Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

If you consider animal welfare an important voting issue, I'm afraid Hillary may be your only good option. Trump is looking very bad on this issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/10/11/the-humane-society-calls-a-trump-presidency-a-threat-to-animals-everywhere/
It also takes aim at Forrest Lucas, an oil tycoon who founded a farmers’ advocacy group that fights animal rights organizations; and Bruce Rastetter, an Iowa agribusiness entrepreneur. Both are on Trump’s agricultural advisory committee and are among “a who’s who of zealous anti-animal welfare activists” allied with the candidate, according to Humane Society Legislative Fund President Michael Markarian.

[Hillary Clinton wants you to know how she feels about animals]

Trump “has assembled a team advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries,” Markarian wrote in a blog post announcing the Clinton endorsement.

The president, Markarian noted, has influence over several agencies that create policies that affect animals, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management. Donald Trump Jr., who is seen holding up a severed elephant tail in the Humane Society ad, has expressed interest in joining the Department of the Interior.
http://blog.hslf.org/political_animal/2016/10/the-humane-society-legislative-fund-today-announces-its-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton-for-president-and-the-launch-of-a-new.html
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Post by EquALLity »

Wait- are you telling me that someone who wants to deport millions of people, invade Iraq again, persecute and ban an entire religious group, and who gropes women without their consent and spies on underage teenagers while they're changing doesn't care about animal rights? :o :P

I remember seeing articles about various reputable organizations saying he'd be a disaster for the world and the world economy in general. ...Do you really still think he'd be better than Bernie? ;D

I mean, he's still out there saying climate change is a hoax. There's no reason to believe he'd do anything for it as President even though it's pretty obvious he knows it's a problem. He doesn't really seem to give a shit about the world.
From my understanding, out of all the candidates running, Bernie had the best record on animal welfare.

Don't forget that animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change. Trump having all those people on his panel, combined with the climate denial and statement about cancelling the Paris Climate Agreement and all of Obama's Executive Orders regarding the environment really seems to outweigh Bernie's nuclear issue.

I know Bernie's not running anymore, I'm just saying. ;)
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: I remember seeing articles about various reputable organizations saying he'd be a disaster for the world and the world economy in general. ...Do you really still think he'd be better than Bernie? ;D
Probably, nuclear is a big deal for averting climate change. But Hillary supports it so I don't worry about the difference on that issue.
EquALLity wrote:From my understanding, out of all the candidates running, Bernie had the best record on animal welfare.
I doubt that, I think he buys into the myth of the small farm like Stein does (remember, Sanders and Stein oppose GM). Distributing agriculture back to small farms will probably harm the environment more due to less efficiency, and may be worse for animal welfare because it's harder to regulate and enforce. It also enforces a larger voting block which is dependent on animal agriculture and suffers from a number of cognitive biases because of that, whereas concentrating it makes it a strong lobby but very weak in terms of voter and individual support, and with less people who have been desensitized by farms, probably more vegans. Large industries can also more easily diversify and move into plant based meats, so they don't even have to be defeated so much as shown better options by consumers. Individual farmers are much more difficult to diversify and convert with market forces.
EquALLity wrote:Don't forget that animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change.
I don't believe any candidate will mean people eating less meat. The question is mostly just one of how animals are treated, without compromising environmental efficiency, and Hillary is probably the best on that front, supporting welfare but not in the way of Stein or Sanders with the intent of sending production back to small farms.
EquALLity wrote:Trump having all those people on his panel, combined with the climate denial and statement about cancelling the Paris Climate Agreement and all of Obama's Executive Orders regarding the environment really seems to outweigh Bernie's nuclear issue.
How do you compute that? Regarding climate change, wanting a moratorium on nuclear power easily outweighs all of those things in the states. Are you thinking about emissions in other countries that Trump might affect by violating treaties?
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Probably, nuclear is a big deal for averting climate change. But Hillary supports it so I don't worry about the difference on that issue.
Germany isn't doing as well as (nuclear) France, but it has done a lot to reduce emissions with non-nuclear forms of renewable energy.

