Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

>He let Chris Christie pick out tons of corporate lobbyists, so he knew exactly who to fire
The 4D chess isn't over, is it? I want off Mr. 2016's wild ride.

"Do you see the issue with prioritizing the ends too much over the means?"

What ends do you mean here?

"For me, the issue isn’t just that he’s a businessman with a one-track mind in achieving his goals (economic or otherwise). But he’s one that lacks tact as well. If you disrespect a business or partner that you hold more leverage over than they hold on you, then that approach helps you become dominant."

Okay, well, if he treats his presidency with the same kind of business manners he has to build his empire, then whatever the amount of "tact" he uses is more than enough.

"In politics though, your businesses and partners take affronts personally, whether they should or not. Trump probably could strongarm in a lot of matters, because his “business” is the United States now. It doesn’t get much bigger. But say the wrong thing to the wrong country (maybe even a close ally of the wrong country,) and it could cost us all."

Cost us all what? With who? You do realize that no matter what relationship you define the US under with any nation, WE are the dominant ones? I mean this is a pretty big assumption, and I'd like some clear examples of who you feel it can co st us with?

"…do you think Trump, compared to other potential leaders, is likely to say something to offend another group of people?"

Depending on which group of people. You do realize that no leader in the US had universal love an admiration – right? I'm not particularly threatened, or worried about a President that offends people. That to me is insignificant to how that President's policies affect the economic, and thus domestic well being.

I stand by that a businessman or a mogul, is a hell of a lot better equipped and prepared to handle that than a community organizer, a lawyer, or a politician that makes 200,000 for a speech.

In the election, I voted for Johnson, who also has a lot of business know hows, and has translated that to a generally good governorship.

"I’d think so. Heck, some people voted for him, because they liked that about him.
Should that happen, it won’t get Likes on Twitter. It might just piss off people who are already unhappy with the US."

Like who? Europe? China? Russia?

"I don’t think our leverage in the course of the next 4 years will be so great that Trump can strongarm for whatever we need without taking the needs and wants of other countries into account."

Our leverage in global affairs to the biggest hit in the longest time under President Obama.

Undermining our Allies in the Mid-East and giving a massive financial boost to a major Middle East player, Iran, who happens to also be a major destabalizing force in the mid-East told our other allies around the globe that you know what, if it comes to US interests, we are more than happy to put you under the bus.

Or drawing a line in the sand for Syria to cross, and then doing absolutely nothing when they did sent clear message to the world that we simply are not going to protect you.

Not making a bigger stance in Ukraine which we SWORE to do in the early 90s?

But hell! He can get a Nobel Peace Prize, eh?

"That’s why I’m concerned with his personality about prioritizing the bottom line too much and being callous to those ends. That’s business. It might not work in politics."

Whether it works in politics or not, is irrelevant. If he set's a business friendly agenda; i.e lower taxes, better trade policies, less regulation, or encourage business lending, he only needs the already Republican majority to set out the legislation.

Politics matters the most when he's running for office (he isn't. He won.) and when he needs to negotiate with the other side to pass his agenda (and he has both house and senate on his side).

At this point, his demeanor towards whoever isn't nearly as relevent as to what he actually accomplishes.

At best, we would have a major economic boom.
At worst, nothing much will change.

I want an alternative grass roots movement to rise up in my party

{ But say the wrong thing to the wrong country (maybe even a close ally of the wrong country,) and it could cost us all. }

lol the country that chants "death to America" during its Friday afternoon prayers has gotten every point they asked for out of the first world recently. Where in the international rule book does it say you have to play nice, because from how I see it the countries playing nice are being overrun by foreign immigrants who have no intention of assimilating while leeching off the taxpayers who are racist if they think this is unfair, while the countries who don't have a single fuck to spare are expanding their political influence and military power as the first world leaders watch passively.

It is funny how to most of the left it's the United States and Western World, with its legalization of gay marriage, protection of all people regardless of religion, skin color, or sexual identity, laws prohibiting discrimination, and equal treatment under the law, that are the evil oppressors who need to be stopped.

But the middle east, with its boarder-line theocratic states, religiously dominated laws and government, open discrimination of woman, execution of anyone who isn't straight and Islamic, endorsed caste system, and endorsed slaughter of non-believers, who are the ones who need to be encouraged, protected, and celebrated in the world as an example of what the world aught to be.

