• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tonight on The Daily Show on Comedy Central Noah is going to do an entire show on Obama's 8 years in office. It will be a love fest no doubt. Then the next 3 nights he will cover the transition between administrations, the inauguration and finally the first 100 days. I foresee the last 3 shows not being so loving. 
 
Chris Pook said:
Tone Deaf Defined?

From The Washington Post

So the counter to the Miner's plea to retain their jobs is to say they would be replaced by College Kids - with good environmental and Democratic credentials?

Actually it's not quite as clear cut as that. At the link is a news story I was listening to on NPR on the way home tonight. One big takeaway from it is that coal is pretty much a dead end at this point in time. And even if the regulations came off, it benefits all fossil fuels, not just coal. So there would be no real benefit to coal. And with the low cost of natural gas, coal just cannot compete. Especially in Appalachia. The majority of coal being produced in the US comes from the western states like Montana. Any jobs that could be increased would end up going to the western states, and there would be more jobs lost in the east.

Even trying to export coal is not the savior it is thought to be. Right now the major market is in Asia, and the volume of demand is going down. Costs of shipping would make US coal a non-competitor. It would have to be mined the shipped to the coast. All the while Having get costs low enough to compete with more local sources like Indonesia and Australia.

Workers in the coal industry were sold an unrealistic dream that couldn't possibly be delivered. And I suspect this will be reflected in the 2018 performance evaluation for all GOP candidates up for election in the midterms, and definitely for Trumps performance review in 2020.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516292269/as-trump-vows-to-grow-industry-countries-move-away-from-coal
 
cupper said:
Actually it's not quite as clear cut as that. At the link is a news story I was listening to on NPR on the way home tonight. One big takeaway from it is that coal is pretty much a dead end at this point in time. And even if the regulations came off, it benefits all fossil fuels, not just coal. So there would be no real benefit to coal. And with the low cost of natural gas, coal just cannot compete. Especially in Appalachia. The majority of coal being produced in the US comes from the western states like Montana. Any jobs that could be increased would end up going to the western states, and there would be more jobs lost in the east.

Even trying to export coal is not the savior it is thought to be. Right now the major market is in Asia, and the volume of demand is going down. Costs of shipping would make US coal a non-competitor. It would have to be mined the shipped to the coast. All the while Having get costs low enough to compete with more local sources like Indonesia and Australia.

Workers in the coal industry were sold an unrealistic dream that couldn't possibly be delivered. And I suspect this will be reflected in the 2018 performance evaluation for all GOP candidates up for election in the midterms, and definitely for Trumps performance review in 2020.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516292269/as-trump-vows-to-grow-industry-countries-move-away-from-coal

Cupper - the point is not if coal is economically viable or not, if it wasn't then it would/will die a natural death.  In which case the argument for government involvement disappears.  The argument for government action is only valid if the market "failed" and was not giving the government the answer it wanted.

From the miner's stand point - being priced out of the market by competition is a hard enough pill to swallow at the best of times.  To be told,as the Saar miners and the Ayrshire miners were that their coal was going to treated like IRA guns and "put beyond use" - while they watched the price of energy go up and their ability to pay for that energy go away - that was and is insupportable.
 
Thucydides said:
President Trump has manoeuvered the media into a kill box. After spending a great deal of time screeching that there is no evidence of massicve voter fraud, this comes out:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpJd1pEaGtaall4TUdVeCIsInQiOiJKM3BhSmJNNDUyRGZxQXNHMTNwMzV3bXFOeUpiM1BGNzlZM0k4VEdWeVFodzdtbGw4WGpyZ01tQmFPbEppMkFSWmw2SWNTQmRmMmdoVHpycjNIVTVKek5rRkxFV1lqdERYQUFKNWpnTDVYQU8zYk40Y2QraDVzaXJtWDdTbzlrWSJ9

Reality hits the "Narrative" like a sledgehammer, so doubling down will only make them look stupider or more mendacious when further investigations brings out more and more factual evidence collapsing their preferred narrative. The obvious question Americans will be asking is "why were they fighting so hard to conceal the truth?", which will do wonders for media credibility.

Two problems with this narrative being spewed forth by the White House shills is that this still doesn't indicate voter fraud took place. Just because you have out of date registration lists doesn't prove massive in person voter fraud. All it proves is that voter registration rolls need to be reviewed more frequently than they are.

