG promoter of fracking? And of fracked gas pipelines? APPARENTLY he thinks FORTY or so years…. etc?. Such unsupported BS and hyperbole. Plucked from a newspaper article that discusses many other things about Kaine’s positions. And of course it led you to the conclusion that you had arrived at before you even started this stream of BS—-Kaine is “no climate champion”. LMAO!

      Where do you live, Howard? Are you a Virginian? Or at least from MD or DC or WV or NC where you might have been somewhat exposed to Kaine’s activities?

      I first came to VA in 1960, when I was first exposed to the “Old Virginia”. I sat in a barber shop on the main street of Quantico VA while in the USMC, and listened to a half-dozen good old buys talking about how it was wise to carry a gun at all times and keep one in your glove compartment—-as a boy from NJ, I nearly fell off the chair when I heard the comment “Yep, need to keep a gun handy because you never can tell when you might need to shoot a (N-word)” and watched ALL heads nod in agreement.

      I came back to live in VA in 1969 and have been here for 47 years now. I have watched VA leave the 1800’s and move into the 20th century, although there are still a few confederate battle flags in view and confederate soldier statues in front of courthouses. VA has gone from a deep red to a purple state, and even blue for president and the five top state elected positions—-both sitting Senators, the governor, lieutenant governor, and the attorney general are Democrats. Because of gerrymandering and rigged redistricting by the Repugnants, some House seats and the state legislature are firmly in the hands of the Repugnants, so we are having trouble making it into the 21st. century. Governor Kaine, as did fellow democratic senator and governor Mark Warner before him, did much to bring about what progress we have made. He is a good and honest man (if not perfect like you), and is an excellent choice for VEEP in this election. The angry, ignorant, and poorly educated loonies on the right are lost—they will swallow whatever Trump feeds them. The so-called liberal-progressives on the left cannot be so mindless as to not support Clinton. That leaves the independents and the center that need to be pulled to the Democratic side to decide this election, and Kaine is an ideal choice to help bring that about.

      PS Howard, you ARE aware that very little of VA is suitable for fracking? And that although coal is dying in VA as everywhere else, VA was a very big state coal-wise, and Hampton Roads still is the transit site for much of our exported coal? And that natural gas IS marginally cleaner than coal CO2-wise and FAR cleaner in terms of particulates, mercury, and other toxics released into water and air? So that it is a “bridge” (if not for the outrageous 40 years you suggest). Have any coal ash dumps near you, Howard? I do. Kaine is a politician from a coal state, walking a narrow line, and your straw man is unwarranted (and flimsy). Be ashamed.

      • I’m glad to read your assessment of Kaine as a “good and honest” man. And, yes, I’m sure HRC was trying to appeal to independents and the center. We’ll see if that was the way to go…perhaps it won’t make a difference.
        I disagree with your assessment on fracking. Although it burns cleaner, it is a dangerous and toxic industrial activity plunked down just about anywhere unfortunate enough to be on top of shale deposits–near schools, homes, farms….. Fracked gas production and transit leak methane, by design or accident, at every stage. And there is no safe way to deal with the toxic frack waste–just like coal and nuclear.
        John Hopkins researchers have been comparing Geisinger patients in NE PA — some in fracked counties and some not. In 2015, they have found that pregnant women in fracked areas have a higher risk of pre-term births and of high-risk pregnancies. This is from the Johns Hopkins report on the study: “The growth in the fracking industry has gotten way out ahead of our ability to assess what the environmental and, just as importantly, public health impacts are,” says study leader Brian S. Schwartz, a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Bloomberg School. “Our research adds evidence to the very few studies that have been done showing adverse health outcomes associated with the fracking industry.”
        Last month, another Hopkins study found asthma exasperated in fracked areas. More than 600 studies and reports have been released in the past few years. http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PSR-CHPNY-Compendium-3.0.pdf
        Much of the harm from fracking we don’t even know because the details are hidden in sealed settlements.
        The 40 years is an estimated life span of a pipeline. They are not built to last a mere 5 or 10 years. So investing in all these pipelines means we are investing in decades more of fracking.
        Oh, I’m from Maryland, where we are trying to stop fracking from getting started.
        Moving from coal to fracked gas is not a step forward. Fracked gas is not a climate solution; it just sacrifices more communities.

