Politics Thread

Eh, maybe gangsters is the wrong term. But it's not like they weren't gang affiliated and involved in their fair share of illegal activities when they were younger, though as they got older and more famous they wisely removed themselves from those elements. Maybe some of it was fabricated, sure, but those two had a lot more credibility than who we talk about today. They both sold crack at times in their lives. They both came from very depressed economic households. They both ran with "crews". When Drake was their age at those times he was in a TV show.

not my type of music

Sarah Palin wants to be Donald Trump's energy secretary, has no idea what the job entails

Sarah Palin is already picking out a job for herself in the forthcoming Donald Trump administration. She'd like to run the Department of Energy for a brief period, before abolishing it.

Sounds promising. Except for one tiny little hitch — it's not clear she even knows what the department does. Here's what she told CNN:

"I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby: oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations."

"I'd get rid of it. And I'd let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states. If I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job, but it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge."

Palin is alluding to the fact that the federal government owns billions of acres of land and coastal waters, containing quite a bit of oil, gas, and coal. Industry groups have long complained that President Obama hasn't opened up nearly as much of this land to drilling as they'd like. And a few groups out West have even demanded that much of this land be returned to the states.

Except this all has very little to do with the Department of Energy, which mainly oversees the nation's nuclear weapons program — a task consuming nearly half its budget — and conducts energy R&D.

What Palin wants is the Department of Interior, which manages most federal lands. They're the ones handling leases for coal mining or supervising offshore oil and gas drilling. If you wanted to transfer public lands back to the states, you'd focus on Interior, not Energy.

Anyway, even if Palin did become cabinet secretary, she couldn't just abolish a department on her own. That would likely require an act of Congress. But it sounds like Interior should be the agency she "thinks a lot" about.
Further reading

-- Note that other conservatives have been pushing to abolish the Department of Energy over the years, which is probably where Palin got this idea. But the arguments here usually center on streamlining bureaucracy, not whatever Palin's referring to. So it's worth asking anyone proposing abolition what they'd like to do with all the programs within the department (the naval nuclear propulsion program, nuclear-weapons safety testing, the national research labs, and so on). Just to see if they know what they're talking about.

-- The Los Angeles Times recently ran a good piece on the mostly quixotic push in the West to return federal lands back to the states. One key line: "Legal and economic scholarship on Utah's transfer bill concludes that the federal land transfer is never going to happen, and if public lands were indeed somehow given to the states, the result would be a financial disaster."

Oh, he got her released, how exciting! I guess we can choose what laws to obey and not obey. What a great precedent that Huckabee and Kim Davis have set. Bigotry and intolerance continue to reign supreme in Conservative Land, yipee!

Oh how wrong you are, as usual.

I disagree with her stance, yes of course because I'm an intelligent human being. What I also disagree with is that she and Huckleberry are ignoring LAW because it doesn't fit into their bigot agenda. I don't get to tell my boss at work I'm not going to do something because I don't agree with it religiously. "Sorry, can't edit any of this footage we shot today because there's a gay guy in one of the scenes!" If there's a moral issue, sure, I have a point. But her point isn't one of morality, it's one of blatant bigotry, big difference. She was right to be held in contempt of court, because guess what, she violated the LAW. If she doesn't like it, she can go find another job. Kim Davis has NO AUTHORITY to say whether or not a couple can be married, and has no authority to not issue them licenses. It goes back to the hypothetical that Ramplate posted earlier. An Inuit can practice whatever they want within their tribe, but the moment he denies Sarah Palin a hunting license he's completely overstepped his boundaries.

No, Kim Davis is an idiot who hides her stupidity and bigotry behind "religious freedoms". The same people who oppose gay rights today are exactly the ones that would've stood with George Wallace during the Civil Rights Movement. "It's how it's always been, they can't change it now!" Come back when you have an actual argument, you sound just like your buddy Huckleberry playing the same old, boring record no one cares about anymore.

You didn't really argue against anything I said so let me make it more simple for you.

1) She is a democrat.

2) You have no issue with mayors of sanctuary cities and Obama ignoring the law but this scofflaw bothers you? Why is one law breaker worse than another? Kim Davis has not caused any deaths. Sanctuary cities and officials who allow them to operate have.

3) Extra point - Liberals would have no issue if she were muslim and ignoring the law due to religious beliefs. It only matters because she is Christian.

Who said I agreed with her actions. My point was once again the hypocrisy of the left is laughable to the point of lunacy.

You assume I am a fan of this woman or Huckabee and you assume wrong.


You also keep mentioning a SC vote but never clarify which vote you are referring to.

I'd still hit it.

Yea I am the only one guilty of that..........

Did you bother to read the rest of my post?  Everyone is terrible, everyone is a hypocrite.  You could probably make valid points if you weren't spending all your time nitpicking half of people's posts and ignoring the rest of what is being said.  I like you, but I hate reading your posts in this thread because you pick and choose half of a quote so you can make some sort of smug remark.

Yes, I'm nitpicking and being a douche right now.  I'm being a hypocrite, so now that I've admitted to it you don't have to bother calling me out.