The second and bigger problem with this narritive is that so far there have only been two cases of in person voter fraud from this past election that were successfully prosecuted. And both perpetrators voted for Trump. One was a non citizen who didn't know (yeah right) she couldn't vote. She was a registered Republican. She voted for Trump this year and Romney in 2012. The other was a Trump supporter that was so worried that Trump was going to lose, she voted in another district, after voting in her own.

I wouldn't want to take a chance that more Trump supporters voted illegally.
 
Chris Pook said:
What happens to the costs if the demonstrators stay home?

It goes up because they have to go out and buy protestors to keep up the ruse of paid lefties are disrupting the status quo. :D
 
Chris Pook said:
Cupper - the point is not if coal is economically viable or not, if it wasn't then it would/will die a natural death.  In which case the argument for government involvement disappears.  The argument for government action is only valid if the market "failed" and was not giving the government the answer it wanted.

From the miner's stand point - being priced out of the market by competition is a hard enough pill to swallow at the best of times.  To be told,as the Saar miners and the Ayrshire miners were that their coal was going to treated like IRA guns and "put beyond use" - while they watched the price of energy go up and their ability to pay for that energy go away - that was and is insupportable.

I agree, but my point is that miners were given promises that will not be kept, much the same way Bush 43 played the Evangelicals in 2000 & 2004. He bought their votes promising to deliver on their isues, only to sell them out in the end. Trump has done the same thing to workers in general, and Miners in particular. He can't do anything regulatory that wouln't benefit the other fossil fuels, or cause big oil and big gas to remind Trump who his biggest source of campaign money.
 
Chris Pook said:
What happens to the costs if the demonstrators stay home?

The article was about lifestyles of the rich and famous.

This is just from the last couple of days,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+cost+security&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F21%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F20%2F2017&tbm=

You can add the protests ( at bottom of page ) to that. Doesn't look like they will be ending any time soon either!

Glad I am not paying taxes in the US.  :)

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has ramped up pressure on Donald Trump and the federal government to accept the mounting costs of protecting the president, the first family and their extended entourage.

Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, inserted himself into the debate on Sunday, saying it costs $500,000 per day for nearly 200 police officers to protect Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, which houses the Trump family business headquarters and serves as the home of the first lady, Melania Trump, and the couple’s son, Barron. The senator estimated the cost could rise to as much as $183m annually.

At current estimates, even a four-year Trump administration could be heading for a billion dollars in taxpayer-borne costs – an eight-fold increase of the $97m Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, estimates it cost to protect Barack Obama over the two terms of his administration.

The estimated costs of guarding Trump Tower have varied from $1m a day (during daily protests before the inauguration) to around $100,000 for the first lady and Barron, 10, who are staying in New York until at least the end of the school year.

Schumer urged Trump to include the costs in the federal budget, noting that New York City has only been reimbursed $7m of $35m requested for the cost of protecting the tower for the period between election day and the Inauguration.

“It’s simply unfair to have New York City taxpayers alone bear the burden of NYPD protection at Trump Tower. President Trump: this is your protection, so I challenge you to put these costs in your upcoming federal budget and make a commitment to reimburse New York City,” Schumer said during a press briefing at his Manhattan office.

In contrast, the cost of protecting former president Obama during his four trips to the city last year came to just $4.1m. The costs of protecting the Obama family home in Chicago over the same pre-inauguration period in his presidency was estimated at $2.2m.

Senator Schumer’s comments come as the full costs of protecting the first family in the lifestyle that it is accustomed are only just starting to be understood.

Last week, officials in Palm Beach said the cost of hosting the president at his Mar-a-Lago estate amounted to $60,000 a day for police overtime.

Trump stayed at Mar-a-Lago for nearly 16 days, from 16 December to 1 January as president-elect, and has visited his private resort home on three consecutive weekends this month, driving up the costs to an estimated half-million dollars.

Kirk Blouin, the town’s director of public safety, told the Sun-Sentinel that the municipality was “overwhelmed”.

Trump’s frequent trips to his self-styled Winter White House in Florida are burdening local businesses. While Air Force One lands at Palm Beach, Lantana, the small airport near Mar-a-Lago, is closed for business during the president’s trips. A banner-flying company operating from there told the Chicago Tribune it has lost more than $40,000 in contracts.

