There are two exceptions since Teddy. Ronald Reagen who I give high marks on most things. He was a spender, so was his wife. Outside of big spending he was a move in the right direction.

Calvin Coolidge cut government but more than 50% and dealt with the crash of 1920 in a very free market way, that's why we had the roaring 20ies rather than a depression. He was, IMO the best president of the last 100 years or so.

With those two exceptions I agree. Wilson and Obama are really close between who was worse, but they are clearly the two presidents who have done the most damage to individualism and free trade.

You do not live in the US, or on plannet earth. I may not agree with them, and may think they are dumb but I also have to live with them.

" the second is answered as being something we need to adapt to rather than something that will end the earth"
I agree with this. We would need to adapt some even if, contrary to our current understanding, human activities had no impact on climate. The cycle of glaciation has been going on since long before industry and before humans.

There is nothing to the "end the earth" thing. I don't know if that's just people with an honest misunderstanding of the science or a straw man invented by people who want to ignore the science. The earth will be here long after anatomically modern humans are gone.

In my mind there's no question. The current scientific understanding, ignoring wishful thinking, is the answers are
a) A significant part of it is cause by human activities, probably more than half.
b) Yes
My question is how to calculate the best way to deal with it. If we went back to a preindustrial existence, it might only cut the problem in half. But I think the science is unclear on this point. My understanding is we're not sure if human activities are just causing the present period of deglaciation to go faster or if it's fundamentaly changing the current ice age (oscillation between glaciation and deglacation that we we've been in for a million years). We need this answer so we can calculate the costs of human activities on future generations.

Or we could just bury our heads in the sand and pretend like it's not real.

Decades ago, I participated in a Pentagon study called "Weather War." That study evaluated how we might influence the weather for a brief period to favor our military objectives. When the amount of chemicals and other material necessary to cause even a slight weather modification like "fog on demand" started reaching a trillion tons or more, we summarily pronounced the idea as a waste of time. Given that experience, and the fact that even deliberate enormous expenditure of effort had only minimal effect on near term environmental behavior, I have been amazed at how gullible the general public has been to unquestioningly swallow the fantasy that human influence on long term climate can be significant. Like Rachel Carson's persistent lies about DDT, human deception seems to have more disastrous effect than the natural environment.

I did not know that (I was terrible in history), but every President since Roosevelt has allowed much, if not all, of that agenda to remain intact.

What does that say about our Presidents, since?

Cruz often uses the very effective illustration of the EU VAT as what can happen if you open the door to a Federal sales tax before abolishing the 16th Amendment that permits taxing income. It's also one of the lesser disagreements he has with Marco Rubio, who's proposed an American VAT.

Given the choice between Rubio or Cruz, I would support Cruz, because he's a staunch supporter of "originalism," the belief that government must abide by the original arguments of the writers of the Constitution, or seek legal modification of those arguments through the amendment process. Rubio is the real "anti-Trump," in that he's a very smooth, persuasive speaker that hides his real intent in an attempt to appeal to the broadest audience.

The all or nothing approach may be the only one that does work, XR. I do see your point of view, but that approach is the opposite of the one that successful negotiators employ. Whatever is asked for will likely be compromised. When New Zealand stepped back from the abyss of socialism 30 years ago the prime minister and his team had the wisdom to go for the throat of the enemy on many issues. They forced the enemy to accept capitalism and saved their economy, at least temporarily. That's another reason to go for elimination of the income tax: the results will be so overwhelmingly good. Half measures won't be a resounding success and will just give the enemy the excuse to reverse them as soon as they regain enough seats in congress.

It won't matter, XR. The GOP masters will only select a candidate they can control, and they can' control an ethical man. If Cruz is selcted he will have been compromised and will do what he is told to do by his statist masters. That's why Gary Johnson runs as a Libertarian. That's why you and "your people" should have the integrity to vote for the principles of individual liberty and free markets that libertarians support and the GOP betrays.

Let me clarify something here, as I have likely combined two seperate statements into one.

Cruz specifical called out the EPA as a department he would remove. He separately stated that departments created by executive order are unconstitutional and would be removed by executive order as they were created. Two seperate statements that are not necisarily related.

Thanks for the info on the EPA.

agreed.

the question is really:
a) Is global climate change caused by man?
b) Is global climate change a problem for man?

In my view the first question is more likely answered no, and the second is answered as being something we need to adapt to rather than something that will end the earth.

I too wonder exactly how much. I doubt anyone knows as some of it would likely be deemed classified. Just the UN chunk alone has to huge, I would bet in the half trillion a year range. a 100 million to buy of country a, 50 million a year to buy off country B, 150 million a year or so to keep Greece from total collapse... Glen Beck put together the Greek number and walked through where he got it from but that had multiple channels just for that 150million number and he said there was likely more that he could not find a trail on.

It would not surprise me if our foreign subsidies were close to or possibly slightly over 1 trillion in total.

I think he's got about 80% of it right.
We are going to witness an interesting thing with the death of Scalia. If the senate allows Obama to get away with a leftist nominee, we'll quickly know what they are full of, bull, dog or chicken.

All of the GOP candidates have stated they will use executive action to undo as much of Obama's unconstitutional initiatives as possible immediately, so Trump isn't that different. The word he uses more than anyone else is "negotiate." He seems more aware than most of the candidates that the Chief Executive has to be more of a diplomat than an autocrat when dealing with Congress.

This would be nice, but it's not true.

There is NO global warming. If anything, we need to worry about global cooling. As quiet as it's kept, the SUN is the driver of climate, not a gas that's a fraction of 1% of the total. Further, getting rid of the EPA will release the economy from the tyranny of the eco gangs, and free up whole swaths of the economy, especially as it pertains to energy and natural resources.

" that is a huge chunk of the budget pie."
I wonder how much. Maybe more than I think. The joke is that all politicians want to balance the budget without raising taxes or touching Social Security and Medicare, the military, or any benefits related to miitary.

I used to think that Republicans were a little slow; they were always being outclassed by the sly democrats. I had to finally admit that they're being constantly outclassed because they want the same thing as the dems, bigger government, just with the money distributed a bit differently. Neither wants small government, without subsidies, special interests, welfare, etc. It's probably going to take a new party to get to where we want to go, and that's not going to be this year.

While the only one Cruz has said anything specific about was the EPA, he stated anything created by executive order. I think the Federal departments of education and urban development both fall under that category, others may as well.

He told people in Iowa that the corn subsidies and subsidies of any kind would be removed while campaigning there. If that truly includes all subsidies of any kind, those of international flavor and UN flavor as well as domestic, that is a huge chunk of the budget pie.

Herb,

Appricate your comments. I to wish Cruz would dial back the religion in his proclamations, but at the same time like him more for it. Its part of who he is, its not the most expedient way to speak or behave and it causes him problems, but it shows he will state what he thinks and believes and do what he says. I find that very refreshing.