But this is old news by now. It's not even worth getting angry about anymore, because it won't make a difference to change their mind or make them see any form of reason that's not their own.

Five Year Lobbying Ban for Trump Appointees

"Anyone who is appointed to Donald Trump’s administration will be banned from becoming a paid lobbyist for five years after leaving the White House, his transition office announced Wednesday night.

Trump aide Sean Spicer announced the lobbying ban on a hastily arranged conference call with reporters, the Trump team’s first since last week’s election. All appointees will be required to sign a form agreeing to abide by the ban before starting work.

Throughout the campaign, the president-elect vowed to “drain the swamp” of Washington, partly by decreasing the role of lobbyists and “special interests” in policymaking. Spicer said this is the first step toward that goal.

The Obama administration has its own ban in place. Anyone who had been a registered lobbyist in the prior two years is prohibited from joining -- unless they get a waiver. Former Obama administration officials have also been banned from lobbying the White House."

Where in the international rule book does it say you have to play nice?

…Oh, I just considered it common sense to not piss off other countries. It's not mutually exclusive to sound foreign policy doctrine.
 
But before anything else, I don't really care if immigrants don't want to assimilate. Should we force them to? And if they don't, do we make them leave? Because they're not like us? I'm not sure if I see your point there.

Are the Muslims leeching, or are the Latinos leeching? Both? Honestly, I don't mind. I prefer to pay more in taxes anyway, and I'm not really in danger of going broke. And I don't make a ton of money.

And Trump's approach working with non-ally countries would be unprecedented, because he's not a politician or a military person.

That could be…incredibly…good…possibly?

But considering the history of the country and how it became a world power, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that something entirely different for the sake of being entirely different is something I should be worried about. I should be skeptical. I think we all should be. I think most of you were skeptical of President Obama for the same reasons, but at least he had some political experience and acumen.

Is that unreasonable?

"But before anything else, I don’t really care if immigrants don’t want to assimilate. Should we force them to? And if they don’t, do we make them leave? Because they’re not like us? I’m not sure if I see your point there."

You don't force them to. You just make it so it's exceptionally harder to get ahead in this country unless you assimilate. And in fact, most immigrants DO assimilate, to a large large extent. You don't have to make them leave if they can't assimilate, they will leave on their own, when, and if, they feel that it is far easier to live in a country more aligned with their cultural norms.

"Are the Muslims leeching, or are the Latinos leeching? Both? Honestly, I don’t mind. I prefer to pay more in taxes anyway, and I’m not really in danger of going broke. And I don’t make a ton of money."

It's great that you don't mind paying more taxes, good for you. The IRS certainly will not mind you giving them more than what they demand out of you. Out of curiosity, do you pay more than what is required? Or the bare minimum of what the IRS demands?

And even if you do. Why does that mean that I should be imposed on paying more taxes? Especially if someone like me believes that the same higher taxes are actually making it harder for immigrants?

"And Trump’s approach working with non-ally countries would be unprecedented, because he’s not a politician or a military person.
That could be…incredibly…good…possibly?"

No, he's a businessman, and a negotiator. He will approach countries from that perspective. As I said before, I am interested more in the economic well being of this country; that translates to more job opportunity, more job stability, socio-economic prosperity, and better quality of life, for a vast majority of people, including minority groups who are hit the hardest.

"But considering the history of the country and how it became a world power, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that something entirely different for the sake of being entirely different is something I should be worried about."

Do tell: how is it that you view this country rose in being a world power?

" think most of you were skeptical of President Obama for the same reasons, but at least he had some political experience and acumen."

a few years of being a Junior Senator and a community organizer does not make an experienced politician. Regardless, I bring up again how Obama handled foreign policy, the largest element of any Presidency. He's done more to tarnish American image where it counts, than many other Presidents before him.

Oh, that was all for Lisa, Chewybunny. Hers was just a shorter post, so I responded to it first before going to bed.

You have a couple of inconsistencies in your counter like saying that foreign policy is the most important aspect but saying you're most concerned about the economy or not acknowledging that I never said Obama was very experienced but only that he had political experience whereas Trump does not.

But I'll come back to all of that if I have time.