  2. florasforum Says:

    Clinton is not a climate champion either. Never has been, never will be – no matter what her fancy video says and what lines of script she reads.

    • Glenn Martin Says:

      ..Or what she does. Look, the ball’s definitely in her court but don’t say where it’s going to land until she swings at it.

      • Clinton is going to talk the talk (like Obama) and when it comes time to take a “swing at the ball” she is going to take a pass.

        You are being told what you want to hear to keep you passive.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          And here’s Louise, adding her mindlessly negative “conclusions” to the pot and stirring it. Did you view the video, Louise? How can Clinton spend three minutes delivering such a great message about AGW and dealing with it and then “pass” without creating a huge stink?

          As for “passivity”, 350.org will surround the White House with thousands of protesters (and I’ll be among them) if Clinton doesn’t make substantial and early progress on her claims. Same goes for the Berners—-they too will be expecting action (that is if they don’t go off in a childish funk and either not vote at all, write in Bernie, or vote Green or Libertarian, thereby possibly giving the election and White House to Trump and destroying the country).

          Let’s hope that the Democrats can take back the Senate and maybe the House so that Clinton won’t face the huge barriers that Obama did. Of course, the racism that Obama faced will now be replaced by sexism on the part of the Repugnants—-on top of the generally mindless ideologically based obstructionism that is the Repugnants’ only tactic, she won’t have an easy path if the Repugs keep control of Congress.

          • The Democrats have lost the “moral high ground”, and with that have lost much of their base.

            The Dems have become tone deaf to the poverty and struggle of the people that make up the bottom 80% of the USA… and we will all pay very dearly for that.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Is this some of that “ugly rhetoric” you were talking about, Louise? Sure looks like it. And it certainly doesn’t jibe with what we are hearing from the Dem’s convention and platform. From what deep dark well of cynicism and cognitive dissonance are you pulling these unsupportable opinions?

        • greenman3610 Says:

          “..to keep you passive”


          Cuz I’m really passive on this issue.

          • No YOU are not… but YOU my friend are the exception to the rule and very much a minority…lol

            But the reality is, how many people hear what you say (and have the educational back ground to understand the significance of it) compared to, say… the audience of FOX news… It is the audience of FOX news (the general public at large) that will be kept passive by these words…..

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’m confused, Louise. (And I won’t ask why you also appear to be sucking up to Peter a bit—lol—because it’s irrelevant). What really confuses me is this. Out of one side of your mouth, you appear to be taking a swipe at Clinton with this:

            “Clinton is going to talk the talk (like Obama) and when it comes time to take a “swing at the ball” she is going to take a pass. You are being told what you want to hear to keep you passive”.

            That says to me that Clinton is trying to keep US “passive” by basically lying to US about her climate change stance, the US being people who may visit Crock and understand the science. Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say:

            “It is the audience of FOX news (the general public at large) that will be kept passive by these words…..”

            WHOSE words? Isn’t Fox known for telling lies that stir people up rather than making them “passive”? And since when is “the general public at large the audience of Fox News”. Fox News is not for the general public, nor does it have the majority of the audience—-it is the propaganda arm of the right wing—-networks like CNN, MSNBC, and Public Radio and TV better serve the “general public” and are viewed by more of them.

            Whatever the hell are you talking about with these confused little sound bites that you have been posting on this thread?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Not—never has been—never will be—no matter what? Florasforum’s thinking is apparently far superior to the Magic 8-Ball that the Repugnants use to answer difficult questions, or she wouldn’t be making such definitive statements.

