US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wind Energy and Solar Energy can power a whole city? Great. On windless and cloudy days, you can explain to NYC why nothing will work

 

Cut that sheet out man

First of all no. That is not how wind and solar energy works. They can store the energy you know that right?

 

also just to get it out of the way.

 

I remember when I received warning points and the thread got locked for posting memes. Guess mods have different standards when it suits their political views

 

I see the Roxas rep machine has already struck

imo the difference is that your "meme" didn't have a point other than to say I couldn't read. Craft's isn't much better but it does have an argument to it (Which he should have just said tbh) which is "I would prefer to take advice from the people who studied it".

 

And seriously please for the love of everything stop pointing out people giving reps. Good god man you are obsessed with what other people "like".

[Sunshine Jesse]

And seriously please for the love of everything stop pointing out people giving reps. Good god man you are obsessed with what other people "like".

He's probably desperate to be liked and belong to something, hence why he sucks off The_Donald at every given opportunity and seriously considers himself a member of the alt-right, so seeing other people liked more than him touches a nerve.

 

Maybe. I'm no psychoanalyst.

 

but hey i'm getting off topic here

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I actually love you. People like you are gonna make sure we get a filibuster proof senate in 2018 and the White House again in 2020. Please, keep metastasizing. I love it

 

He's probably desperate to be liked and belong to something, hence why he sucks off The_Donald at every given opportunity and seriously considers himself a member of the alt-right, so seeing other people liked more than him touches a nerve.

 

Maybe. I'm no psychoanalyst.

 

but hey i'm getting off topic here

funking glorious

 

Didn't realize you were an Infowars fan with all that Alex Jones level tinfoilery

[cr47t]

See, this is a problem

 

President Elect Trump and few loyalists are the only ones push back on China. 

 

Take today for an example. When Trump extended a hand to Taiwan (which would slight china), all the Dems took to bashing him. Not one of them has talked about this. 

 

China doesn't have to stop digging coal till 2030. But they want us to stop now, even when they're contributing more than us. See the problem? Paris is a scheme to ruin the us economy. 

 

And the Democrats (in large) either have no balls, or are in the pockets of the Chinese (GOP is stupid in other ways, apperently I need to pemise this all the time now)

1. Source.

2. Well, what would you rather? The US losing millions of jobs in the short term, or the world losing billions of lives in the long term?

3. This is why I do not affiliate with either major party. I recall VCR's post about the concept of party loyalty;

 

[spoiler=VCR's post]

It feels to me like there's so many problems rooted with the whole "us vs. them" mentality that's so prevalent in western culture. For Winter, I read "I used to be proud to be a Liberal", and I need to ask: Why do you need to be a Liberal? Why do you need to be a Republican?

 

There's so much misunderstanding going on between both sides because people insist that there needs to be sides at all. I understand why there are different parties to be running for the biggest position, but I don't understand why people need to invest their identities in these parties at all. I've written poetry on this issue because it's so obvious but nobody wants to really address:

 

Nobody's listening to each other.

 

There's legitimate concerns on both sides that are there for reasons; some rational, some not. There are people speaking up for Islam because there's a legitimate concern for those people in the US and how they may be treated looking into this election. It's not a matter of wanting to give them more privileges, it's a matter of standing up for their first amendment right for their freedom of religion in face of a new leader that has repeatedly said some very concerning things regarding their well being. And for the right, there are lots of small towns in the middle of the US that don't have the population of the big cities; small towns with different cultures and concerns than that of the big cities, and their voices have hardly been listened to over the years, and many of these towns are suffering in many ways because of this.

 

The issues go on, and there's good reasons for all of this, but hardly anyone is actually listening to each other. Most people just want to hear something that agrees with their preconceived notions or hear some famous dude say those immigrants better gtfo before they're willing to listen to the other side and make a compromise. There's constant narratives of "those baby-skinned libtards" and "those uneducated racist republicans" that get screamed out before anyone even gets close to saying "Hold on a minute, let's hear them out a bit more."

