America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

I think the fact that it's even being considered is a bit concerning. No, Trump hasn't done it yet, but he can and going by his previous actions I wouldn't doubt it if he did evoke executive privilege.

If he does evoke that privilege, then there's most definitely a bigger issue at hand that needs to be looked at.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If he does evoke that privilege, then there's most definitely a bigger issue at hand that needs to be looked at.

I quite agree, but we need to see if that happens.

Meanwhile here's Griffin telling us that "Trump broke me". The lesson here is that if you're going to take Trump on then you need balls (and backers) of steel to ride out his Big Noos machine.

 

[samurai8juice]

I quite agree, but we need to see if that happens.

Meanwhile here's Griffin telling us that "Trump broke me". The lesson here is that if you're going to take Trump on then you need balls (and backers) of steel to ride out his Big Noos machine.

Don't know what she expected to happen.

When you hold up a fake severed head of our current President, you can only expect to lose your job and more.

 

[DDastardly00]

I think Trump's family had a right to come out against her stunt, I wouldn't call that bullying her. He may just be Trump but to them he's a husband, a father and so on. For Kathy to try and spin this as a Sexist thing is completely moronic, she should fire he Lawyer and try something else because this is going to fall against deaf ears.

The bigger story was how fast the Left dumped her, they couldn't throw her off the moving train fast enough. You know when your buddy, Anderson Cooper, disavows you, things are very, very bad.

 

[McLaren]

Unless Trump has done more in response to her, all I've seen is his tweet calling her sick. Not sure how his comment suddenly "broke" her or "ended" her career more than her poor decision making.

This sob interview is pitiful and is only going to draw more negativity her way, esp with her & her lawyer stating she's had issues with "old white men" her entire career. She needs to stop and get out of the media for a while with what career she still has.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because our standard of living is too high to pay people to make stuff.

So why do you insist on propping up the manufacturing sector?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I skimmed the Griffin video. In at least a couple of spots she pulls out the, "old white men are controlling me and ruining my career" (paraphrasing). Also, it wouldn't have happened if she was a man so it's also sexism and misogyny. Pretty much the whole thing was, sorry, not sorry, it's everyone's fault but mine. Very sad!!

 

[DDastardly00]

The Judicial Watch obtaining 150 more emails that were flagged as classified sent to Hillary's server is the far bigger story this week. From my perspective with all of these Subpoenas that were sent out this week in regards to the Russia probe and the unmasking probe, it certainly appears that it's all starting to come to a head.

If these go forward as planned then there is going to be some winners and some losers in this thing. I think Hillary, Comey, Susan Rice and John Brennan are going to be hammered the most. Keep in mind that Comey saw all of these newly released emails and swept the investigation under the rug (after some grandstanding, of course). He is going to get pummeled and Hillary should have taken her get-out-of jail-free card and ran with it but she just couldn't stay out of it. Much like the Kathy Griffin thing, it's both self-inflicted and sad; Trump may "lock her up" after all. You reap what you sow.

 

[huskeR32]

The bigger story was how fast the Left dumped her, they couldn't throw her off the moving train fast enough. You know when your buddy, Anderson Cooper, disavows you, things are very, very bad.

Maybe, just maybe, "the Left" isn't some monolith of craven partisans. Rather, most people who are liberal, progressive, or whatever, all saw her stunt as distasteful not in spite of their political leanings, but because it was, well, distasteful.

 

[Danoff]

So why do you insist on propping up the manufacturing sector?

Because the guy we elected seems to think we can plan our economy.

 

[DDastardly00]

Maybe, just maybe, "the Left" isn't some monolith of craven partisans. Rather, most people who are liberal, progressive, or whatever, all saw her stunt as distasteful not in spite of their political leanings, but because it was, well, distasteful.

One can only hope that's true but I certainly have my doubts. Just like the Right eating their own, so do the Left.

 

[TenEightyOne]

One can only hope that's true but I certainly have my doubts. Just like the Right eating their own, so do the Left.

So "humans" then?

 

[DDastardly00]

So "humans" then?

Pretty much. Keep in mind that I dislike most, if not all politicians for a reason, severely dislike in fact. Very few have a code of ethics or anything that resembles a moral center and if you somehow do have either of those things, you don't make it very far in politics.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because the guy we elected seems to think we can plan our economy.

He's not planning the economy. He's trying to restore a period of history that simply does not work anymore.

Put it this way: brown coal is twice as expensive as solar energy. It costs more money to mine it, and it's less efficient than other, similar energy resources, which means you need to burn more to get the same amount of output. Ignoring the environmental side of things, it's economically inefficient and it will continue to become increasingly inefficient. Common sense dictates that the smart thing to do is to invest in renewables such as solar.

So what does Trump, the brilliant businessman do? He props up the coal industry.

If Trump really was interested in planning the economy, he'd be investing in solar and then providing incentives for coal workers to retrain to work in the industry installing solar panels. The net effect would be to create jobs, provide more disposable income for everyday people as they pay less for their power bills, and develop the technology so that the United States becomes a world leader.

As it is, he's just throwing money at struggling industries and expecting that they will somehow become better.

 

[Danoff]

He's not planning the economy. He's trying to restore a period of history that simply does not work anymore.

