Larry Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: The GOP voting base most certainly did make Trump President. I'll concede that those people aren't true Republicans even though that's not what you meant. 1) I'd disagree with you with the claim that the Trump base aren't Republicans. I'd assert that they absolutely are. (Evidence: The fact that he won the primaries.) 2) And sorry, I ain't buying the attempts to create an alternate reality (do Republicans have any other response to reality?) in which an election isn't the fault of the people who voted for it, it's the fault of people who failed to prevent their votes from counting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Well, honestly, if the democrats put forth even a marginally acceptable candidate, thats who would be president now. Like Barak Obama? The GOP has proven that whoever is in the democratic spotlight is instantly going to be treated as the most villainous person on Earth. Care to explain why Donald Trump was the GOP nominee over a man like John Kasich? Democrats' fault? 13 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: President Trump was able to literally say anything and still get elected. Yup. Pretty pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: Our oil is not our own, unless you are advocating the US oil supply. "Our" oil is sold on the global market and price increases due to Middle East instability will affect the larger US economy. Same thing for Russian oil. The increase in US oil production had little to do with the drill-baby-drill crowd, restraints on drilling, opening up more areas to drilling, or anything like that. We aren't generating more oil because the government opened up some lands that were closed to drilling before. Our oil clearly impacts prices reducing the impact of ME disruptions it is also subject to our control if needed the expansion had a lot to do with policy changes,one of which you recommended doing away with. It is driven by folk other than the oil majors. But I agree we will continue our overseas military intervention regardless of oil....which makes your earlier point kinda pointless Edited June 3, 2017 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Like Barak Obama? The GOP has proven that whoever is in the democratic spotlight is instantly going to be treated as the most villainous person on Earth. Care to explain why Donald Trump was the GOP nominee over a man like John Kasich? Democrats' fault? Yup. Pretty pathetic. yet he was elected twice Kasich has a limited base and no sizzle, at least Jeb had a base and yes both the Dems and GOP establishment set the table for Trump being elected. Hell even the other outsider got second by quite a bit. Hope you enjoy the Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 "it's the dems fault that Trump is president" is exactly the type of mindlessness that allows a Donald Trump to be elected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said: PeterMP. That was a different time. We were not running a budget deficit then. We are now. So... raise taxes. Except any politician in America is too **** to say, "Hey, were going to raise taxes becaue it's the RIGHT THING TO DO." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: "it's the dems fault that Trump is president" is exactly the type of mindlessness that allows a Donald Trump to be elected. A charismatic leader with little or no experience promising to cure all that ails the US. Someone seen as different than the norm. One unafraid to criticize the political hierarchy . Trump or Obama?....Both Hell even Bernie made a run in this climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, twa said: A charismatic leader with little or no experience promising to cure all that ails the US. Someone seen as different than the norm. One unafraid to criticize the political hierarchy . Trump or Obama?....Both fat and round orange hollow Trump or a jack-o-lantern?... Both Both comparison are equally absurd and I'd vote for either of the other two options over Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Both comparison are equally absurd and I'd vote for either of the other two options over Trump. You might think it absurd, but ya need to go back to Reagan or Kennedy to get comparable situations....and both those had more experience. The only other exception was Carter, which was a special time Politics is a science as well. and when the people are uneasy the wildcards rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 We could make Social Security and Medicare solvent for years to come if we raise the participation. Why should the poor and middle class fund it for everyone? You can bet the rich sign up as soon as they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, twa said: Politics is a science as well. and when the people are uneasy the wildcards rule Hence the GOP strategy of trying to manipulate as many people as possible into feeling uneasy. Too bad they didn't foresee Donald Trump. Edited June 4, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, twa said: Our oil clearly impacts prices reducing the impact of ME disruptions it is also subject to our control if needed the expansion had a lot to do with policy changes,one of which you recommended doing away with. It is driven by folk other than the oil majors. But I agree we will continue our overseas military intervention regardless of oil....which makes your earlier point kinda pointless Our dependence on oil whether it is our "oil" or somebody else's only extends the power of the ME and Russia. The longer we are dependent on oil the longer they maintain (excessive) power. You are arguing for a short term reduction in their power, but for long term extension of their power. I'm arguing for cutting their power ASAP. You are arguing for the status quo to be extended into forseeable future, which only contributes to our national debt, undermines our security, and puts the lives of US military personal at risk. I'm saying it is time that we find another way. I didn't state that we would continue our overseas military invention regardless of oil. If not oil, I don't see why we wouldn't treat the ME the way we do Central and South Africa, and I guess we do intervene there, but it is a much less costly intervention. There have been a number of invasions/wars over the last 30 years through out parts of Africa. We haven't devoted large number of US military resources due to any of them. (On another note, what were you talking about happening on 50 years ago. I know that Nixon put on