      IMO, that excellent 3 minute long and “fancy” video lays out where she thinks we are and where we need to go. Compare her stance to the positions of all the 16 Repugnants who vied for the nomination (and the one huuuuge POS that floated to the top of the cesspool) and then explain why you are so negative about her clearly stated position.

      For anyone whose brain is not clouded by cognitive dissonance and 25 years of the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit Hillary, the choice is clear. Vote for her and hold her feet to the fire if she reneges on any of it.

      • And just how do you plan to “hold her feet to the fire”????? And there in lies the problem!!!

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Yes, that has always been a problem in this country—holding a politician’s feet to the fire. It will be far easier to do it with Clinton than it would be with Trump—-since he walks on water (at least in his own sick mind), the feet-to-the-fire idea is a non-starter with him. Perhaps we could turn up the heat on his blow dryer to “brain melt” levels—-wait!—-his brain is already melted into a blob of narcissistic self-delusion—-hmmmm.

          Seriously, in this day of Merchants of Doubt, Dark Money and “Lies Incorporated”*, it IS becoming increasing more difficult for the 99% to exert any real pressure on the politicians. We can only hope that Clinton will rebalance the Supreme Court and decisions will be handed down that reduce the power of the plutocracy/oligarchy/corporations and get the country back on track.

          *Lies Incorporated: The World of Post Truth Politics, Anchor books, April 2016, by Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters complements and extends the message of Merchants of Doubt and Dark Money. A quick read—-less than 200 pages—-well worth the time.

          • Voting for the lesser of two evils will just embolden establishment politics and undermine future chances for real progressive change.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I never thought I’d have to use this on anyone but Omnologos, but I am forced to ask——WHAT??!!

            Bless his chubby little face, but he has been the undisputed master of the non sequitur on Crock until now. You give him some competition with this comment.

          • jimbills Says:

            @Louise: it’s a bit overstated, but essentially correct. If this brand of corporate-controlled democracy is continually rewarded with votes, the impetus for those in power to change it will be nullified.

            What we see are candidates giving lip service to things like Citizens United while simultaneously benefiting greatly from it. Once in power, will they keep their promises? It’s naive to think they will, because it worked for them the last time, and there’s always, always the next time – and if not for them, then for their political allies.

            Change can still come from without, but ONLY if the public will to do so is overwhelming. This, unfortunately, only happens when things get so bad for most that they refuse to take it anymore. During such a time of stress, the party in power will receive the lion’s share of the blame, and the nation is more likely to adopt the strategies of the challenging party. (We Americans aren’t really deep thinkers, and tend to both be pretty fickle and ignorant about the intricacies of policy). We got a bit lucky with Bush holding the bag after the housing collapse (the groundwork for that was laid during Bill Clinton’s term), and with Hoover holding the bag during the Great Depression. President Obama had two years with basically a clean slate, and FDR had a similar ability. Those are the tiny moments in history when real, progressive change can occur.

            How did President Obama do? Let’s let him answer (one can judge for themself):

            There’s ZERO reason to expect Hillary Clinton to do any better. She’s already a deeply polarizing figure in the country, and the deadlock we saw with President Obama in his last 6 years in office will only continue with her. She’ll do what she can, always from a more conservative approach economically and a more liberal approach socially, but at the end of it all we won’t be where we need to be, and the nation itself will be very tired of the Democrats and eager to elect a Republican.

            Sad, but true.

            Still, even with the above, it’s hard to justify voting for the opposing party, or voting third party, or not voting at all, during this election. The Supreme Court justices alone would be a devastating blow to the left. I happen to not live in a swing state, so I have the liberty to vote how I choose, but if I lived in a swing state, I’d probably have to grin and bear it. A President Trump would be like pulling the pin on a hand grenade.

  3. Perspective in a couple snippets from Ralph Nader in an interview on America with Jorge Ramos from July 13: He outlines how Sanders can keep the pressure on Clinton throughout the remainder of the campaign and what will be needed from citizens groups preparing for congressional elections, “the most powerful arm of government”.

