US Presidential Race

JH: You’ve talked about not monkeying with safety and other critical regulations. Where do you start when you talk about reducing the regulatory burden of businesses, and how do you avoid chipping away at things that, end of the day, really are necessary to protect safety and the environment?

GJ: All I have is to draw on my own examples. As governor of New Mexico, the biggest pollution issue was a plume of chemicals that had been dumped by General Electric there for decades because of their jet engine parts that they were producing in Albuquerque. At the end of the day, literally, someone kicked over a can of solvent that they had been using in their process. And every day they did that, for decades.

Well, General Electric said, we’re responsible for this. We’re responsible for this plume. The state, before I took office, had been engaged in a debate over how to clean this up. The state prescribing very specific, “Here’s how you have to clean it up, and here’s what it’s going to cost.” And General Electric going, “No it’s not going to cost that much. We can do it a different way. We can accomplish this cleanup different.” And they never came together. I took office and very simply [said], “GE, how about cleaning it up? It’s going to be measurable. The cleanup will be measurable. We don’t have to come to any terms whatsoever regarding how you do it. Just do it. If what you say is right, do it. It’ll prove itself. You’ll save the money that you’re saying you’ll save.” And all of a sudden, now cleanup started. So immediately we’ve got cleanup taking place. I hope that’s a good example of rules and regulations.

On the other hand in northern New Mexico, there was a Molycorp mine. There was metals contamination in the Red River. It had gone on for decades. And for decades politically it was being protected because of the jobs that were involved. I took office and I said, you’ve got to clean this up. You have to come to the table and you have to clean this up. They refused to come to the table. So my biggest club in the bag was, I am going to declare you a Superfund site. I’m going to hand you over to federal EPA unless you come to the table in 30 days and come up with a plan for fixing your metals contamination.

And they claimed that it was natural! It was ludicrous. It was a slap in the face. And they refused to come to the table. My phone is ringing off the hook, politically. It’s ringing off the hook. There were all these jobs. And my response was: “These people are bad actors and they have to be brought to the table.” Thirty days went by and they became a Superfund site. So there’s an example of the EPA and why the EPA should exist. And why government should exist to protect us against those who would do us harm. And in this case the Libertarian argument would be, as individuals we could have brought suit against polluters. We can bring suit individually. Well, in the case of Molycorp, you know what, they would have been able to withstand any individuals trying to bring that suit against them.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gary-johnson-libertarian-transcript-20160729-snap-story.html

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Spoiler:

If he makes the debates I can see Hillary losing the millennial vote

Lucky for Hillary that outside of 2008, Millenials don't vote.

Bernie Sanders revolution died when his voters didnt vote for him during spring break. They'd rather go get drunk in Mexico, and play pokemon go.

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Spoiler:

If he makes the debates I can see Hillary losing the millennial vote

Lucky for Hillary that outside of 2008, Millenials don't vote.

Bernie Sanders revolution died when his voters didnt vote for him during spring break. They'd rather go get drunk in Mexico, and play pokemon go.

If this holds Trump is President. Obama whitewashed Romney & McCain when it comes to the millenial vote. In a 2 way race I even think 60% is a moderate benchmark for Democrats. Even 65-70% is quite possible.

TGary Johnson is doing well among millennials, but this well? And noways Trump is getting 26% of The millennials vote? I think a divisive candidate like him will struggle to cross the 20% mark. In the end Hillary should atleast get 45-50% atleast.

Democrats win on the back of young & minority votes. Trump will have a huge lead among whites & older voters so that margin has to be made up somewhere.

Need I remind you what happened in 2010 or 2014 when turnout was low & young people didn't vote - Republican whitewash!

It is worrying in the new poll Trump has opened up a 3% lead in Florida & a 5% lead in Ohio. If he holds all of Romney states & takes Ohio-Florida, then he will be only needing either Virginia or Pennsylvania to win the presidency.

Not only is Hillary a bad candidate, her campaign is also bad. She has completely forgotten her poll promises when Sanders has been participating in rallies against Dakota pipeline or against TPP. She has not said a single word about 15$ Minimum wage or healthcare etc. She is courting Jeb Bush's donors, flooding the airwaves with negative ads against Trumo with wall street money n is using Republicans in advertisements against Trump.

Such is the irony a Republican is coming up with a maternity leave plan while Hillary is not championing Progressive issues on the campaign trail.

Betty La Fea wrote:Enough will come out to keep Trump out. He simply doesnt have the electoral numbers to win.

Betty La Fea wrote:Enough will come out to keep Trump out. He simply doesnt have the electoral numbers to win.

I expect Democrats to get absolutely slaughtered in 2018 though, but that was probably always going to happen.

She's sick right now though. I expect her to fix the problems you listed with her campaign around the time of the first debate.

CBarca wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440274/hillary-clinton-says-she-supports-nuclear-energy

#I'mWithHer

Hate her, love this.

Until she does a #Hillary and says in 6 months that she hates nuclear (:

Vibe wrote:

rincon wrote:

CBarca wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440274/hillary-clinton-says-she-supports-nuclear-energy

#I'mWithHer

Hate her, love this.

Until she does a #Hillary and says in 6 months that she hates nuclear (:

Even from that article

"As a U.S. senator, she was an ardent opponent of corn ethanol. But in 2007, during her first run for the presidency, she switched her position and began praising ethanol, particularly during campaign stops in Iowa. She has also straddled the fence on nuclear. In 2007, she said nuclear “has to be part of our energy solution.” A few months later, she said she was “agnostic” about nuclear energy. Then, in early 2008, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, she touted her “energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power.” "

I don't believe a single word she says about issues like these.

Being against nuclear energy is ridiculous at this point. I hope she actually means it, but I don't buy it given her record.

You do understand that they change views to those of whoever is paying for their campaigns at the moment?