The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blodssvik said:
My SaltX stocks are up 8% at least today. No Trump effect there.
Click to expand...
I have a modest retirement portfolio thats been ticking over for nearly ten years now. It took a nose dive in the month leading up to the election but from the day he was elected its been in overdrive at a rate the previous ten years hadnt seen. Not sure if I should laugh or cry.
 
DBQuev1UAAA_hwi.jpg


:lol:
 
Just as it is actual because of the Paris accord...

German comedy show predictions end of 2015...



(with English subtitles)
 
Stack said:
I have a modest retirement portfolio thats been ticking over for nearly ten years now. It took a nose dive in the month leading up to the election but from the day he was elected its been in overdrive at a rate the previous ten years hadnt seen. Not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Click to expand...
SaltX is a pure renewable energy company though with partners in China and Germany. Very interesting technology.
 
langster said:
Click to expand...

What am I missing here? They dont know who was on the flight. How are they stating whoever was on it had a meeting with Kushner as a fact?
If there are records of Gorkov meeting Kushner and later meeting Putin in a few days, the flight data is completely irrelevant. So I'm guessing there is no record of Gorkov meeting Kushner...

A flight that might or might not be used by him was in New York. He might or might not have been on it. going from that to stating Gorkov was on the flight and that he met Kushner as a fact is irresponsible.
Is there any new source we can trust anymore?

edit: or am I missing something obvious?
 
prateik said:
What am I missing here? They dont know who was on the flight. How are they stating whoever was on it had a meeting with Kushner as a fact?
If there are records of Gorkov meeting Kushner and later meeting Putin in a few days, the flight data is completely irrelevant. So I'm guessing there is no record of Gorkov meeting Kushner...

A flight that might or might not be used by him was in New York. He might or might not have been on it. going from that to stating Gorkov was on the flight and that he met Kushner as a fact is irresponsible.
Is there any new source we can trust anymore?

edit: or am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...

I've not yet read this story but Kushner did meet Gorkov. The WH have admitted the meeting took place.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
We're probably derailing this thread, but still it's worth discussing.

For me it's a progression where fossil fuels are the worst, nuclear power somewhere in the middle and renewable energy as the best source of energy. At this point of time, eliminating fossil fuel is of paramount importance since it has the worst impact to the environment.

There's been this stigma around nuclear power driven by weaponization/proliferation and accidents like Chernobyl/Fukushima. People don't realize that Chernobyl happened because the safety features were turned off in a simulation exercise which compounded the design flaws in the reactor. I believe we've come bit far down to make this far more safer. Not just the reactors, but moving to Thorium based sources (rather than Uranium) has made this more efficient generating far lesser nuclear wastes. It still is a powerful tool, provided it is used wisely.

The world is not yet geared for green tech. Most cars are run on fossil fuels. In 3rd world countries machinery and even household generators etc depend on fossil fuels. Many power plants are thermal/coal based. I don't think the world is yet geared up both in production capacity nor supporting infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels. Nuclear power provides the bridge where we can at least eliminate Thermal power plants and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels drastically. The gradual increase in renewable power technology and usage will bridge the remaining gap.
Click to expand...

But a Nuclear plant takes so long to build and the initial costs are so damn high - it's just not a viable option for most developing countries, at least as the primary source of power.

*I'm pro nuclear btw.
 
Trump said he was going to reject the Paris treaty while on the campaign trail. So it's not Trump you lefties should be pissed off with, it's the US voters. It was one of his main policies.
 
Mozza said:
Mate, you did have Chernobyl and 3 mile island as examples of how it can go catastrophically wrong.
Click to expand...

Pogue Mahone said:
....aaaaaaaand, no response.

Textbook hit and run. Absolutely standard tactics in discussions like this.

The change in opinions on nuclear power isn't political at all. It's a combination of ever-improving technology and a realisation that it is the lesser of two evils. In the absence of the more recent overwhelming evidence of global warming it was entirely reasonable to be cautious about a new technology, with poorly understood long-term consequences.