I didn't say he was good at it. I agree with you, if other energy sources are more efficient, let's let the market go there rather than trying to prop up a less efficient industry. Top-down manhandling of economics just doesn't work. 👍

 

[samurai8juice]

Protesting the meeting of the so-called Reptilians, featuring Exclusive Coverage.

https://www.infowars.com/live-from-bilderberg-corporate-control-vs-sovereign-states/
https://www.infowars.com/globalists-plot-against-trump-and-infowars-at-bilderberg/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I didn't say he was good at it.

I'd still dispute the idea that he's planning anything because he seems to be operating under the assumption that if he backs out of trade agreements and initiatives like the Paris Accord and even NATO, then the forces of free market capitalism will take over and somehow naturally restore the economy on the grounds that water will always find its own level.

 

[Danoff]

I'd still dispute the idea that he's planning anything because he seems to be operating under the assumption that if he backs out of trade agreements and initiatives like the Paris Accord and even NATO, then the forces of free market capitalism will take over and somehow naturally restore the economy on the grounds that water will always find its own level.

The free market version of this is to engage in trade on a level playing field without some sort of beneficial agreement based on other factors. What trump is doing is targeting specific portions of the economy for help through legislation (or removal of legislation) and targeting trade agreements where he can get a "better deal" for US companies... which is not a level playing field.

It's pretty hard to see "free market" in any of this because it's so ridiculously manipulated currently and will continue to be after Trump is done. Ultimately I think you have to consider what he's doing to be central planning, at the very least from the perspective of trying to get the upper hand (whatever that means) in trade negotiations.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ultimately I think you have to consider what he's doing to be central planning, at the very least from the perspective of trying to get the upper hand (whatever that means) in trade negotiations

Then he should call it for what it is - he's not trying to "level the playing field", he's trying to hand the advantage to America, which means somebody else is disadvantaged.

 

[Danoff]

Then he should call it for what it
is - he's not trying to "level the playing field", he's trying to hand the advantage to America, which means somebody else is disadvantaged.

I don't know the various parameters of the trade deals that he's "renegotiating" well enough to know who is "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" overall. All I know is the he keeps saying we need a "better" deal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All I know is the he keeps saying we need a "better" deal.

Normally, in Trumpspeak, that means offloading equity to shell companies and then bankrupting your primary interest with all the debt inside it. Parp.

 

[mister dog]

I still like Trump. The no bull* approach is something that's been severely lacking from politics. Media loves to portray him as an idiot but he isn't one for sure.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are you sure you've been paying attention to the correct Donald Trump? Because most of what the President says is garbage.

 

[mister dog]

Are you sure you've been paying attention to the correct Donald Trump? Because most of what the President says is garbage.

It's not as much about what he says but more about what he does.

 

[Johnnypenso]

He's not planning the economy. He's trying to restore a period of history that simply does not work anymore.

Put it this way: brown coal is twice as expensive as solar energy. It costs more money to mine it, and it's less efficient than other, similar energy resources, which means you need to burn more to get the same amount of output. Ignoring the environmental side of things, it's economically inefficient and it will continue to become increasingly inefficient. Common sense dictates that the smart thing to do is to invest in renewables such as solar.

So what does Trump, the brilliant businessman do? He props up the coal industry.

If Trump really was interested in planning the economy, he'd be investing in solar and then providing incentives for coal workers to retrain to work in the industry installing solar panels. The net effect would be to create jobs, provide more disposable income for everyday people as they pay less for their power bills, and develop the technology so that the United States becomes a world leader.

As it is, he's just throwing money at struggling industries and expecting that they will somehow become better.

I'd like to see some evidence that coal is twice as expensive as solar energy in the United States, in the absence of subsidies of course. I'd also like that evidence to show how, in action, not in theory, you can replace the infrastructure of the various reliable energy sources like coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear with solar energy infrastructure and have 100% reliable energy.

Assuming that it's actually true, why would you think that American energy producers wouldn't be rushing to bring solar power online so they can dramatically increase their profits with half-cost green energy? If it's that cheap, they'll easily be able to put the coal business out of business over night.

I'd also like to know why you brought up brown coal (lignite) when it only makes up a tiny sliver of U.S. coal resources mined and used.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's not as much about what he says but more about what he does.

Like completely ignore public opinion - even those of his own supporters - on key issues?

 

[mister dog]

Yes. How many trillion of dollars payed by the US for how much of a decrease in temp. by the end of the century? Is China contributing as much seeing they are polluting the same or even more? Not sure.

But of course anyone that turns on the telly and sees CNN will immediately perceive that Trump is destroying nature itself now.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is China contributing as much seeing they are polluting the same or even more? Not sure.

The targets are proportionate to the amount of carbon emissions produced by each country. It's a way of decreasing carbon emissions in a way that is economically sustainable. If Trump is excepting that the United States and China should pay the same amount, he's weaponising climate policy by forcing China to adopt targets that will put a drain on their economy and prevent them from competing with the United States.

 

[fatkrakr]

Is China contributing as much seeing they are polluting the same or even more? Not sure.

On the contrary, their on the list to receive billions of dollars, as is most of the countries on the list. Only a small handful of countries are actually suppose to be paying.

 

[Northstar]

In my mind at least I can't see things like the Paris Accord actually working anyways since it would require governments to actually be efficient.

The only way I see any real dent being made in greenhouse gas emissions is if private citizens take the onus themselves and invest in alternative energies and things like cleaning our water sources and cutting back on wood usage. I don't see how some agreement will accomplish that, nor how Trump can somehow prevent that by leaving said agreement.