Bill Maher Breaks Silence on Trump
December 20, 2016
Advertisements
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
-
-
Pages
Links
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
-
Recent Posts
- What Does Serious Policy Looks like On Climate?
- PBS: That Time it Rained for Two Million Years
- This is Big. New GRACE Satellite Launch – Ice Sheet Obs to Continue
- As Grid Evolves, EV’s Just Keep Getting Cleaner, More Competitive
- Take Your Mind Off Global Catastrophe. Try Climate Change Crochet
- What About Gravity? WSJ Readers Respond to Denialist Pseudoscience
- Wind Energy: If it’s Good for General Motors…
- 2018 Hurricane Season: A Preview
- Springtime in Greenland
- BioDiversity at Risk – But it’s Not Inevitable
- Renewable Energy Support, Climate Concern Keep Rising
- Carbon Monitoring Restored in Congress, for Now
- Local Voices: Calling Out Big Fossil’s Anti-Wind Campaign
- 50th Anniversary of First Climate Model. Spoiler, They Got it Right.
- Music Break: Lake Street Dive – I Can Change
Archives
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
Blogroll
- A Few Things Ill Considered
- AGW Observer
- Clear Climate Code
- Climate Charts
- Climate Place
- Climate Progress
- Climate Victory
- ClimateSight
- Deep Climate
- Deltoid
- Denial Depot
- From a Glaciers Perspective
- Glimpse Science Network
- James Empty Blog
- Mind of Dan
- More Grumbine Science
- OilPrice.com
- Only In It for the Gold
- Open Mind
- Our Changing Climate
- Post Normal Times
- RealClimate
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- Scholars and Rogues
- Shale Gas Bulletin Ireland
- Skeptical Science
- Solar Power Now
- Terra Alert
- The Cost of Energy
- The Way Things Break
- Yale Climate Forum Playlist
Advertisements
December 21, 2016 at 4:41 pm
Ya gotta love ole Bill.
I grudgingly oppose him on the Electoral College however. In spite of the current craziness the writers of the Const knew what they were doing. They wanted to prevent a guy like Trump from swaying a majority of easily swayed, ill informed voters from annointing a blowhard demagogue for becoming president. The fault lies with the states ignoring the wisdom of the founders and requiring the electors to vote for whoever the “rabble” voted for. Just like the Senate, also mucked up.
The really hopeful message from the interview is that he hasn’t fled the country. Yet.
December 21, 2016 at 5:13 pm
The electoral college did that but in the process revealed the growing divide between what the most people want and what a few powerful states want. In other words, a good thing becomes a bad thing.
December 21, 2016 at 5:10 pm
They wanted to prevent a guy like Trump from swaying a majority of easily swayed, ill informed voters from annointing a blowhard demagogue for becoming president.
So, in your opinion, did we fail at that? from what you said above, it’s not clear what you mean.
December 21, 2016 at 5:15 pm
No, sorry, I should have been clearer. I think the objective of “swaying a majority of easily swayed, ill informed voters from annointing a blowhard demagogue for becoming president.” was definitely achieved. So do you think that was a good thing, and if not, that the electoral college could somehow have prevented that?
December 22, 2016 at 1:26 pm
To be clear we did elect the blowhard and the system did fail.
To reiterate: the founders were very fearful of populism. They set up a system of limited democracy with the concept of filtering the wishes of the population through a popularly elected elite that, in turn, selected a short-lived, single tasked, “college” of yet more select individuals to select the president. Their intent was not the formality that the electoral college has become. Their intent was to protect us from ourselves by using carefully selected individuals that, hopefully, would be able to use a longer view of the nation’s needs than could be obtained through the raucus, nasty process that elections too often become.
We got the result of the raucus, nasty process instead of anything resembling a longer view. We got that because the intent of the founders has been eroded by populist pressure over time.