price controls on domestic oil to try and lower oil prices and that the oil companies simply responded by cutting domestic production. But those were eliminated and the US oil industry was doing well until the Saudis and OPEC (under pressure from Reagan) increased supply at a time that demand decreased, which then caused the US oil market to plummet (and caused a recession in TX). http://www.chron.com/local/history/economy-business/article/The-1980s-oil-bust-left-lasting-mark-on-Houston-9195222.php You aren't claiming that there would have been a benefit to MORE US oil then (vs. just a larger recession for oil producing states). Without price controls, the US oil production decreased during this time and the Middle East still exerted a significant amount of power. I am not sure after that point in time why anything that happened before that matter much. Certainly, greater US capacity to produce oil at that point in time would have just been more excessive. Edited June 4, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said: PeterMP. That was a different time. We were not running a budget deficit then. We are now. Two wrongs make a right? You think you know what you do not know. We've run a deficit regularly since the 1950s and run a debt since the 1940s. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Annual_Federal_Deficit_as_a_percent_of_GDP.pdf We were certainly running budget deficit during the time we were trying for the first moon landing. You seemed to be suggesting that fossil fuels were superior to alternative energy because there was no deficit associated with fossil fuels. Do you have some way to get (enough) energy that will not contribute to a deficit without crashing the economy (which would certainly result in us running a deficit)? Or are you living in fantasy land? **EDIT** “The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching Or as I was once told, Know what you know, know what you think, know what believe, and know what you don't know. Edited June 4, 2017 by PeterMP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Peter, our policies crippled the independents and enabled the majors, who then played with the Saudis. http://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/14/archives/the-case-against-the-oil-companies-1920-a-taste-of-the-future-oil.html?_r=0 Policy such as writing off drilling at the time and opening up lands enables the independents today....which short circuits moves like the Saudis just tried,moves the majors benefit from. I'm all for affordable alt energy, but ya need to hedge fwiw my family has been in oil for generations, my branch walked away 50 yrs ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) Never mind, doesn't belong in this thread Edited June 4, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: You think you know what you do not know. We've run a deficit regularly since the 1950s and run a debt since the 1940s. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Annual_Federal_Deficit_as_a_percent_of_GDP.pdf We were certainly running budget deficit during the time we were trying for the first moon landing. You seemed to be suggesting that fossil fuels were superior to alternative energy because there was no deficit associated with fossil fuels. Do you have some way to get (enough) energy that will not contribute to a deficit without crashing the economy (which would certainly result in us running a deficit)? Or are you living in fantasy land? **EDIT** “The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching Or as I was once told, Know what you know, know what you think, know what believe, and know what you don't know. If you're the smartest one in the room, youre in the wrong room. Edited June 4, 2017 by RedskinsMayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 5 hours ago, twa said: Hope you enjoy the Change Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter "Global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on ice, according to Climate Central." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 7 hours ago, MartinC said: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter "Global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on ice, according to Climate Central." It's a hoax, it's just some fat guy in his basement. Fake news. It's a warming cycle. God will take care of it. Man can't affect the entire universe. China pollutes more so what we do won't matter. Coal jobs need to return, all 15,000 of them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 10 hours ago, MartinC said: Are you? Change is always difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 15 minutes ago, twa said: Change is always difficult So no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) On 6/2/2017 at 2:19 PM, twa said: So solar PV is old tech and no longer needs massive subsides? (excluding major advances) solar appears to still be on the steep portion of the cost curve (where increased utilization continues to lower overall prices) and there STILL positive exteranalities to using solar that the market will never capture... ... but yeah, the need for direct subsidies is reducing Quote What dropped the price was Chinese labor and raping the environment.....paid for in typical NIMBY fashion. and what other manufactured product does that NOT apply to ...? are you boycotting cheap cars cheap TVs and cheap leather chaps too ..? Quote What increased utilization was mandates and subsidies uhm...yesh!! and that is what brought dwn prices, too ...... so you are agreeing that the whole policy has been an unqualified rousing success...right?? Edited June 4, 2017 by mcsluggo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 hour ago, mcsluggo said: so you are agreeing that the whole policy has been an unqualified rousing success...right?? No, unless you consider creating instability in the system, higher prices, more debt and enriching the Chinese one. at least throwing Billions at Musk led to some advances(in still overpriced toys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 On 6/2/2017 at 1:08 PM, Kilmer17 said: Re: the Paris Accord. I think Trump pulled us out to try and renegotiate a better deal for the US. But I also dont think it matters. The worlds polluters were going to pollute whether the US was in or not. If it's really that important. The US can rejoin anytime. It's a non-binding agreement, and what he did was absolutely nothing. His supporters just think he did something. And that's a win for hairspray worldwide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now