Bernie also isn't calling it a hoax.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I doubt that, I think he buys into the myth of the small farm like Stein does (remember, Sanders and Stein oppose GM). Distributing agriculture back to small farms will probably harm the environment more due to less efficiency, and may be worse for animal welfare because it's harder to regulate and enforce. It also enforces a larger voting block which is dependent on animal agriculture and suffers from a number of cognitive biases because of that, whereas concentrating it makes it a strong lobby but very weak in terms of voter and individual support, and with less people who have been desensitized by farms, probably more vegans. Large industries can also more easily diversify and move into plant based meats, so they don't even have to be defeated so much as shown better options by consumers. Individual farmers are much more difficult to diversify and convert with market forces.
He literally has, though. He recently received a 100% from the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

I'm not sure how you think Bernie is going to make farms small, but I don't agree with that analysis.

The financial power that factory farming has is why it isn't regulated. Smaller companies with less power would be regulated easier.

Why does efficiency matter? They are efficiently destroying the planet.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't believe any candidate will mean people eating less meat. The question is mostly just one of how animals are treated, without compromising environmental efficiency, and Hillary is probably the best on that front, supporting welfare but not in the way of Stein or Sanders with the intent of sending production back to small farms.
More regulations -> less money for the industry -> less meat.
brimstoneSalad wrote:How do you compute that? Regarding climate change, wanting a moratorium on nuclear power easily outweighs all of those things in the states. Are you thinking about emissions in other countries that Trump might affect by violating treaties?
I don't think that's so clear, because Bernie also plans to increase usage of things like wind and solar energy, and wants more strong climate treaties and doesn't deny climate change.
Yeah, wind and solar have issues and don't solve the problem on their own, but there is a step forward involved in his plan.

And I see no reason to consider Trump's statements about nuclear energy and his support of it reliable given his constant flip flopping.

Other countries are a huge deal regarding this also. If the United States pulls out, why on Earth would China etc. stay in?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Trump Presidency "a threat to animals everywhere"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Germany isn't doing as well as (nuclear) France, but it has done a lot to reduce emissions with non-nuclear forms of renewable energy.
Has it, or has it just exported all of its energy intensive industries, and imported energy, both electric and embodied?
These countries aren't self contained.

Keep in mind we can't just reduce our carbon emissions marginally or export them to other countries to produce like a cups game. We have to eliminate them and engage in net carbon capture.
EquALLity wrote: Bernie also isn't calling it a hoax.
Trump happily flip flopped on that one in the debate, didn't he?
I don't think he actually rejects climate change.
Anyway, It's pretty much irrelevant if Sanders would halt our nuclear power generation.
EquALLity wrote: He literally has, though. He recently received a 100% from the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
Are you talking about this?
http://www.hslf.org/assets/pdfs/humane-scorecard/humane-scorecard-2014.pdf

Sanders took an anti-animal position on one vote, and was the lead sponsor of nothing. They're apparently grading on a curve there, many people have over 100 points (100+), and 100 points is relatively common among democrats.

http://www.hslf.org/assets/pdfs/humane-scorecard/humane-scorecard-2015-final.pdf

Here he got an 86, so it looks like his track record is getting worse, not better.
hslf wrote:Bernie Sanders: Like Clinton, Sanders has been a consistent supporter of animal protection.
As a House member, he earned a 58 on the Humane Scorecard for the 103rd Congress,
75 in the 104th, 60 in the 108th and 100 in both the 106th and 109th Congresses. As a
senator, he scored 100 in the 110th, 112th and 113th Congresses, 89 in the 111th and 86 in
the most recent session. He co-led a bill to phase out invasive research on chimpanzees and
retire them to sanctuary. Sanders is currently co-sponsoring legislation to protect pets from
domestic violence, ban horse slaughter for human consumption, create a felony penalty for
malicious animal cruelty and crack down on horse soring abuses.
It's not an unusual track record, and the things he sponsored are populist issues that represent a minute amount of animal cruelty. Clinton has done far more for animals:
hslf wrote:Hillary Clinton: In the U.S. Senate, Clinton was a strong
and consistent supporter of animal protection policies, earning
a score of 100 on the Humane Scorecard in the 108th Congress, a
perfect 100+ score in the 109th and an 83 in the 110th. Clinton co-sponsored legislation on
horse slaughter and animal fighting, as well as bills to stop the processing of “downer” livestock
and to crack down on abusive puppy mills. She also offered an amendment to curb overuse
of antibiotics on factory farms. As Secretary of State, Clinton led international efforts to
combat wildlife trafficking.
Much better average score.
http://www.hslf.org/may_june_2016.pdf