 

My biggest issue with Trump is that silly absolution in his statements and proposed solutions, that the ~only~ way to deal with immigrants is to have a police task force break down their door and drag them out of the country; that the ~only~ way to deal with instability in the middle east is to just send more bombs. There's no dialogue about any of these issues.

 

Maybe if both sides actually listened to each other more, we'd realize that there's merit to allowing abortion in certain cases, such as medical cases where human lives are at stake or even rape-related ones, while still supporting adoption networks and making information of alternatives more available. Maybe the solution to illegal immigrants is to actually give them a chance to become real, documented citizens and welcome them in instead of tossing them out. Who knows, but nobody is going to find the best solution to any situation by shutting their ears and discounting half the country simply for their views.

 

People need to stop placing their identities in parties, and "party loyalty" is an awful mindset to spread through a country. Not only do parties and their policies change with each candidate and their given cabinets, which makes having loyalty towards something that isn't even set in its ways kind of moot, but it only further encourages a huge divide between peoples and we reach a point where an election is more about which half of the population gets to gloat about winning something that really shouldn't be treated as a contest and which half gets to be swept under the rug.

 

Honestly, if anything, please listen to the other side and really give them a serious consideration. I've said it before and I still strongly advocate for minority governments (Because the ruling party is actually forced to listen to the other parties and make these compromises I'm talking about), but at the very least stop spinning the narratives of the stereotypes and the "us vs. them" narrative. Nothing worth getting done is going to get done while people continue to drive themselves apart like this.

 

And on the subject of climate change, the House Science Commitee tweeted fake news from Breitbart denying climate change. (Read more about it here; http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-science-committee-tweets-climate-change-denying-breitbart-article-debunked-n690986 )

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to the tweet;

 

Where'd you get your PhD from? Trump University?

 

Note that the House Science commitee is led by Rep. Lamar Smith, a climate change denier. (I don't know if he has access to the HSC twitter account though)

 

Discuss this action by the HSC and it's implications.

[Phantom Roxas]

I see the Roxas rep machine has already struck

 

What do I have to do with this? If you have to edit in a random potshot at me because you left it out at first, then keep it out. You were already making a point about why you don't care to listen to scientists who back up "claims" about climate change, so you could have kept to discussing that.

 

The only person I'm pointing it out about is Roxas...because he's been acting in ways I'm not comfortable with.

 

It's already been pointed out that I wasn't the one who punished you for memes, and memes weren't why the thread was locked, so I don't see why you decided to bring me up again. I've been pointing out how your own behavior has been just as uncomfortable, so if you don't want to be criticized for your inappropriate behavior, then it might help if you didn't behave inappropriately in the first place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What do I have to do with this? If you have to edit in a random potshot at me because you left it out at first, then keep it out. You were already making a point about why you don't care to listen to scientists who back up "claims" about climate change, so you could have kept to discussing that.

 

 

It's already been pointed out that I wasn't the one who punished you for memes, and memes weren't why the thread was locked, so I don't see why you decided to bring me up again. I've been pointing out how your own behavior has been just as uncomfortable, so if you don't want to be criticized for your inappropriate behavior, then it might help if you didn't behave inappropriately in the first place.

We both know that the meme thread isn't what I'm talking about. 

 

But if we're talking about this thread, I have a problem with a mod being unable to engage in reading comprehension. I'm not denying climate change, I'm saying it's not happening at a rate where we need to forget China's hypocrisy and shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

 

1. Source.

2. Well, what would you rather? The US losing millions of jobs in the short term, or the world losing billions of lives in the long term?

3. This is why I do not affiliate with either major party. I recall VCR's post about the concept of party loyalty;

 

[spoiler=VCR's post]

 

 

And on the subject of climate change, the House Science Commitee tweeted fake news from Breitbart denying climate change. (Read more about it here; http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-science-committee-tweets-climate-change-denying-breitbart-article-debunked-n690986 )

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to the tweet;

 

 

Note that the House Science commitee is led by Rep. Lamar Smith, a climate change denier. (I don't know if he has access to the HSC twitter account though)

 

Discuss this action by the HSC and it's implications.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-murphy-trump-foreign-policy-2016-12

 

Putting me in a false decision since a rapid growth in technology can prevent the latter 

 

Most millennials are Independents in name, means nothing

 

---

 

Wow, a funny tweet must really cover the fact that he was being downright retarded and ignorant about economics 2 days ago! 

