Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces To Overhaul the Endangered Species Act (nytimes.com) 296
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Endangered Species Act, which for 45 years has safeguarded fragile wildlife while blocking ranching, logging and oil drilling on protected habitats, is coming under attack from lawmakers, the White House and industry on a scale not seen in decades, driven partly by fears that the Republicans will lose ground in November's midterm elections. In the past two weeks, more than two dozen pieces of legislation, policy initiatives and amendments designed to weaken the law have been either introduced or voted on in Congress or proposed by the Trump administration.
The actions included a bill to strip protections from the gray wolf in Wyoming and along the western Great Lakes; a plan to keep the sage grouse, a chicken-size bird that inhabits millions of oil-rich acres in the West, from being listed as endangered for the next decade; and a measure to remove from the endangered list the American burying beetle, an orange-flecked insect that has long been the bane of oil companies that would like to drill on the land where it lives. [...] The new push to undo the wildlife protection law comes as Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and is led by a president who has made deregulation -- the loosening of not only environmental protections but banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement -- a centerpiece of his administration.
The actions included a bill to strip protections from the gray wolf in Wyoming and along the western Great Lakes; a plan to keep the sage grouse, a chicken-size bird that inhabits millions of oil-rich acres in the West, from being listed as endangered for the next decade; and a measure to remove from the endangered list the American burying beetle, an orange-flecked insect that has long been the bane of oil companies that would like to drill on the land where it lives. [...] The new push to undo the wildlife protection law comes as Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and is led by a president who has made deregulation -- the loosening of not only environmental protections but banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement -- a centerpiece of his administration.
Bastards (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid Reps. Go find your own planet to destroy, but leave mine alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently Republicans don't have children and grandchildren, otherwise they would want a planet that supports life.
Re: (Score:3)
To the person that gave me some grief over a joke in another thread. Still think we shouldn't party like its 1789?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that global warming would actually be a GOOD thing on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Overhaul is not the word you're looking for (Score:5, Insightful)
They are getting their way at last (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this and I just can't forget the Leonard Cohen song:
Take the only tree that's left. Shove it up the hole in your culture.
I don't know what else to say, except to point out that when they say "this will create jobs" what it really means is that some large corporate interests will make billions ravaging without any restraint the already-stressed ecosystem and some minor percentage of it will be paid out to workers with the least amount of benefits they can manage and no job security.
So a beetle is gone. Who cares it was totally totally worth it.
gray wolves? (Score:5, Insightful)
conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.
great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.
but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Funny)
Burying beetles feast on chaos butterflies. Do you really want to cause tsunamis in the pacific?! Think of the poor Asian children!
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Informative)
This video is probably the one you were thinking of. Very interesting video.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Would it matter for non-native species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: gray wolves? (Score:2)
Is that all they wrote in that bill? Must be the shortest bill in history?
No numbers? Tst, tst, baaad republicans
Re: (Score:2)
Give out more deer tags. Rednecks aren't naturally limited to any number for deer/year.
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not familiar with the rest of the list, but in MN and WI, the wolves certainly aren't endangered anymore. The state DNRs and the Federal Fish & Wildlife services have taken them off the list for valid "they're so many of them, we have to manage the population" reasons a couple times now: under Obama's watch, not Trump's. Anti-hunting activists sued to put them back on, over the objections of the experts.
It's certainly possible that the conservation officers snuck a reasonable, as-requested-by-the-scientists thing into a list of dodgy requests. But that's not the way it's being reported, so it makes me wonder about the rest of the things being complained about.
Anybody here know the particulars of the other species in the story, or is everyone just going to get wound up to the left or to the right in a partisan tizzy? The article was remarkably free of facts about the animals, just quotes from politicians on both sides
Re: (Score:2)
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Interesting)
conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.
great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.
but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)
Maybe, but you're looking at the most corrupt (and lobbyist riddled) department in one of the most corrupt administrations in US history, and a congress that has been at best enabling, and at worst (healthcare, tax cut) encouraging.
Are they really the ones you're counting on to make wise decisions about endangered species?
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Insightful)
we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter
History is full of examples where causing a single species to become extinct has caused very significant and completely unintended consequences for whole ecosystems.
Saying that driving a few species into extinction won't cause any problems is like saying that deleting a few lines of code from an application won't cause any problems. Sure, there's a decent size chance you may be fine, but would you actually take the risk?
