How did the Republican Party go from creating the EPA to denying Climate Change?
Republicans don’t “deny climate change” , they just disagree that what we have seen is all due to man made CO2.the IPCC idiots tell us we MUST lower world CO2 output by 50% by 2030. Previously the same idiots had said 85% by the year 2000The real Question is what can the US, which produces 15% of world CO2 , do with or without the EU, to lower world CO2 with China and India etc. increasing output? the answer is NOTHING , and the Obama EPA idiots admitted just that.EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impactWatch Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy Testify to Congress: 'The value of this rule is not measured in that way.CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?” ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never…”http://www.climatedepot.com/2015...And the fact isU.S. Achieves Largest Decrease in Carbon Emissions…Without the Paris Climate Accordhttps://capitalresearch.org/arti...Study: U.S. Leads World In Reducing CO2 Emissions, While Paris Accord Nations Break Promiseshttps://www.dailywire.com/news/3...Uncertain' Science: Judith Curry's Take On Climate ChangeUpdated August 23, 20135:10 PM EThttp://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/21...Peer-reviewed study reveals majority of scientists are skeptical of ‘global warming crisis’Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.https://www.americanthinker.com/...
If there would be a third MAJOR political party in the United States, what would be its ideology?
Fiscal responsibility, cautious foreign intervention, and hands-off personal responsibility in social policy. These are the tenants of the current third largest party in the US, the Libertarian Party.There are many barriers to third parties, in the current structure of the US political structure. Those barriers exist firstly because of the "winner take all" electoral college system. Although there's no mention of parties in the Constitution, the policies and ideals of Thomas Jefferson's caucus began to be called the Federalists. Soon afterwards, the Anti-Federalists, later to be formally named Democratic-Republicans joined together to oppose their ideas. These two parties recruited members and like-minded candidates at the National, State and local levels the following elections. For a third party to rise, it became more and more difficult.In the current state of the US political structure the two parties have entrenched and established themselves - and in have erected barriers for entry for third parties. One particular barrier is the practice of selective map drawing of voting districts at the State level. District maps are drawn by the majority party to support their incumbent elected officials. If there's like minded people in an area who vote a particular way, those people are overwhelmingly put into a district. It's very hard for an opposition party, let alone a third party, to overcome the numbers at the ballot box. The practice is called Gerrymandering.Other notable barriers are the ballot access laws that extremely difficult for third parties to overcome, and many third party candidates have trouble physically being printed on the ballot on all fifty states.There are also the debates, which are typically only held between the two main parties. The Supreme court has upheld the exclusions of third parties multiple times in cases at the State and Federal level.One of the other barriers is the fact that with two parties, they're quick to adopt a third party candidate's ideas. If a third party gains favor with voters, those ideas are quickly absorbed into one of the major two parties by the next election cycle. For example, when Ross Perot brought deficit reduction to the forefront in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats both adopted the idea in 1996, which all but sunk his second campaign.
Could a third-party candidate ever win a U.S. presidential election?
There is effectively no chance that a 3rd party will win a future presidential election in the United States. Our “first past the post” electoral system realistically only permits two parties at a time to be serious contenders.* We don’t form coalition governments like they do in, say, the United Kingdom.But what about if one of the current parties “collapses?” The Democrats and Republicans always seem to be one step away from collapsing, according to the other party. The Democrats were seen to be ascendant before the 2016 presidential election. After the election they were thought to be doomed. Now, with the scandals surrounding Trump, the Republicans may look doomed.It doesn’t matter. A huge number of Americans identify themselves with their political party far more than with any particular candidate. Political parties have become tribes rather than a collection of politically like-minded people. Look at the change in attitude among Republicans with regard to Russia from Ronald Reagan’s administration to today. A complete 180° reversal.No matter what happens to the leadership of either party, the Republican and Democrat brands will survive. Complete ideological change may occur, but the party names will survive. I predict that no 3rd party candidate will be elected president of the United State in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children.*It is theoretically possible, albeit exceedingly unlikely, that a Constitutional Convention or an Amendment could change our voting system. However, each State chooses its own method for selecting Electors who vote for the President and Vice President, so I judge this to be less likely than first contact with an alien intelligence.
Is the US Democratic Party obsolete?
It has been going through a bad period, much as the GOP did from the 1930s to the 1970s. The New Democrats seem to have set the tone for the Democratic party since the 1980s, and in that seems to have become a dead end. The Democratic party more or less stopped pushing worker rights from that era onward.In order to win the Democrats need to craft ideas that are relevant to those in the swing states. There is an idea that everything is going to move to Asia. If that is true we might as well just close up shop, but I don’t see any industrial policy from the Democrats.
Obama Presidency: Second Term (2013–present): What will the odds be of the Republican Party splitting?
The Tea Party is frustrated by the tactics of the establishment Republicans, but they largely agree on policy. If a movement to start a third party Tea Party Party (forgive the three "party"s in four words) began, it might elect a few members, but in more districts it would split the vote and end up giving more seats to the Democrats.Right now they have the best of all worlds; they aren't competing with Republicans for votes, they have considerably more clout than their numbers in congress justify, and they can run against government while running one of the branches of government. Some of the true believers might want to split, but most Tea Partiers are smarter than they appear to those of us on the outside. I disagree with their goals, but they have been incredibly effective.Rather than a split, their tactics will likely lead to more losses for the Republican party nationally, while the goal of obstructing government continues to be achieved. 2014 might see the house go back to the Democrats, especially if the Republican party doesn't do something to change it's image. If Republicans keep the house, they will take this as approval, instead of the combination of gerrymandering and a non-presidential, low turnout election when the President's party usually loses seats anyway. There is no way they would take a win next year as anything other than permission to keep doing what they've been doing.If Democrats actually do win the house, Republicans will likely still have enough seats in the Senate to continue the filibustering of everything. If this happens, and the Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster, I think 2016 could look a lot like 2008, and President Clinton might get another Democratic house and filibuster proof senate. This will, I think, finally break the fever Obama thought would happen with his re-election. Anything short of this, and I think the Republicans know that obstructing government keeps it from achieving anything, especially Democratic Party goals.