{ I just considered it common sense to not piss off other countries }

& I'm asking you why you think that, when so few other countries make an attempt not to piss other countries off? The world is not just Europe and the USA, there are multiple world leaders out there who have made clear they have no intention of talking. What have we done in response? Appease and pull out. Noo nooo, it's okay Iran, it's okay that your leader openly incites violence against us, you go ahead and keep on launching missiles. China, poor bby, pls don't mind those naysayers in the rest of Asia, we'll move our warships out the way so you can keep doing you.

{ I’m not really in danger of going broke. }

Who cares about you personally going broke? The horde of 'refugees' we and Europe have taken in are a massive drain on social services, which already hemorrhage money in this country. Veterans are killing themselves outside VA hospitals after being denied care, homeless citizens are dying in puddles of their own piss on sidewalks in San Fransisco, but we're putting immigrants in hotels and giving them free doctors. All of these resources magically found for the invaders when our own people have been suffering. The hypocrisy is not lost on this country, it's been one of Trump's talking points since the primaries.

{ I don’t really care if immigrants don’t want to assimilate }

Assimilation is a fundamentally necessary part of immigrating. It doesn't mean abandoning your culture, it means incorporating it into ours. It means you don't pull your 14 year old niece out of school by her hair because she didn't want to wear a hijab anymore. The DoJ commissioned a study to investigate the rapid rise of honor violence in the USA. We hadn't had an honor crime since 1989, now we have almost 30 a year from the people who are supposedly moving here to escape that very culture.

It's not something entirely different for the sake of being entirely different, it's something entirely different to the passive first world for the sake of dealing with the increasingly aggressive third. 8 years we've been putting the kids in time out corners, we gave 'good cop' a solid go, but now they're going to get a beating.

I don't t hink I ever said that foreign policy is the most important. The economy is to me, and I stand by that assertion. Foreign policy tends to play hand in hand with our economy i.e better foreign trade policies would make it better for the US. I only bring up foreign policy because you keep referring to it, our relationship with other nations. We, the US, should be negotiating from a position of strength, and not be afraid to resort to tactics to push our agenda.

For example, we have more Chinese spies in Los Angeles than we do FBI. You want to put an end to China's problematic dealings with our trade laws? Easy! Put an army of FBI agents into the port of Long Beach, CA, and tell them to make "thorough" investigation of all cargo ships coming from China. The logistical backlog of ships waiting to dock would become so astronomical, it would send immediate economic damage to the Chinese mainland – literally, at the cost of BILLIONS a day. And it's not like you are declaring an act of war, or telling them anything provocative. Any country is within it's rights to inspect incoming cargo.

Trump will be meeting with Romney this weekend. It's rumored to be about the Secretary of State position. Giuliani and South Carolina Governor and rising Republican star Nikki Haley are also in the running.

Verbose said:

…common sense to not piss off other countries.

If you really know what you're doing, pissing them off is a great strategy. Just ask Bismark. Of course, I don't think anyone these days is even close to Bismark-tier when it comes to foreign policy and certainly not Romney.

I don’t really care if immigrants don’t want to assimilate. Should we force them to? And if they don’t, do we make them leave? Because they’re not like us?

I say it's part of the deal. You don't assimilate and stay in your little ethnic bubble and it risks the very fabric of national unity. Yugoslavia didn't just implode because Tito died, it imploded because the various groups refused to blend together--refused to assimilate as one country--and clenched onto their ethnic identity long after the NATO bombs stopped falling.

Thankfully, I don't see assimilation as a massive issue. First generation immigrants always struggle to fully adapt, but as generations pass, the blending of cultures and identities is nearly inevitable. I think the only big risk is if those first generation immigrants actively try to prevent their children from blending with the culture at large.

"Trump will be meeting with Romney this weekend. It’s rumored to be about the Secretary of State position"

This is the third person rumored to be up for SoS, the others being Rudy Giuliani and Nikki Haley.

None of these quite make sense. Giuliani's been a Trump surrogate from very early on, but seems a more natural fit as Attorney General. Romney and Haley were both outspoken opponents of Trump and campaigned against him.

It's only a hunch, but I get the feeling a lot of these rumors are disinformation coming from the Trump team. All of these people might be part of the Trump administration, but in different roles than what is being reported.