    JR: In 2008 you criticized Hillary Clinton by saying and I’m quoting, “she was looking for a coronation”, you still think the same?

    RN: Well she was, until Bernie Sanders came along, and I think his endorsement today was very dignified… he basically didn’t slobber over her, he basically went through all the promises she made in response to his pressure on student aid, on immigration reform, on minimum wage, on criminal justice reform, on environment and climate change. I thought it was really a brilliant statement. I have it here, I urge everybody to read it because he set her up for political betrayal which would allow him to enlarge his civic mobilization movement after the election after she takes office. So, I think it was a very astute endorsement.

    JR: It took him 36 days to endorse Hillary Clinton. What does that say to you>

    RN: It says he wanted to hold her feet to the fire in the platform comittee for the democratic party and he got some good words on all these issues I just mentioned and more but that’s not going to be enough and he knows it better than anybody. She should now commit to send specific legislation within a hundred days to the congress once she’s inaugurated to make sure she meant what she said in terms of the democratic platform. Cause President Obama in 2008 promised a $9.50 minimum wage by 2011, he promised a card check to make it easier for workers to form unions… and then he never mentioned them again. Because no one said to him, all right are you going to send legislation to the congress within a hundred days and are you going to expend political capital behind it. So, he’s still got a lot of work to do. I recommend after labor day that he have mass non-partisan citizen rallies starting in the mall in Washington and going all over the country to keep the heat on Hillary Clinton. In the process he’ll get more votes for her as a collateral benefit. I don’t think Trump has a chance. He cannot separate his own ego from the role of presidential candidate and there’ll be some eruption every few days. He cannot control himself. I don’t think he has a chance to win.

    JR: You said that Donald Trump has actually brought up some important issues in this election, however he’s alienated, insulted Muslims, Mexicans, women… do you think what Donald Trump has contributed to this campaign has been positive?

    RN: Well it has… raising the issue of corporate-managed trade agreements that have sucked industries and workers out of our country to fascist and communist countries overseas who know how to put hard workers in their place with modern equipment and send the products back here… that’s a very very important service that he is performing. He also I think put some attention on fat cats, the big money contributors, he had some good criticisms of some tax loopholes for Wall Street but by and large he’s just all over the map. If he took a position here one day, he’d take a position on the other side, like on minimum wage… he is a mockery. I’m not sure he’s even serious about being president. I wouldn’t be surprised if he basically said well, I tried, I’m gonna go back to my business, my brandname “Trump” is now all over the world and I’m gonna be richer than ever…. he’s gotta release his tax returns if he’s going to become credible about saying he’s a good candidate for president because he’s been a successful business man and he’s refused to do that which undermines his credibility substantially.


    JR: How important is it now that social media is an alternative to traditional media… you think Twitter, Facebook, Instagram can be a political force, a powerful force, that would eventually be stronger than traditional media

    RN: Social media is very good getting people riled up, getting people to find out what’s going on, what meetings, what rallies… it has not proven itself yet in terms of actual transfer to citizen action and political action. I don’t think members of Congress are all that scared of social media. I think social media gets you to first base, halfway to second base, but it’s only the beginning for hardworking full time organizers in Congressional districts to start taking control of congress cause that’s the number one priority: taking back control of the most powerful branch of government in our country.

    JR: Any advice to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

    RN: Let people in the citizen groups all over the country — left, right, middle — let ’em in to your election campaign, let ’em suggest new areas that you’re ignoring that you’ve taken off the table, let them participate in the debates, let them go to your rallies without being screened by your people so only people in your rallies are people who agree with you. In other words, run a democratic, small “d” campaign.

  4. jimbills Says:

    It’s been a while since I posted, but I was bored and figured Peter had some pro-Hillary spin, and sure enough….