EquALLity wrote: I'm not sure how you think Bernie is going to make farms small, but I don't agree with that analysis.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-agriculture/

He's all about the family farms. And anti-GMO, of course, which will help destroy the environment. Not as bad as Stein, but pretty bad.
How has Bernie helped farmers?
As a senator, Bernie has been active in keeping family farms in business, fighting for fair prices for goods and encouraging access to healthy, local food. He has fought particularly hard for Vermont’s dairy farms, supporting numerous bills for their aid including the Farm Bill of 2014 — an effort to stabilize these farms by helping them manage risk and produce more efficiently. He has encouraged schools to use local products in meal programs and advocated for farmers markets. Bernie also supports the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011, a bill that would expand and improve opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers as well as institute several responsible environmental provisions.
He IS one of those assholes who are using political pressure to put dairy into everything.
He's a steadfast supporter of animal agriculture. He just wants to close factory farms, offering subsidies and programs to promote animal agriculture to small farmers and get more people into killing animals, which will only result in lower environmental efficiency and more pollution.

If Sanders wants to make distributed small farms more viable than the larger ones, he's going to have to pour mountains of money into them through subsidies (more than is currently given to large farms), which seems to be his plan.
EquALLity wrote: The financial power that factory farming has is why it isn't regulated. Smaller companies with less power would be regulated easier.
Voting blocks of farmers calling their representatives and supporting them with votes relative to the subsidies they get and the regulation they're defended from are why.
Numerous small farmers form trade associations to lobby with, but they also represent more individual votes, which makes them inherently more powerful than corporations that can only rely on the votes of a handful of people. They are a voting block, not just money. Grass roots is far less movable.

Nothing becomes easier when these things are decentralized, except cutting corners, evading regulation and hiding abuses because inspectors have too many farms to inspect that are spread out across the country.
A hundred thousand cows on one site is easy to inspect. A hundred cows on a thousand sites across the country is impossible.
EquALLity wrote: Why does efficiency matter? They are efficiently destroying the planet.
And the small farms will more efficiently destroy the planet, as well as more efficiently desensitize people to animal agriculture. I don't believe the myth that they are more humane. This writer seems to, but recognizes other issues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/small-vs-large-which-size-farm-is-better-for-the-planet/2014/08/29/ac2a3dc8-2e2d-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html
The idea that we should replace the large, polluting farms with the small, diversified farms ignores what might be the best solution: Get the large farms to stop polluting.
The important point from a practicality perspective is that's something that can actually be done. I know you think money is everything and controls the government, but you're mistaken on that premise; constituents are far more powerful than industry, and when you organize them they'll dominate government and take what they want.
EquALLity wrote: More regulations -> less money for the industry -> less meat.
More subsidies -> more money for the industry -> more meat.
More people working in the industry -> more votes for the industry -> more subsidies and more meat

This is Sanders' dream. Organic small family farmed meat on every plate, which he thinks is healthy, where people just ignore the abuses that occur to the animals because there's no possible way to provide oversight, and where nobody cares about the environment because it's natural so it must be clean and healthy.
EquALLity wrote: I don't think that's so clear, because Bernie also plans to increase usage of things like wind and solar energy, and wants more strong climate treaties and doesn't deny climate change.
Yeah, wind and solar have issues and don't solve the problem on their own, but there is a step forward involved in his plan.
Trump expanding nuclear like Bush did would be better and faster. The payoff is much better with nuclear. Solar isn't really practical, and you know the intermittency problems with these alternatives.
EquALLity wrote:And I see no reason to consider Trump's statements about nuclear energy and his support of it reliable given his constant flip flopping.
He's pretty consistent on the issue, it's a standard Republican position, and he's actually right on that one thing, so there's no reason to think fabricated evidence against it would be persuasive.
EquALLity wrote:Other countries are a huge deal regarding this also. If the United States pulls out, why on Earth would China etc. stay in?
If the US abandons nuclear power and declares it dangerous, won't the world follow?
Post Reply