Isn't the reason why Dubya didn't fire James Hansen and that Trump hasn't fired Gavin Schmidt because good science if important for ...?

Isn't the reason why Dubya didn't fire James Hansen and that Trump hasn't fired Gavin Schmidt because good science if important for national security.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • James
    Lv 5
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I won't argue with good science being important for national security, but I don't think that's why people like Hansen and Schmidt weren't fired even though administration officials (up to the President) would like to silence them. There are employees that serve at the "pleasure of the President" and there are regular civil service employees, and I think that Hansen and Schmidt would fall into the latter category.

    It's very hard to fire a civil service employee without cause, and it's doubtful that any such cause could be found for their firing. Look at Hansen, he has won numerous awards in his field, including essentially the highest award that the American Meteorological Society gives out, so you're not going to fire someone like that for incompetence. There are restrictions on public political activism of public employees, but Hansen did most of that stuff after he left.

    Of course Trump flouts both tradition and the law constantly, so he could certainly TRY to fire Schmidt, but I think it would end up looking very bad for him...although perhaps not worse than firing Comey and Flynn and whoever he's canning today.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    As we all know, investigations take time. Trump has been under investigation for almost a year and a half with no real meat to go with the democrat's small potatoes.

    If you know who the bank robbers are and don't know where the $$$ is, it might be prudent to wait the bank robbers out before you arrest them.

    The "Climate Crooks" have been around for over 35 years. I'm sure Hansen and Mann have stashed the GOLD behind a bunch of scientific minutia, but with time the truth will win the day and Hansen -n- Mann can ride off into the sunset together in their very own, special SUV.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Dubya was incompetent, Trump is both incompetent and vindictive.

    Obama made fun of birther Trump during the whitehouse correspondence dinner (the day he sanction taking out Bin Laden) Trump is paying Obama back by getting rid of Obama's acchivements at the expense of the nation. Trump has been reducing the state department and increasing the military his next step is start a war with North Korea which is expected to cost a lot of lives in both North and South Korea in the hope to boosts his popularity.

    • Lv 6
      3 years agoReport

      LOL! Obama started the "birther" crap in 1991 when he stated that he was born in Kenya. The Hawaii birth certificate is a farce!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    A president cannot "fire" tenured professors.

    Not even a reality TV "you're fired" fake president.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Donald trump fvcked james Hansen in the asss

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    onald Trump’s win in the US Republican presidential nomination race is an indictment of a party. Trump’s opponents have proved time and again to be utterly feeble. Yes, there were too many contenders at the start of the race. But they were all too timid to say difficult things, or to reach out to moderates and independent voters. Instead they were preoccupied with partisan questions rather than the big one – economic insecurity – which helped to drive Trump’s campaign.

    Donald Trump's path to Republican nomination clear as Ted Cruz quits

    Read more

    The rivals mostly looked to the white Anglo-Saxon male past, pandering to the dream that it would return, rather than looking to the future. They made no effort to adapt to the ways in which the Obama years have changed America. And most of them lacked any part of the charisma that, however detestable it may seem in Trump’s case, is an undoubted factor in his triumph.

    And yet – the Republican party is not without money, power and brains. In 2012, after Mitt Romney’s defeat, it produced a powerfully self-critical post-mortem which identified most of the reasons why, for all its success at state level, it had lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections. The party was “increasingly out of touch”, it observed. It had lost young and minority voters. It spent too much time talking to itself. “Instead of driving around in circles in an ideological cul-de-sac,” it said, “we need a party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us.” And it concluded: “Our standard should not be universal purity; it should be a more welcoming conservatism.”

    It’s not as though the Republicans lack any recent example of a politician who, while certainly not perfect, nevertheless attempted with some consistency and success to build bridges to new people outside the Republican tent, not just the guardians of purity within it, to be open to minorities and, in his own way, to look to the future. Plus, not irrelevantly, he won elections. This paragon’s name is George W Bush.

    Just hours after Trump had effectively tied up the nomination, Bush and his father said they would not be endorsing him. You could perhaps put this down to tribal pique, since Trump had rolled over Bush’s brother, Jeb, early in the campaign. But the breach with the Trump campaign is about a much larger difference of political view. Deep down, one suspects, Bush may even be tempted to vote for Hillary Clinton.