Re:gray wolves? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with "what's $species good for" is that we probably don't even know. The Chinese killed off sparrows during the Four Pest Campaigns [wikipedia.org] in what's dubbed the Great Leap Forwards (also known as the Great Leap into a fucking Mess) because they allegedly ate grain and fruits. They did, but what they ate even more were locusts.
I leave it to the reader to ponder just what the very unintended consequence was.
You are allowed to learn from the blunders of others. In this case, that eliminating a species without knowing what this entails is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure environmental damage isn't terribly selective. You're simply rationalizing that if you kill off 80% of the wildlife in an area in the sake of progress, it's no big deal, because only that one, bitty, insignificant endangered species will be killed off first.
Re: (Score:2)
you really think that every square mile of burying beetle soil is going to be drilled?
no, that's silly. the majority of bugs and everything else will be left alone. irrational "protections" that are "symbolism over substance" and "mere horn tooting" should be eliminated
Re: (Score:2)
you really think that every square mile of burying beetle soil is going to be drilled?
no, that's silly. the majority of bugs and everything else will be left alone. irrational "protections" that are "symbolism over substance" and "mere horn tooting" should be eliminated
So I guess they just airdrop in the already constructed drilling rigs and have the rig workers come in by helicopter every day. Or, you know, they build roads, have construction areas with footprints larger than the footprints of the oil rigs, build support buildings, install pipelines (which need their own roads, construction areas, and support buildings), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
since we have oil pumps toiling away in farm fields here, I'd say you're exaggerating the hit.
even so, the roads are minor too, they're not going to pave over all the land where they beetles live. you are buying into hysteria for a "feel good" emotion when reality has nothing to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
And a multi-well oil platform every few miles doesn't bother the wildlife.
Until the inevitable spill during transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, suddenly I remember why it is I can't really be bothered to take part in the debate here, for the most part. You choose to ignore the fact that I recognise the genuinely good of the American people and instead prefer to take offence where there is none to be found; if this was just something that occurred once in a while, that would be OK, but it seem that most of the time people don't even make the effort to read posts before starting the rant.
You seem to have missed (or just ignored) that I recognise
Conservatives.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Conservatives.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*.
Not if they're factually incorrect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Low-information democrats have poorly formed thoughts and opinions.
Yes, but Low-information democrats, by definition of the term 'Low-information democrats', have at least some data to back up what they are saying. While sub-optomal, 'low-information', still compares positively with non-information Republican Trumpkins who operate on 'truthiness', i.e. emotionally generated facts that are not backed up by a shred of empirical data.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hi Mr Brett Buck, I'm not hoping to insult you sufficiently to change your opinion (as another AC has attempted). However, I'd like to point out that this idea that everyone's opinions, thoughts and ideas are equally valuable is bogus. I could say that more forcefully, but all the rude words have already been said.
There are opinions, thoughts and ideas that contradict known facts. I'm talking about "known facts" as in "physical reality", not just who is winning politics at the moment.
Those opinions, thou
Re:Conservatives.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*
People have an equal right to their opinions, but it does not mean their opinions are equally right. The opinions of a flat earther are not as valuable and worthwhile as those of a cosmologist, for example, with regard to how the universe works, for example.
Re: Conservatives.... (Score:2)
I would always take an opinion of a flat earther over an opinion of a cosmologist when it comes to driving directions.
Re:Conservatives.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be fair to Flat Earthers. They live in a world that could be legitimately described as a "space pizza". Flying through space on a pizza with a disk of cheese "orbiting (is that what the moon does in Flattarida?)" sounds... delicious.
Now if you will excuse me, it's dinner time and there is a pizza that is about to be sucked into a black hole.
of the people, by the people (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces
Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.
I agree.
https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
Bald and golden eagles may be legally killed or injured in the thousands by high-speed turbines (reaching speeds up to 170 miles per hour), under new regulations released Wednesday by the Obama administration. The rules, which affect individual wind-energy companies that plan to operate the technology for up to 30 years, allows up to 4,200 of the birds to perish.
Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species.
Oh, I've brought up the problems of windmills killing birds before and a common reply is the far greater number of birds killed by domestic cats. If your "domestic cat" is hunting bald eagles then I suspect your "domestic cat" is also on the endangered species list.