As we get more and more data on the relative risks to the environment of various approaches to generating energy it stands to reason that opinions may change. That's the way science works. Which has feck all to do with the politics of left vs right.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the lack of response. I occasionally like to do other things.

3 mile island wasn't a catastrophe. Politically motivated hyperbole about 'might have beens' doesn't count.

Chernobyl was a disaster - close to a worst case scenario, and by far the most severe such event in almost 7 decades of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The UN's best estimate of the number of lives lost was 300. It only occurred as a consequence of the complete disregard of safety protocols by the authorities, themselves responsible for many other, more widespread, environmental disasters across the Soviet Union.

For comparison purposes:

In 1975 the Banqiao Dam disaster in China cost over 150,000 lives. At least 4,000 people, and perhaps as many as 16,000, died as a result of the gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in India in 1984. Across the world, in the coal industry, thousands of miners die every year from pulmonary disease - in the US, with its relatively good health standards, a miner working underground for 25 years has a 5% - 10% chance of contracting black lung disease...

The list could go on and on. The point is that at a time when the real cost of other energy generation technologies, and industrial processes in general, were blindingly clear, the left's political obsession with a relatively clean nuclear industry never made sense, except as yet another virtue bandwagon which, once rolling, all good liberals were eager to jump on..

The 'concerns' Pogue talked about were always fanciful, the construction of extremely improbable scenarios, often occurring in the distant future, whose likely consequences were greatly exaggerated. The readiness with which these terrible dangers have now been set aside speaks for itself.

And the change of attitude isn't because of a radical change in technology. If the newer technologies were subjected to the same zealous scrutiny as the old, liberalism would still find plenty of 'issues'.
 
Will Absolute said:
Sorry about the lack of response. I occasionally like to do other things.

3 mile island wasn't a catastrophe. Politically motivated hyperbole about 'might have beens' doesn't count.

Chernobyl was a disaster - close to a worst case scenario, and by far the most severe such event in almost 7 decades of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The UN's best estimate of the number of lives lost was 300. It only occurred as a consequence of the complete disregard of safety protocols by the authorities, themselves responsible for many other, more widespread, environmental disasters across the Soviet Union.

For comparison purposes:

In 1975 the Banqiao Dam disaster in China cost over 150,000 lives. At least 4,000 people, and perhaps as many as 16,000, died as a result of the gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in India in 1984. Across the world, in the coal industry, thousands of miners die every year from pulmonary disease - in the US, with its relatively good health standards, a miner working underground for 25 years has a 5% - 10% chance of contracting black lung disease...

The list could go on and on. The point is that at a time when the real cost of other energy generation technologies, and industrial processes in general, were blindingly clear, the left's political obsession with a relatively clean nuclear industry never made sense, except as yet another virtue bandwagon which, once rolling, all good liberals were eager to jump on..

The 'concerns' Pogue talked about were always fanciful, the construction of extremely improbable scenarios, often occurring in the distant future, whose likely consequences were greatly exaggerated. The readiness with which these terrible dangers have now been set aside speaks for itself.

And the change of attitude isn't because of a radical change in technology. If the newer technologies were subjected to the same zealous scrutiny as the old, liberalism would still find plenty of 'issues'.
Click to expand...


So to be clear, you're accusing Liberals of not being progressive enough in their thinking?
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Trump said he was going to reject the Paris treaty while on the campaign trail. So it's not Trump you lefties should be pissed off with, it's the US voters. It was one of his main policies.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I despise the Mango Mussolini as much as the next leftie, but he's delivering on some of his campaign promises so can't blame him tbh. The problem is the large ignorant core of the US population who've made President Trump a reality. @Stack is spot on too - he could feasibly win a second term since there's nothing to suggest America will cure its stupid, nor does it seem evident that the DNC will wise up and embrace progressive values in favour of establishment cronyism which is what steered many progressive voters to antipathy towards Clinton.
 
Kaos said:
Absolutely.