 

I'd rather die in Hillary Clinton's war with Russia than clap to Bernie's brain drain...you just validate my primary vote everytime you post more of his senile sheet

 

---

 

 

 

This is again beautiful 

 

Thing about Utah

 

Two conservatives split the vote, and HRC still lose, Utah isn't going blue guys, 20% just thought Trump was a womanzing Liberal (he is)

 

What might happen in the next 10 years is GOP consolidates the upper midwest and NV, CO become firmly democratic with AZ being a pure toss up

[VCR_CAT]

I'm not denying climate change, I'm saying it's not happening at a rate where we need to forget China's hypocrisy and shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

Why does this need to always come back to China? Why is this country's actions any bit indication of what the US should/should not do? Does China need to start moving away from fossil fuels for us to finally realize it's a fragile and temporary base with which to place our economies and overall livelihoods upon? Does China need to go green before the US does?

 

No, that's stupid. Who frickin' cares if China is being hypocritical or not, because it's irrelevant towards what the US should or should not be doing. Not only is tu quoque a logical fallacy, it's downright silly to even start to say "B-B-BUT CHINA!!" It's also silly to think that moving away from coal/oil is "shooting ourselves in the foot" Yeah, sure, it's idiotic if we were to downright drop them immediately, but your argument that taking climate change seriously and working towards more renewable resources is economic suicide is not only baseless, it makes so many assumptions that it's downright idiotic.

 

You're assuming that moving away from oil is going to be an instantaneous process. You're assuming there's no other alternative way of approaching this. You're assuming it's just going be an instant bullet to the head if we even so much as humor the idea. This is just downright ignorant.

 

Did you even pause to think that this could be a slower process to approach? An investment towards alternatives that happens over years as we work towards better technologies and just make oil obsolete? Yes, some bigger changes will be made at some point, but it's a process that can be eased into that means we not only achieve an economy based on more renewable and cleaner resources that are better for the environment, but we progress technology forward as a whole.

 

Acknowledgement of climate change and concern over the environment is why we're researching these technologies and working towards a future not based upon fossil fuels in the first place; why in the hell do you think we're going to magically get those technologies if the problem isn't seriously recognized or acknowledged? The point of bringing up this issue is to start working against it now before it becomes something much more serious; so that we as nations and people are actually properly prepared for what's going on. Last I checked, just shutting our ears to objective, empirical evidence just because you "think" it's going to kill the economy (without any actual reason to give us as to why it would; great job on the argument there, by the way) isn't going to work towards progress; it's just going to do the opposite and drive is further away from better things. Name me a point in history where we managed to make progress towards something while simultaneously refusing to accept it was ever a thing or an issue and boy do you get a cookie. Last I checked, doctors had to actually realize that working on patients during surgery without sanitizing their tools or themselves was a pretty bad thing before they started washing their hands. People don't just up and randomly do fix a problem without realizing it was a problem as a whole; that's not how the world works.

 

The point of advocating for the recognition of climate change is so we can start really working towards fixing it now; that we can really invest in better technologies and make the future where don't need to rely on a resource as shitty and finite as oil a much closer reality. Forget China, there's still matters that us western countries can address and work towards, and eventually China will follow suit (even though they're already in the process of working towards more green technology. NOTE I'm saying WORKING TOWARDS, not there yet). Paris isn't a scheme to ruin the economy, because wow news flash: oil isn't the only thing an economy can be based on for it to work, and the sooner we get that sheet obsolete the better.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because we're in a new-age economic cold war with China, and America's hegemony rests on the tip of a dagger that is that delicate economic balance

 

 

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank

 

This, the TPP, Russia, none of these are accidents

 

---

 

If I were Trump, I would hammer out a deal with the Democrats to get the Dreamer Act codified, and get funding for the wall. It would solidify Florida as his, his backers as his, and put NV, CO, SoCal, and NM back in play

 

Also most Americans don't wanna throw out the kids

[Aerion Brightflame]

So wouldn't America have more power in this war by being at the forefront of clean energy and clean energy research?

 

You take a temporary set-back in exchange for a long term advantage, because it's an inevitiablity that a transition to clean energy and such will happen. Pre-empting it allow allows one to be at the forefront of it, and thus profit from it by being in a position to then make others pay for access/joint investiments.

 

In fact, I think China is actually beating the US a little in this regards because they keep pushing to be partners in various Nuclear plant projects through-out the world. So China is in fact ahead of you in this inevitable transition, and thus will probably be ahead of you afterwards.

 

So unless this growth goes towards easing the transition and aiming to be at the forefront, which I doubt, doubling down on this sheet sounds like an insane choice if your end goal is to be better than China.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah it could.....if we start building nuclear power-plants. Most green energy isn't as efficient as FF, the exception is Nuclear, if you consider it "green"

 

Trump's ensec will tell me if that's gonna happen or not

[Aerion Brightflame]

But there's more to it than just building power plants :S We've already talked about how extensive the issue is, there's so much potential there so many unknown factors that a lot of research is needed to make it efficient. Simply building power plants isn't enough.

 

Furthermore, why if you are in a trade war with China, is your solution to that be to push for things that China does already like steel, instead of the s*** that it doesn't do like high end technology say? Why not invest more, and trade more into that, in the areas China doesn't and can't push for?

 

Because Chinese Steel can almost always be made more cheaply than American Steel (Because lower wages and associated costs say), and outside of the US it can almost always be made more profitable as a result I imagine. Why compete there, somewhere where the US economy doesn't lend itself to it due to automation and wage requirements, instead of areas more suitable for the US as a high end market?

 

Even in terms of local benefits, manufactoring jobs won't come back to America in the same state or the same places as before it left, or even higher the same workers. Automation has done away with that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Tariffs

[Aerion Brightflame]

Which are still something the Chinese can do to manipulate this s***, especially if they are at the forefront of Nuclear energy investiment, and thus have a tonne of leverage because they can say 'We will invest in X plants if you lower Y tariffs'.

 

China probably exports enough to enough nations that it can play the tariff gain more extensively than that of the US. They even have a people that would care less about any poverty of losses occured in that.

 

How does US steel have any advantage in that situation anywhere outside the US? If China can make it more cheaply, probably make more of it, and play the tariff game far more strongly? The economics of it are entirely in the Chinese favour.

 

EDIT: The only advantage the US has is that it's a historic ally. But that only goes so far in terms of finance, because China is too big and too influencial not trade with at all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Which are still something the Chinese can do to manipulate this s***, especially if they are at the forefront of Nuclear energy investiment, and thus have a tonne of leverage because they can say 'We will invest in X plants if you lower Y tariffs'.

 

China probably exports enough to enough nations that it can play the tariff gain more extensively than that of the US. They even have a people that would care less about any poverty of losses occured in that.

 

How does US steel have any advantage in that situation anywhere outside the US? If China can make it more cheaply, probably make more of it, and play the tariff game far more strongly? The economics of it are entirely in the Chinese favour.

 

EDIT: The only advantage the US has is that it's a historic ally. But that only goes so far in terms of finance, because China is too big and too influencial not trade with at all.

True, but it won't matter if Trump strong arms US firms to produce and stay here like he did with Carriar and Ford

 

US steel, if subsidiezed would have a positive effect on the GDP, imports would have a negative imapact

 

There's no two way around that

 

---

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/romney-fading-rohrabacher-bolton-rising-for-state-as-consensus-package/article/2608799#.WENzRCBpbG4.twitter

 

This on the other hand is great news

 

---

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-party-donors-villains-heroes-mercers-232156

 

Two sources with knowledge of Trump's plans confirmed to POLITICO on Saturday afternoon that Trump would attend the “Villains and Heroes”-themed party later in the day. A Bloomberg article reported that invitations featured “a sword-wielding centurion crouching in an ancient ruin, facing down a serpent-haired Medusa.”