Schumer said he would cooperate with Palm Peach counties in trying to claw back the costs, adding that the cost of protecting the president in Florida was “an additional and unusual expense”.

“We have not had a president with an auxiliary White House,” he added.

Using figures based on a government report analyzing White House travel, the Washington Post estimated Trump’s Florida trips have cost the federal government about $10m since his inauguration. That includes money for Coast Guard units to patrol the exposed shoreline and other military and security expenses.

Trump administration officials have argued that the president’s weekend jaunts are correctly described as working weekends: this includes hosting Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, over the weekend of 10 February and interviewing potential national security adviser picks over this past weekend.

“He is not vacationing when he goes to Mar-a-Lago,” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told The Washington Post last week. “The president works nonstop every day of the week, no matter where he is.”

However, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders was forced to concede that Trump had indeed played a full round of golf on Sunday, not just a “couple of holes” as had been initially stated.

The golf website No Laying Up reported that one of his companions, four-time major champion Rory McIlroy, had unintentionally outed the President.

“He probably shot around 80,” McIlroy told the website. “He’s a decent player for a guy in his 70’s!”

It is now estimated that Trump has played golf six times in his first 32 days in office.

“The president is going to have to be sensitive to the cost of travelling around,” said Judicial Watch CEO Tom Fitton, who recommends the president use the helicopter-accessible presidential retreat of Camp David in Maryland. “I appreciate he wants to go home to Mar-a-Lago every weekend but it is costly to do so and the work he does there he can do elsewhere.”

The watchdog group estimates Air Force One costs around $180,000 an hour to operate. Additionally, Trump’s trips to Florida require the costs of his Secret Service detail, the cost of a cargo plane to bring his cars down there as well as putting other assets in places.

“It adds up to a tremendous cost,” said Fitton.

Additional costs are also mounting for protecting the Trump children in their daily lives and on their frequent business trips abroad.

Last week, Eric Trump and his brother, Donald Trump Jr, traveled to Dubai to open a Trump-branded golf course. Estimates compiled by the Washington Post, put the cost of Secret Service hotel bills alone in excess of $16,000. Meanwhile, Eric Trump’s trip to visit a Trump-brand condo tower in Uruguay cost an estimated $100,000 in hotel bills.

“The presidency is too big and costs too much and we’re seeing that front and center with President Trump,” said Fitton. “The president should look into saving money on White House operations, and he’s going to have to be sensitive to the cost of travelling around.”

Judicial Watch filed several freedom of information requests to obtain records of Obama travel spending. This includes a $1,012,367.76 trip to give a global warming speech in the Everglades in 2015; a fundraising trip to San Diego in the same year costing $2,181,655.99; and a February 2016 Aspen skiing trip for Michelle Obama and her daughters, which cost taxpayers a total of $222,875.58.

Protests against Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump
 
euracoal-coal-in-europe-2013-240x180.jpg


https://euracoal.eu/info/euracoal-eu-statistics/

http://www.ukcoal.com/world-coal-statistics.html

Funny that about coal.  The EU mandates that their coal stays in the ground.  But it buys coal from overseas.  And Germany, virtuous, wind driven Germany is the EUs largest producer and consumer of lignite, the Brown Coal that is considered the most polluting form of carbon and that Trudeau wants to keep in the ground at Coronach, Sk.  The plant which Brad Wall is investing in Carbon Capture Technology.

You know what the genesis of the EU was?  The Coal and Steel Community?  Devised as an agreement between France and Germany to take the Saarland out of play because they had fought three wars over it: 1871, 1914 and 1939.  You might describe it as cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  They have cheap energy available - but they choose not to access it for political reasons.

 
cupper said:

that isn't funny.  I told all my friends that survived the Bowling Green massacre to leave the US and go to Sweeden... ;D


In all fairness, Trump never once stated that an attack took place there.  I suspect that the media ran with that a bit too quick and reacted to Sweeden's reaction to his comments.

The President really needs to watch how he communicates.
 
Remius said:
that isn't funny.  I told all my friends that survived the Bowling Green massacre to leave the US and go to Sweeden... ;D


In all fairness, Trump never once stated that an attack took place there.  I suspect that the media ran with that a bit too quick and reacted to Sweeden's reaction to his comments.