I despise the Mango Mussolini as much as the next leftie, but he's delivering on some of his campaign promises so can't blame him tbh. The problem is the large ignorant core of the US population who've made President Trump a reality. @Stack is spot on too - he could feasibly win a second term since there's nothing to suggest America will cure its stupid, nor does it seem evident that the DNC will wise up and embrace progressive values in favour of establishment cronyism which is what steered many progressive voters to antipathy towards Clinton.
Click to expand...
Yup. A lot of Democrat voters are fed up. They will have to hope on people who did not previously vote unless something changes.
 
Forget about Trump. Scott Pruitt is the most despicable man in an US administration since Rumsfeld.
 
Neutral said:
But a Nuclear plant takes so long to build and the initial costs are so damn high - it's just not a viable option for most developing countries, at least as the primary source of power.

*I'm pro nuclear btw.
Click to expand...

Well, it not a mandatory requirement ;) Wherever countries are able to adopt it they should and move away from fossil fuels imo. If they can go green straight away that's even better. But bottom line is dependency on fossil fuels must end.
 
Abizzz said:
Forget about Trump. Scott Pruitt is the most despicable man in an US administration since Rumsfeld.
Click to expand...
He said nothing meaningful in his remarks yesterday. Just said that Trump had courage and fulfilled a campaign promise. That's not what you would expect from the EPA head.
 
Crossie said:
@langster

No idea what the latest consensus is among legal experts but it might be not as easy for Twitler to block Comey's hearings. Article is from May 15th.

Trump’s tweets, interviews could cost him executive privilege
The president’s disclosures about James Comey’s firing may allow Comey to testify publicly about conversations with Trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-tweets-interviews-could-cost-him-executive-privilege-d49d667290e7
Click to expand...

Excellent, thanks for that. It seems his big fat mouth may have got him in to trouble at last. :)
 
Playing with the nature is even more devestating than a nuclear explosion and spread of nuclear weapons. Mr Trump may be pleasing his section of voters but by not caring about the nature the future generations are being pushed into a greater threat to human security and planet security than proliferation of nuclear weapons posses whose non proliferation agenda America loves to impose on the global world.
 
Will Absolute said:
Sorry about the lack of response. I occasionally like to do other things.

3 mile island wasn't a catastrophe. Politically motivated hyperbole about 'might have beens' doesn't count.

Chernobyl was a disaster - close to a worst case scenario, and by far the most severe such event in almost 7 decades of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The UN's best estimate of the number of lives lost was 300. It only occurred as a consequence of the complete disregard of safety protocols by the authorities, themselves responsible for many other, more widespread, environmental disasters across the Soviet Union.

For comparison purposes:

In 1975 the Banqiao Dam disaster in China cost over 150,000 lives. At least 4,000 people, and perhaps as many as 16,000, died as a result of the gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in India in 1984. Across the world, in the coal industry, thousands of miners die every year from pulmonary disease - in the US, with its relatively good health standards, a miner working underground for 25 years has a 5% - 10% chance of contracting black lung disease...

The list could go on and on. The point is that at a time when the real cost of other energy generation technologies, and industrial processes in general, were blindingly clear, the left's political obsession with a relatively clean nuclear industry never made sense, except as yet another virtue bandwagon which, once rolling, all good liberals were eager to jump on..

The 'concerns' Pogue talked about were always fanciful, the construction of extremely improbable scenarios, often occurring in the distant future, whose likely consequences were greatly exaggerated. The readiness with which these terrible dangers have now been set aside speaks for itself.

And the change of attitude isn't because of a radical change in technology. If the newer technologies were subjected to the same zealous scrutiny as the old, liberalism would still find plenty of 'issues'.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is clean and green until it goes wrong, at which point you can lose everything. That we have had only two disasters since their conception has a lot to do with the pressure that came from those who feared nuclear power.
 
langster said:
Click to expand...


That tweets a bit misleading. People reading that tweet will presume that Sessions is a suspect. Its only to do with the firing of Comey and what role Sessions had in the firing.

The investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller may also expand to look into the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.