Re:of the people, by the people (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're so bothered by that, then why aren't you more bothered by the gutting of species protection under Trump?
Or are you just playing games?
Re: (Score:2)
Coal mining brings wholesale habitat destruction through mountaintop renewal, coal ash and chemicals spilled into the rivers, and don't get me started about actually burning the stuff. But a windmill kills a bird and you Hundred Percent Red Blood Americans are suddenly outraged.
Re: (Score:2)
That's removal, not renewal.
Re: (Score:2)
The choices we have are not limited to wind or coal. I'd like to see more nuclear power. Nuclear power kills far fewer birds than wind or coal.
It's not like mining ends with using windmills. Those windmills use a lot of metal, concrete, and even coal, to make. The coal is used to refine the aluminum and steel. Maybe alternatives could be found but that won't be easy because the carbon in coal is part of the chemical process, not just burned for heat. That carbon would have to come from something.
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats are playing games. They've screamed and yelled about saving the birds but said nothing when Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion.
Of course. It's one of the things I intend to fix with the party, although that's going to be a rough ride.
I intend to move our voting system to a Smith method (Schulze or Ranked Pairs) with STV using Meek transfers for multiple-winner elections, selecting two nominees per party by Primary. This allows the American People to elect someone representative of the population as a whole, or proportionally representative in the case of multiple representatives. As well, I intend to bring back fusion voting,
Re: (Score:2)
Couple questions. Why not try to win in local elections before moving to the federal level? Have you tried to win office in your state legislature or was challenging an incumbent congressmen your first try for public office? The states control the elections so if you wanted election reform the state would be a logical start.
It doesn't bother me to disagree with you on many issues if you want to enact those changes in your state but when you advocate at the federal level then it becomes a different ballgame.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a bit of an alarmist [snopes.com].
Would you support allowing the market to build affordable housing by restoring the rights of developers to build more densely than surrounding properties, or are you just playing games here?
Re: (Score:2)
Good answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, then we can also agree to stop the hundreds of millions of birds that are killed by hunters in Texas every year? Not to mention what the metals in the birdshot are doing to the water and land there.
See? We're finding common ground left and right today!
Re:of the people, by the people (Score:5, Funny)
Good, then we can also agree to stop the hundreds of millions of birds that are killed by hunters in Texas every year?
I am compelled to point out that it was a conservative - Dick Cheney - who tried to solve this very problem by shooting his bird-hunting friend in the face.
Re:of the people, by the people (Score:4, Funny)
I think the best bit was the apology he issued: "sorry you shot me in the face".
Re:of the people, by the people (Score:5, Insightful)
Mathematically, it's the first derivative of the species' population which is most important from a conservation standpoint. To a second order, the current population compared to historical population levels can be considered, although that gets clouded by things like changes in the environment and amount of available habitat as compared to decades ago. Unless the population is extremely low (like only in the hundreds), the fate of any individual member of the species is fairly irrelevant to the goal of preserving the species.
So the number you should be most concerned with is the rate at which the species' population is declining, not the number of individuals killed. You see, nearly every animal in the wild is killed. Dying of old age is something only commonly experienced by humans and the domesticated animals we protect. The vast majority of wild animals live short lives before they're snuffed out in an often gruesome death [youtube.com] caused by another animal. Whether that animal happens to be a human using his hands, or a wild animal using claws and teeth is irrelevant (other than how it improves the sustainability of that animal's population)..
Re: (Score:2)
Only in America is it illegal to put lead in our electronics, which when disposed will likely end up going to China for "recycling", but when it comes to guns, we'll happily skip the middleman and dump lead pellets directly into our own backyard.
Re: (Score:3)
In America, we allow MAGA hat-wearing goofballs on psychoactive meds to dump lead directly into our schoolchildren, because some 18th century amendment said well-regulated militias should be armed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cats aren't hunting eagles. Eagles hunt cats. Windmills kill eagles. If you want cats killed then you don't want windmills.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't compare to the *billions* killed annually by cats in the States. Let's protect the birdies..kill all cats.
Because eagles and pigeons are the same thing. If your cat is bringing home eagle corpses then you might want to check if you actually have a cat.
Re:of the people, by the people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total?
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers. What did you find?
A quick look on the internet tells me that the population of protected eagles is in the hundreds of thousands. The federal government is willing to issue permits to kill up to 4,200 eagles per year per wind power company. How many wind power companies are there? Ten of them? That's 42,000 eagles they can kill per year wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers.
I somewhat doubt there are good figures for the numbers killed as a consequence of coal (e.g. pollution) or nuclear (side effects of mining ore) as it would be very hard to determine exact attribution, but just because attribution is hard, doesn't mean the number is zero.
That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures.
Lumping together a series of unrelated causes seems odd. Which of them is the most significant?
In terms of wind turbines we see:
"Between 1997 and June 2012, researchers identified 85 combined bald eagle and golden eagle fatalities attributed to wind turbines, or roughly 5.6 deaths per year in the entirety of the contiguous United States. Moreover, of those 85 total eagle deaths in a 15-year period, only six were bald eagles. The remaining 79 deceased birds were golden eagles. Those findings were illustrated in a state-by-state table:"
So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still
Re: (Score:2)
So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still be massively more than the observed number of deaths), it is highly unlikely that wind turbines will kill that many eagles.
If there is no expectation that the eagle kill rate would exceed more than a few hundred per year then why did the wind energy lobby ask for a quadrupling of the existing levels to reach an allowed 4200 kills per year? Seems to me that they expected to exceed prior limits or they would not have asked for the limits to be raised.
There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway.
Citation needed.
https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/s... [oup.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The YouTube video goes through more than the problems of greenhouse gasses, CO2 and methane. It also discusses co
Re: (Score:2)
"Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species." Hardly. A more accurate statement is that the evil capitalists want to generate profits regardless of what it does to endangered species.
Shoot and Shovel (Score:3, Insightful)
Or assume you own a few acres of woodland next to a thriving suburb and are going to subdivide it and build a small housing development. Partway through the process of clearing the land and paving sidewalks and cul-de-sacs you discover owl pellets from an endangered owl species you've never heard of. If the wildlife officials learn of this bird nest you're done with your development project and are out the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars you've already spent. If that nest were to disappear before anyone official learns of its existence you're free to build and sell the 20 houses you originally planned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or assume you own a few acres of woodland next to a thriving suburb and are going to subdivide it and build a small housing development. Partway through the process of clearing the land
You already shouldn't be allowed to clear the land. We need more mature trees. There's lots of places without trees where you can put people. If they want trees around their homes, they can plant them.
Re: (Score:2)
But people don't want to live just anywhere. There are clear requirements as to where people want to live:
1. Near other people, because people mean jobs, services, social recreation, good infrastructure and local shops.
2. Not too near, because then property values get too high, and other people are only pleasant to be around when you don't have to be around them constantly.
Modern society invented the perfect solution: The suburb, made possible by the car. A city at the core surrounded by mile upon mile upon
Re: (Score:2)
"Modern society invented the perfect solution: The suburb, made possible by the car."
Sure, if you don't care about commute times, or quality of life, or the future of mankind. Otherwise the arcology is superior.
Re: (Score:2)
"Here the Mexican is saying "you shouldn't be able to do what you want with what you own, but I can do what I want with it because I'm better than you"
Not better, just smarter. Not smarter than everyone, but certainly smarter than you. And I'll go ahead and throw in braver, and better-looking, since you're indistinguishable from the legions of trolls that infest these waters.
Good! Partially, at least... (Score:5, Insightful)
You people seem to assume that this act's list of endangered species actually is built upon sound science.
So a review of this is certainly a good idea.
That being said, we all know what interests drive this so I don't expect a sensible outcome either...
Re:Good! Partially, at least... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a review. This is targeted specific species and areas that have been under attack by Oil and Ranch lobbyists for a decade (or more in some cases like the gray wolf.) This isn't some 'oh the data has changed, lets keep up' - which happens every day, all year long as field workers count the species and sightings and make esitmates.
This is a sell out of your and your children's potential legacy to a short term profit so a few guys can get rich and say 'hey we brought 200 jobs into an area and only destroyed 10 species in the process!'.
A review of sound science (Score:2)
Bald Eagle, the other white meat (Score:2)
Manatee. It's what's for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
The burrowing beetle (Score:2)
If the burrowing beetle is "the bane of oil companies", then why don't we breed more burrowing beetles? That could become an effective method to fight global warming, now, wouldn't it?
No, seriously. Do proofread and edit submissions before posting!
Don't just copy and paste.
Stupid... (Score:2)
The definition of which is 'intentionally ignorant'.
I dislike so many things about both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Rupukelicans just make me sick, with ugly ,disingenuous and downright dangerous responses to environmental issues, utter lack of love when it comes to desperate people trying to escape the country they live in and total disregard for the what's actually good for the bulk of the people living in the middle classes. In general I like the Deamoncrats less because they undermine true hu
Re: (Score:2)
What in the FUCK are you talking about, specifically?
Zombie Jesus and getting while the getting's good (Score:2)
The bigger pictures (Score:2)
The narrow view is looking at a few species of animals to decide what can be done with the land. My big picture view is "why the fuck do we keep allowing corporations to pollute the environment to make a quick dollar?"
I hate that Republicans only care about "right now" and not about those of us that plan to live another 40-50 years.
Re:This is an outrage but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "everything is political" and /. editors are pushing left-wing politics all the time.
This is a science and technology oriented website. The current Republican party has been pushing many anti-science and anti-environmentalism agendas. Perhaps you should stick with Faux News, if all you want to hear is how killing off the last of a species is going to create tons of jobs and put 'merica back on the path to WINNING.
Re: (Score:3)
"craftsmen and artisans" who work with rare woods is not even a rounding error, either in jobs, exports or anything else. Esp. not in first-world countries.
Re: (Score:2)
It's becoming clear that this sort of deregulation was what he meant when he talked about "draining the swamp".
Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species (Score:5, Informative)
Actual extinction, I think you'll find.
(technically there's two left but they're both females so extinction is now guaranteed).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie (Score:3, Insightful)
Except when it didn't for all those species that died off.
Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci (Score:2, Interesting)
If the species commits suicide by anthropomorphic climate change, while all the while waging war when the commandment was given "Thou shalt not kill" and when Jesus said "let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone" when questioned on punishment, how can anyone have faith they are going to heaven?. Because that whore was admonished "go and sin no more." Yet those who claim allegiance to the faiths cannot seem to comprehend their corruption of justice. While there isn't peace no one's getting saved and re
Re: (Score:2)
If God had wanted you to be an ignorant Fundamentalist, he wouldn't have given me the ability to knock you in the fucking head with a copy of the Old Testament. ;)
No, the Ten Commandment, original stone copy :-}
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the result of poachers.
Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the result of poachers.
Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.
Indeed. I believe BBC did a study after some outrage issue and found that much of the conservation money comes from those dentists and other great white hunters. Also, that $50k is just for the license for that one animal. That doesn't include all the other costs the host country typically requires like hiring guides, rangers, gun holders, etc. Even then, the creatures they hunt are usually the ones that need to be culled anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Too valuable to snort.
They make them into cups, which somehow are supposed to infuse the drinks with boners.
Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species (Score:4, Insightful)
HOWEVER, from a purely ECONOMIC perspective, privatization and the legalization of trophy hunting does MORE to protect endangered species than the current laws.
This is an old claim by libertarians, but it fails as soon as it contacts reality. First, it only can work for animals that have a direct local economic benefit. It does nothing to protect something like the American burying beetle mentioned in the article. Secondly, while there may be mechanisms of self-interest that coincide with protecting animals if they are all privately owned, those very same mechanisms also hold for companies - and yet, a large number of private companies fail every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Know what provides more protection than hunting and privatization? Hunting and privatization, plus endangered species laws.
And it's kind of crazy how so many libertarians don't understand that some of us really aren't as obsessed with money as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brace yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
Species will now be not endangered or already extinct. Finding a specimen of a species that's defined as extinct is a temporary statistical error.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the alternative was even worse!
I must have missed where Hillary was the only other person on the ballot.....
Re: (Score:2)
Who else was electable?
Living in CA my vote was wasted anyhow, so I did vote for the best of the available choices, Vermin Supreme!
Re: (Score:2)
Baseless my ass.
I have still not heard a reasonable, non-corrupt explanation for why the bribe flow into the Clinton global fund dried up just when Hillary had time for her charitable work. Do you have one? If you don't, you need to accept that she _was_ 'openly and notoriously corrupt'.
It's possible that an honest person could have believed what you say, until the day after Trump won and all the brides going to Clinton went away.