Remember, Trump is the guy who tricked the media into covering an event where dozens of Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients endorsed him. He's very good at getting the media to follow the shiny ball and in the process do his bidding.

Why would he be doing this? To maintain some secrecy during the interview and vetting process? To force the media to dump whatever negative stories they have on potential picks? To keep attention on the transition team? To troll the media?

4-D chess.

NEW REPORT

>The mystery of Hillary Clinton, milk-carton missing on election night, appears solved.
>A Tuesday of catharsis for Donald Trump voters turned into an evening of rage for Hillary Clinton. The Democratic presidential nominee, anticipating the postelection reaction of many of her supporters, began shouting profanities, banging tables, and turning objects not nailed down into projectiles.
>“Sources have told The American Spectator that on Tuesday night, after Hillary realized she had lost, she went into a rage,” R. Emmett Tyrrell reports. “Secret Service officers told at least one source that she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage.”
>The appearance of campaign chairman John Podesta at Manhattan’s Javitz Center, and the dematerialization of his heretofore ubiquitous charge, perplexed in the first hours of Wednesday.
>“They’re still counting votes, and every vote should count,” Podesta declared to a sad and stunned hall. “Several states are too close to call, so we’re not going to have anything more to say tonight.”
>Tyrrell’s reporting indicates that Mrs. Clinton’s mental state made it impossible for her to address her supporters on election night as custom requests. So, instead, Podesta gave a rah-rah speech on a boo-hoo night to cover for the absence of the first woman president, her fireworks, and her victory speech shout-outs to the mothers of the Black Lives Matter martyrs.
https://archive.is/Sjv8z

^ That story comes from the pro-Trump American Spectator, which only cites "sources". I can't find any third party verification of this story. Be careful what you believe.

Mr. Trump met with the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. Mr. Abe stated afterward that the meeting convinced him that Trump was a President-elect “with whom I can have great confidence in.” It's good to see the US bringing its allies on board with its soon to be administration.

Guy in Trump hat assaulted on NYC subway.

Trump says his election convinced Ford to reverse plans to move Kentucky factory to China, Ford confirms.

{ “We are encouraged that President-elect Trump and the new Congress will pursue policies that will improve U.S. competitiveness and make it possible to keep production of this vehicle here in the U.S.,” the automaker said in an e-mailed statement. }

Revealed that in June, Apple asked their two largest manufacturers to investigate manufacturing iPhones in the USA.

{ Sharp President Tai Jeng-wu, right-hand man to Foxconn's Gou, also hinted in late October that if Apple eventually decided to produce in the U.S., he would have no option but to follow his customer's instructions.

"We are now building a new [advanced organic light-emitting diode] facility in Japan. We can make [OLED panels] in the U.S. too," he said. "If our key customer demands us to manufacture in the U.S., is it possible for us not to do so?"

"Politics will trump cost concerns in the end," the industry executive familiar with iPhone's production process said. "The Apple supply chain must treat Trump's campaign pledge seriously and not write it off." }

Sessions, the only senator to endorse Trump right from the start, is in as Attorney General. He was a DoJ prosecutor for 15 years, so he's got experience. He's also been quite critical of Obama's DoJ.

And, in "I wonder how much crazier the far left can act" news, Michigan's electors have been receiving death threats over their legally binding vote for Trump. (They automatically resign and their vote is null and void if they don't vote for Trump.)

Rick Perry's currently slated for Energy Secretary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Department of Energy the one department Perry forgot the name of when he was listing departments he wanted to abolish?

#NotMyPresident has been doxxing electors all week.

Yes. So more than likely he will sit there and do jack all and let people get away with things that the Department of Energy should be stopping.

Just like everyone else who gets put into the head of departments they think should be abolished.

The cast of "Hamilton" decided to lecture the Vice President-elect on how he's a racist, this is the same cast that praised Hillary Clinton. I ♡ NY

Reminder that in Elizabethan England, actors were sometimes thrown out of the city after performing. Their opinions should still matter little today.

The past eight years the DoEn done nothing but burn taxpayer dollars funding wind and solar farms that continue to go bankrupt despite half a billion dollar grants because the technology simply isn't there, or is being developed by private industry which lowers costs which lowers the price which means all those had2have $50,000 solar panels bought the year before are now worth $10. Perry supports alternative energy anyway, but he thinks restricting fossil fuels before another energy source can fully support us is retarded (it is). Regularly says we should be combining all sources of energy (nuclear, coal, solar, geothermal, etc) into a more sustainable blend.

{ let people get away with things that the Department of Energy should be stopping. }

…liikkkeeee? Its jurisdiction is federal energy contractors and all they do is sue/collect penalties from companies who sell products that go over our energy consumption limits (because those limits, just like greenhouse gas emission limits, don't actually limit anything, they just establish a number you have to pay the government to go over). They're not going to start ignoring that and let the million dollar payouts end.

Media elites think they're getting briefing on Presidential press pool access, multiple sources say what they thought was a meeting became a "fucking firing squad" instead.

{ “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed.’ ”

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars."

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

“Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. }

starts slow clap

And tomorrow (today!), he will be conferencing with the New York Times. This is going to be fun.

Cancelled with NYT, says they wanted an on the record meeting unlike all the other news orgs and Trump would not play ball.

Three more college students have been caught in hate crime hoaxes.

Black student lied about three guys in Trump shirts assaulting her by throwing rocks.

Two Williams College students vandalize Griffin Hall with red wood stain, paint KKK slogans on the wall, college protects their identities and excuses them saying they were just trying to bring attention to the election and didn't really threaten anybody.

Spicy pranks gone wrong, gone racist.

Video message from Trump regarding the transition process and policy plans for his first 100 days in office:

Besides the focus on less regulation on oil and coal, it all sounded good to me. Hopefully he'll change his mind or at least focus on better other quality high paying energy jobs like Nuclear, solar, wind, etc. I don't see why focusing on coal is more important than safer green energy.

Coal industry is going to die off. Natural gas and other energy generation methods are become far more effective and cheaper. Plus many of them do not fall under threat from a Carbon Tax.

The reason he wants to support Coal is because rust belt America had a lot of factories and coal mines back in the day which closed up and left after American labor got too expensive. They think lowering the regulations on the coal industry will bring the jobs back even though coal is a dying energy source anyway. Really we should be establishing green energy manufacturing plants in the rust belt since those will be more useful and last longer.

Though a ton of manufacturing and low skill jobs will be replaced by machines within the next 10 years (I've heard 2/3rds of the low skill jobs). So Rust belt America is pretty much doomed simply because of progress.

{ we should be establishing green energy manufacturing plants }

The ones that keep going bankrupt despite being floated by millions of dollars in taxpayer grants and subsidies? Why?

He's supporting coal because it's still where we get the majority of our energy, closely followed by natural gas (price of which is rising btw). ok build green energy parts manufacturing plants and regulate fossil fuels out of existence, but don't bitch when your electric bill costs more than your rent.

Its cheaper to enslave people and have them do manual labor, but we don't do that because of ethics. Should be the same with coal. Even if you don't believe in climate change, you can look at china and see what pollution has done to that country, you can't even see the sun on some days because of the fog. Coal shouldn't be seen as an ethical choice.

Lisa, do you have problems with nuclear energy? That is both green and clean. Unless you build a plant on a fault line or use mud and twigs to build one, it is perfectly safe too.

Slave labor is how your laptop got made in China for free then imported back into America with no penalty and sold to you at an exuberant markup thanks to corporate interest trade deals, it is not how our union miners extract coal.

We have clean coal regulations and emission filter standards. China and India are pumping it practically unfiltered back into the atmosphere, on top of all the industrial chemicals they use which have been banned or heavily limited here. The only thing unethical going on here is your apples to orange comparison.

I have less problems with nuclear (which is not as cut and dry green/clean/safe as you believe), but we're talking about why coal is being supported. There's a huge social stigma in this country surrounding nuclear, and the horde of lemmings/celebrities/sperm that should have stayed sperm rapidly turning into terrorists in North Dakota have even bigger problems with nuclear reactors above their groundwater than oil pipelines.

>"We have clean coal regulations and emission filter standards."

Which Trump apparently wants to get rid of.

See we're going into a mini ice age, it might be the only way to keep the world from freezing up.

We should burn some piles of tires too to help keep us warm.

The histrionic IPCC led climate accord that calls for a near complete reduction of CO2 emissions that Trump opposes and the overreaching regulations pushed by liberal environmentalists that followed have nothing to do with our long established anti-pollution regs.

& we're leaving an ice age.

I don't know about you Lisa, It feels like we're going into on. That and the solar observers are reporting a long quiet spell from the sun.

That's a solar minimum, there was one a couple hundred years ago they called the Merander Minimum or something that sounds like that. It's why we used to get 15-20ft snow banks across the country in the 1800s. It's a weather event tho, it has nothing to do with the climate.

More media embarrassment over Trump's picks… CNN guest says the N word uncensored live on air insisting its a regular part of Bannon's vocabulary. But the media has been unable to uncover any quotes or speeches attributed to Bannon which include that word. CNN has not issued an apology or clarification stating there's no proof he's ever used the word.

also: editor of Politico resigns after posting the home address of NPI prez Richard Spencer and advocating people go 'exercise your right as decent Americans' by assaulting him with baseball bats.

Trump also did end up going to the NYT meet, first an off the record meeting with the editor or owner or whoever, then on the record with the journos and reporters who will be covering his Presidency. On the record portion was covered extensively in tweets (can read all at link), he gives opinions and assurances on a few different issues.

I would describe coal work as a lot of things. Back breaking, hour intensive, dangerous, and health adverse. It's work that even most hard working people don't do, and it's had its fair share of legal cases that over the years has changed how it operates to be more tolerable, but its still dangerous work and I wouldn't do it personally.

I also wouldn't compare it to slavery either, at least not the way the united states does it. At least we don't use race to determine who has to do the shit work like coal mining and garbage sorting, unlike india. A majority of our power comes from coal still, if not from the electrical plants who generate the power then from factories who rely on it to keep running.

The fact of the matter is, that putting our eggs into a single basket is stupid and likely to get us all killed in the winter, when conditions stop being ideal for most fuel. I don't think fossil fuels are ever, ever, going to go away. There are too many places inland, away from large bodies of water, where the sun doesn't shin 24/7 and the wind doesn't blow 24/7 and there isn't an active volcano to tap into. A lot of options that aren't fossil fuels are very situational, and often depend on the geography around itself.

While it would be good to get a majority of our power from renewable green sources, the reality is that there are just some parts of the world where this isn't possible. And I don't really think they should be denied power because their region wasn't ideal for a nuclear reactor or solar farm. Instead, we should have a mix of different energy sources in our countries, allowing us to get the most affordable and efficient deals out of these new technologies.

Certainly it is a better solution then to attempt to retrofit the entire power grid in 1 go, resulting in a needed rolling blackout as energy lines are gutted and power plants are shut down while being rebuilt for renewable energy use that may net them as little as 1/3 their original output.

My grandfather was a coal miner down in the Appalachia coal field. It WAS hard and dangerous work back then. Now a days machinery has taken a LOT of danger and labor out of it. But it's still not and can never be 100% safe. Yet you are right, we can not detach ourselves from the coal use.

Coal isn't only used to burn in power plants and heat homes. It's also used in several petro-chemical processes as well. If push comes to shove, we can turn coal into oil as well. Germany had to do that in WW2.

The Dow, S&P 500, and NASDAQ all hit record highs today, with the Dow gaining nearly 1,000 points since the election.

In the event Donald wins, there is no doubt in my mind the market tanks…

--Mark Cuban

Basilius said:

Coal industry is going to die off.

Coal's not going away anytime soon. Not unless you can find some other power source to provide 129,626 gigawatt hours of power (33% of US energy production for 2015). While it's true coal's dipped 20% from '07 (primarily due to regulatory cost driving it's price above natural gas's), I sincerely doubt it could completely take over half the US energy supply.

…establishing green energy manufacturing plants…

I don't really know what this means. Renewable energy production still has many hurdles to overcome, both in storage requirements and in production issues, before the Rouge Truck Plant can start pumping out wind turbines. And, if I'm honest, it would probably be much cheaper for Tesla to just build a brand new, state of the art factory, then to spend millions retrofitting a car plant that's been contaminated with chromium and trichloroethylene.

…you can look at china and see what pollution has done to that country…

This is the same China that has weekly Liveleak videos of their factories blowing up and killing dozens. They're probably spewing coal dust into the air because of how crap their power plants are. Not to mention a complete lack of regulation that would even make the most ardent anarchist libertarian blush.

And note that "deregulation" does not mean "turn it into China." It means "cut out the stuff that's targeted to destroy the industry." Remember when Clinton made that a policy statement for her campaign? And people are still wondering why she lost PA.

Cinder Fall said:

…going into a mini ice age…

Reminder that we're currently in an ice age, as an ice age is defined as permanent glaciers existing on the planet. We're in one of the many "interglacial" periods that have happened over this ice age.

I'm more concerned with deforestation, which destroys habitats, and ecosystems, for an outdated farming model.

I'm more concerned about ground water and air pollution.

I'm more concerned about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and Garbage in general.

I'm more concerned about REAL environmental degradation than CO2 global warming.

The above mentioned problems have solutions. We have the technology, and the costs aren't even that substantial.

AGW doesn't have realistic solutions. It gives governments impetus to create arbitrary regulatory laws over industry, and use it as a tool to undermine other countries' ability to progress.

In the cases of Germany, which wants to desperately become a world leader in Green Energy, it gives them a reason to sell highly expensive technology and energy, because they've run out of their own natural reserves of coal.

In the end. AGW is all about power, money, and geo-politics, above actual environmental or ecosystem concern.

I don't deny the Earth is going through Climate Change. I don't deny it's getting warmer. But I am not easily swayed by the goody-two-shoe solutions and justifications various organizations, and government bodies have to keep pushing this idea, while ignoring tangible ecological problems within their own borders.

So can we talk about the specifics of the deregulation then? When I hear Trump speak about it, it sounds like he wants us to turn into china with low wages and no regulations.

Surprise: Trump's Quote on Climate Change Different With Context

"TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know."

Throughout, Trump expresses skepticism regarding the significance of anthropogenic warming and suggests any potential climate-oriented policies must be considered by their impact on the American economy. This seems fairly in line with Trump's views and statements during the campaign.

Charles Kaiser apologizes for 'misattributing' the n word to Bannon.

Says he mixed Bannon up with Sessions, who is alleged to have once used the word in 1981. Of course, he meant the guy who desegregated Alabama public schools and successfully prosecuted a KKK leader for hate crimes is racist because he may have used a word 30 years ago, how silly of us for not getting it.

WashPo is the only source reporting this atm, HuffPo/CNN/etc have all riled up their viewers by going with the "why are we mad someone used the n word in a quote instead of mad at the person who originally gave the quote" narrative. They offer absolutely no explanation that there is no quote attributed to Bannon on or off the record which includes that word, just letting the mob run wild with it. Not that he's helping…

{ Moving on from his apology, Kaiser tells this blog that he probably wouldn’t have used the word if he had a do-over, and yet: “There’s a part of me that feels you can’t fully express the shocking nature of the first appointments of Donald Trump without using the actual words used by these appointees,” he says. }

Nobody said it but you tho???

Nuws

Computer scientists claim evidence of possible vote manipulation with electronic voting methods

Okay, my previous sentence, and the title of the article, may be a bit unclear. They don't have the proof to be 100% sure that votes where changed, rather, they detected some suspicious patters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which leads to the idea that there's a high probability that there was rigging in Trump's favor.

In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to countries that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

Today, Jill Stein is the one that request a vote recount

Note, that she's fundraising some money to do it, and that i found some comments saying that it's the actual reason. I'll give people and myself the benefit of doubt by mentioning this.

Remember how Hillary (barely) won the popular vote? (like 20k votes or .1% of votes). Well, as of this day, she has a 2 million lead . (up from 1.5m this sunday)

^
I really don't understand why people are acting like the popular vote is relevant. Its not. We have a electoral college, if people won by popular vote, then MUCH more people would have actually voted.

Unless you actually want to tell me that people in states like Alabama, Mississippi, texas, etc. would have voted the same rather it was electoral college or popular vote, that not a single person thought voting in a solid red state was pointless.

You got citations for that claim there? Because I don't see any crystal balls that show the existence of parallel universes where the popular vote decides whose president. Come on, show us some statistics from countries who switched their voting method to back this up.