    Look, anyone who has more liberal values than conservative ones, as I do, can see that Trump would be an awful, awful choice for this country. He’s wrong on every single issue, and even when he’s talking about something that might be supported by the left, like questioning trade agreements, it’s in the context of always making sure the U.S. “wins”, which could mean he’s more talking about U.S. corporations winning more than American workers winning. This is backed up by his selection of Mike Pence (a Koch puppet) as VP:

    So, that’s out of the way. Trump sucks. But Clinton and Kaine are of the moderate, pro-corporate wing of the Democratic Party – which largely means they’ll talk a good game, then go with an “all of the above” strategy, and the U.S. will be able to cut a few percentage points off emissions (better than none, but it won’t make a significant difference long-term). That’s what we’ll get.


    I’m frankly tired of all this hand-wringing about politics. It’s clear (to me, anyway), that the world has to act radically to make a large enough difference with our environmental and resource predicaments, and no one besides a few lone nuts like myself are on that page. We’re just pretending this election is life or death, when it’s not.

    Here’s what will happen: the next President will get a lot of blame, because Trump won’t be able to hold to most to all of his promises, and Clinton will stay the course with our economy, which for many Americans is growing bleaker and bleaker. The fundamentals behind that won’t change with either choice, which means people will vote in the opposing party into Congress, and we’ll get a deadlock. Clinton is basically an incumbent, and it’s irrational (“bright-sided”) to think she’ll get Democratic majorities in Congress in her first two years. That only happens when we have a Republican President who is truly awful (this is by no means a reason to vote for Trump, though).

    I see this election more like this: it’s the death knell for one major political party, and the one that wins in November will be the one that loses in the future.

    • HEAR HEAR!!!!!! lol Could not have said it better myself!

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      “I see this election more like this: it’s the death knell for one major political party,…”

      Ironically, for me at least, that death knell is for the Democratic Party. I can not begin to tell you how angry, mortified, disappointed, and stunned I am at the behavior of the DNC and the largest newspapers in the country for the disgraceful and anti American way they treated Bernie Sanders.

      I swear to God I am so pissed off I think I am going to propose a national write-in campaign for Donald Trump – so it will be crystal clear how many of us in this country refuse to endorse what the Democratic Party now stands for, and how it acts.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Bravo, GB! A Five Star tantrum (*****) and hyperbolic venting of the highest order! I am not angry or mortified or even stunned that you should behave this way, but I AM a bit disappointed.

        Get over it and grow up! Just because your boy Bernie didn’t win the nomination is no reason to start talking crazy. Clinton and the Dems are the ONLY chance we have to head off immediate disaster in 3 short months—–not the Greens, not the Libertarians, not a write-in campaign for Trump so that the disappointed Berners can mentally masturbate and smile as the country goes down in flames.

        (And considering that the Democratic Party did in fact adopt a good part of what Bernie “stands for” and now endorses it, and Bernie himself has gotten over it enough to be standing behind Clinton and working for the greater good, what the hell are you talking about anyway?)

      • jimbills Says:

        The question is how many would vote in a similar way. If I had to bet right now, most Sanders supporters would still vote for Clinton. There will be a few who vote for Trump out of anger, though.

        My ‘death knell’ comment was exaggeration, but it was done so for effect. The Democrats are in real trouble, and many don’t see it at all. And no, they aren’t in trouble because of Trump. Trump is a gift. It’s like they won the lottery with him, because he’s someone who can easily (and often justifiably) be demonized. All of the focus can be taken off of Clinton’s corrupt actions (and there is no other word for it) and shifted to how bad Trump is.

        Frank Speaking made a diatribe above, and of course he was rewarded for it. It was what we want to hear, after all. Trump is so, so awful. Now, don’t look at Clinton! To me, the best part of his comment was the last paragraph: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini, often considered the father of fascism

        That’s what’s happening with the Democratic party. It already happened with the Republicans. And we’re allowing it, we’re completely blind to it, because Trump is so awful. It’s a shame.

        Practically no one understands this, and I’m sure I’ll get plenty of thumbs down for saying it. But, on climate and representative democracy – we’re losing, and losing badly, and neither ‘team’ (R or D) is the answer.

Leave a Reply to climatehoward Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: