Washington Post has another reason to abolish electoral college: global warming

The climate doomsters at the Washington Post serve up another reason to rid America of the electoral college: global warming. That’s because it allowed Donald Trump to get elected. And under a Trump presidency, global warming will get short shrift.

The author, a Yale School of Management lecturer, forgot the primary reason we have an electoral college (EC): because the founding fathers didn’t want heavily populated states having too much influence on presidential elections. Something lost in the shrill screams and lamentable cries of the grief-stricken Democratic party and Fake News-generators at Liberal media outlets.

So the flyover states (the ones Hillary didn’t visit in order to attend multi-million-dollar fundraisers in New York and California) actually have a voice in who is elected commander in chief. The author points to George W. Bush as a reminder of the “climate” harm the EC can inflict on the U.S.:

In 2000, George W. Bush was elected U.S. president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. In 2008, the Bush administration released a document on his legacy claiming sweeping protections for the environment while in office.

Yet there was little progress on climate change because the administration resisted it. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. exited the Kyoto agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, declined to regulate carbon dioxide emissions for coal fired power plants under the U.S. Clean Air Act, and worked to limit the authority of regulatory agencies to prevent climate change impacts.

Then he says that Trump is probably the best reason to abolish the EC:

Trump has previously committed to remove the United States from the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation commitments forged in Paris last year. The president-elect has pointed to climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese (a claim that has been widely ridiculed by scientists and the Chinese government itself). Most recently Trump nominated Scott Pruitt, a vocal proponent of the fossil fuel industry and climate change doubter, to run the agency that is responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Trump himself echoed this climate change doubt recently in an interview with Fox News.

Now, for the 30 states that said “I’m NOT with her,” more jobs and fewer regulations are actually good news. The WAPO even contends that:

Trump backing away from climate change action will not be the end of the world. We focus today on the role of the U.S. president to lead on global issues and so we are anxious when that leadership disappears. In the case of climate change, it will be the rest of the world, and millions of leaders, that will move us forward.

He reiterates again that because Bush and Trump were elected, the “electoral college will have a lasting legacy on all of our lives through climate change.” You really can’t make this stuff up.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    jimmmy

    |

    So the Yale lecturer aka climate doomster states:

    **************************************
    In 2000, George W. Bush was elected U.S. president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. In 2008, the Bush administration released a document on his legacy claiming sweeping protections for the environment while in office.

    Yet there was little progress on climate change because the administration resisted it. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. exited the Kyoto agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, declined to regulate carbon dioxide emissions for coal fired power plants under the U.S. Clean Air Act, and worked to limit the authority of regulatory agencies to prevent climate change impacts.
    ****************************************

    In this lecturer’s summary Bush did ‘next-to-nil’, ok – and the resultant of all this was what? How many FEET did the sea level rise on the North American coasts? How many ferocious hurricanes came ashore in the US over the last decade? What was the deleterious effect to the productivity of North American agriculture? How many more deserts were created? What – please tell us what this supposed man-made warming has done – what? I know one most unfortunate resultant to this warming hysteria is the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dead birds and bats secondary to getting slaughtered by all those wind turbines blades. I know of another resultant deleterious effect of supposed man-made global warming is the average tax payer in Ontario Canada is experiencing ‘energy poverty’. The government in that province has so mismanaged the energy file that electricity costs are the highest in North America in order to subsidize wind and solar.

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have hooked up with California in a carbon cap&trade agreement. What else do they have in common? Huge debt. Public service unions hold sway in elections while their pensions are the most lucrative around but are under-funded. Can you hear the money-sucking vacuum? More revenue will only delay the inevitable, default or stiffing their supporters.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.