    To suggest that the Republican party could look to the younger Bush for inspiration requires some explanation and some extremely important caveats. Bush’s unpopularity at the end of his presidency was a major and absolutely justifiable reason why Obama could win the White House in 2008. The combination of the Iraq war, the early phases of the financial crisis, plus his failures on immigration and health, meant that Bush left office under dark clouds and with most Americans, never mind most Europeans, thoroughly glad to see the back of him.

    After the victory of Donald Trump, right, the Republican party could benefit from a leader with the compassionate conservatism of George W Bush, left.

    Facebook Twitter Pinterest

    After the victory of Donald Trump, right, the Republican party could benefit from a leader with the compassionate conservatism of George W Bush, left. Photograph: Paul J Richards/AFP/Getty Images

    Nevertheless, it is useful to remember that Bush had genuine gifts as a political leader too. He reached out to minorities, in particular to Hispanics. And he spoke for a reasonably well-thought-out vision of compassionate conservatism that was in marked contrast to the slash-and-burn anti-government obsession of the Newt Gingrich era.

    Bush could also, as EJ Dionne has put it, “talk about religion without scaring people”. He had learned from the centrist politics of the Clinton years rather than, as so many of his party did, fixating on Clinton’s real and imagined personal faults. And he won presidential elections: very dubiously in 2000, when Al Gore beat him in the popular vote by half a million; more clearly four years later, by which time his presidency had become defined by the war on terror.

    It is no part of the argument for looking afresh at Bush to advocate a revisionist approach to his response to 9/11, and especially the Iraq war, which was and remains a catastrophic foreign policy adventure. But the pre 9/11 Bush, guided by his key adviser Karl Rove, was a much smarter, more thoughtful and more effective retail politician than he is given credit for nowadays.

    If any of Trump’s rivals had had Bush’s combination of skills and instincts, 2016 might have turned out differently. That hasn’t happened, but it is important to understand why. Bush and Rove took party unity too seriously. They pandered to the core vote too much. Their project was to make conservatism more attractive, not to marginalise or confront it. In the end this meant that their version of Republicanism made far too many compromises with conservatives – just as John Kasich did by imagining that an ultra-conservative like Ted Cruz could somehow unite Indiana Republicans against Trump this week.

    The pre 9/11 Bush was a much smarter and more effective politician than he is given credit for today

    The early example of this in Bush’s presidency was over stem cell research, where Bush capitulated to pro-life conservatives by allowing only the most minimal reform. The most important example, four years later, was his failure on immigration reform, which never got past the anti-Hispanic lobby in the Congress and which fell foul of the party’s increasingly iron rule of putting partisan unity before working with Democrats. The failure on immigration, plus a total unwillingness to deal with healthcare reform, defined Bush’s limits. A decade later, immigration remains the issue the Republicans cannot reform – and, in Trump’s case, have no wish to reform.

    In the end, as Dionne’s book, Why the Right Went Wrong, argues, even Bush was incapable of breaking with the increasing conservative lock on the party’s appeal. Between 1995 and 2015, the proportion of Republicans who defined themselves as “very conservative” nearly doubled to 33%. They were too numerous to ignore but not numerous enough to win. Bush’s failures offended supporters whom he was in any case unwilling to take on. Bush became another in the line of Republicans, starting with Dwight Eisenhower, who were deemed to have betrayed the true conservative faith.

    “The history of contemporary American conservatism is a story of disappointment and betrayal,” writes Dionne. There are echoes here of the Labour party. In the Republican case, however, the conservative lock has been broken by a right-wing nativist revolt behind Trump. Yet if Trump fails, the chances are that he too will find his name on the list of betrayal. But it’s a braver and better version of George W Bush that the Republicans really need.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    "If important for national security"? Uhh, yes, science is VERY important for national security.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • a2yar
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    no, they probably coul not

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    No. Except for the last paragraph, I generally agree with James. Comey is a true scumbag, a swamp creature that needed to fired. Mueller needs to go next. There is a movement in the country, in the Democrat Party, to criminalize any political behavior you don't agree with and Comey and Mueller are part of that apparatchik.

    Dubya never met a spending bill he wouldn't sign. He wasn't a conservative and he wanted to get along. Trump still has time to fire Schmidt but I'm not betting on it. I think Trump is susceptible to alarmists crap which has me concerned about what he is going to do in the future but whatever he does it will be way better than Hillary's Alynskyite propaganda campaign.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Lv 6
      3 years agoReport

      If it wasn't for Trump running for President, Trump would have never won. That's all you said, James.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Marduk
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Who?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.