The President really needs to watch how he communicates.

In fairness to Trump, each time the media says he said something he didn't say that can be proved by a simple video clip, it's them that looks more like him.  Everyone already thinks he runs off at the mouth but when the media converts what he says to something he didn't say they come off as the mouth runners.  Or maybe he is just being ambiguous enough to lure them in. 
 
Lightguns said:
In fairness to Trump, each time the media says he said something he didn't say that can be proved by a simple video clip, it's them that looks more like him.  Everyone already thinks he runs off at the mouth but when the media converts what he says to something he didn't say they come off as the mouth runners.  Or maybe he is just being ambiguous enough to lure them in.

However, there are still many, many people who never look past the original Main Stream Media report and tend to reinforce their opinion on Trump's persona.  Especially in Canada; folks for the most part still trust CTV and CBC.
 
Remius said:
In all fairness, Trump never once stated that an attack took place there.  I suspect that the media ran with that a bit too quick and reacted to Sweeden's reaction to his comments.
Maybe he did say just that, at least according to this source:
"... You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible ..."
Jarnhamar said:
Good luck.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56298
So, the headline says " 'Trump Was Right': Migrants Riot, Loot, Fight With Police And Set Cars On Fire In Sweden" - but the headline doesn't say when the riots happened.  This rioting appears to have happened Monday night (and if you think AP is fake news, here's a Russian state media source also saying the riot was Monday night - and if you don't think the Swedish police are covering up, and can read Swedish, here's one of their statements), and #POTUS45 said on Saturday that there was an attack in Sweden the night before, making it Friday. 
So could the headline also say, "Swedish Violence Following Trump Speech?"  Correlation =/= causality, but sometimes, all you need is for people to believe the headline.  And if the headline takes the form of a question, there's always the loophole that, "hey, we didn't STATE it was a fact, we just asked a question."  But the headline is no more "correct" than the "Trump Was Right" bit of that headline.
Remius said:
The President really needs to watch how he communicates.
That's good advice for any president.  :nod:
 
Haterz will hate. No change.

Admirers love him. No change.

It'll never be settled amicably.

What happens, happens.

You will not change anything. Especially, without a vote.

Go get a beer and enjoy the outdoors.


"you look at what's happening last night in Sweden". Seriously? Look at yourselves, never mind Sweden. You're battling each other over an ambiguous statement, trying to convince yourselves there was some huge conspiracy, riot, demonstration...or not. Or that Trump lied, manipulated or denied......or not.





 
recceguy said:
You will not change anything. Especially, without a vote.
That IS a lesson to be learned ...
recceguy said:
"you look at what's happening last night in Sweden". Seriously? Look at yourselves, never mind Sweden. You're battling each other over an ambiguous statement, trying to convince yourselves there was some huge conspiracy, riot, demonstration...or not. Or that Trump lied, manipulated or denied......or not.
We don't have enough to do, I guess  ;D
 
This comment from March 2016 seems to square with what we are seeing so far in Trumps first month in office.

cupper said:
It isn't hard to imagine that Trump may have his own agenda to getting elected, to put forth policies and getting legislation through that favours him personally both from a business standpoint and a personal standpoint. Instituting changes to laws to benefit His own specific businesses and being able to move on things that otherwise would be hamstrung due to regulations. Broadening or opening up liable laws allowing him to sue persons whom he feels slighted by. Creating better tax breaks for business like his.

It's not like the Koch's would be unfavorable to those types of measures. But even they see the downside of a rogue Trump in the White House and are holding off their money until things get clearer, and maybe set up an independent candidate to take on Trump in the General to ensure a Dem victory for 2016, force the GOP to resolve it's internal structural issues and come back strong in 2020.
 
milnews.ca said:
That IS a lesson to be learned ...We don't have enough to do, I guess  ;D

My favorite on Sweden/Trump was the Swedish government twitter account talking about fighting NAZIs with a vague reference to Trump.  Sweden; NAZIs, yeah, let's open up the subject for current and historical review......
 
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-example-of-how-not-to-handle-immigration/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/not-germany-covers-mass-sex-attacks-migrant-men-swedens-record-shameful/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_social_unrest_in_Sweden

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21578725-scandinavian-idyll-disrupted-arson-and-unrest-blazing-surprise
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top