 

 

According to a Saturday evening pool report, Trump's motorcade arrived at the party at 8:35 p.m. As Trump entered, dressed in a dark suit, overcoat and tie, he was asked who he was dressed as. Pointing at himself, the president-elected mouthed the word "Me.” '

 

 

---

 

---

 

Jill Stein has raised $7M to recount 3 states Wisconsin cost $3.5M Michigan cost $1M

 

She just dropped PA, says she's out of money

 

I almost feel bad for the Hillary supporters who poured money into this...but I don't

 

(•_•)/ 

  / \ 

Recount over 

 

\(•_•) 

  ( (>

  / \   

 

Trump wins AGAIN 

 

(•_•) 

 / \

 

 jabroniez. 

 

---

 

According to two people close to the transition, Trump is moving away from two of the front-runners for the job, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee. Giuliani's international business ties and public campaigning for the job are said to have rankled Trump. And while Trump has met twice with Romney, he's said to be aware of the risks of angering his supporters by tapping a Republican who was among his fiercest critics.

 

YES YES YES YES!!

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

No but really Winter you didn't answer. You know about the fact that wind and solar energy can be stored right?

[Sunshine Jesse]

I actually love you. People like you are gonna make sure we get a filibuster proof senate in 2018 and the White House again in 2020. Please, keep metastasizing. I love it

 

f***ing glorious

 

Didn't realize you were an Infowars fan with all that Alex Jones level tinfoilery

Of course I am. I love overcomplicated solutions to simple problems and that's what Alex Jones excels in.

 

He's hilarious.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No but really Winter you didn't answer. You know about the fact that wind and solar energy can be stored right?

battery tech blows atm

 

Also both give lower energy yield than coal or fossil fuel

 

and give nowhere near the yield of Nuclear

 

 

Of course I am. I love overcomplicated solutions to simple problems and that's what Alex Jones excels in.

 

He's hilarious.

You've been breathing in too many chemtrails

 

The ONLY thing jones have ever been right about is climate change being a Chinese pushed agenda

 

and pretty sure he copied that from Trump

[Sunshine Jesse]

I don't think he's actually right about anything though, I just find him funny.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

battery tech blows atm

 

Also both give lower energy yield than coal or fossil fuel

 

and give nowhere near the yield of Nuclear

But they're much less difficult to implement, are clean, and can both be used without going over the top with prices.

I don't see what the positives to completely locking out alternate means are.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You are a: Centrist Authoritarian Non-Interventionist Ultranationalist Reactionary

Collectivism score: 0%
Authoritarianism score: 67%
Internationalism score: -17%
Tribalism score: 83%
Liberalism score: -67%


Explanation key: 

Collectivism refers economic intervention, whether the society or state should intervene in the economy to redistribute wealth from the more to the less successful. The negative percentages indicate opposition to such intervention. 

Authoritarianism refers to state power to control the actions of individuals to prevent them from harming others or themselves, and also to establish the will of the majority over society. Negative percentages indicate opposition to state power. 

Internationalism refers to political involvement in other nations or global affairs, either via war, treaty or international organizations. Negative percentages indicate isolationist beliefs, and the belief in national sovereignty. 

Tribalism refers to identity or nationalism, favoring your own nation over foreigners. Negative percentages indicate opposition to national or ethnic identity and oriented towards pan-humanism. 

Liberalism refers to acceptance of historically illegal or immoral social practices or customs. Negative percentages indicate opposition to such acceptance.

 

http://www.abtirsi.com/quiz2.php

 

Internationalism score is the only shocking bit, but that's explain by my imperialistic tendencies 

 

 

 

This is the interesting part

 

 

EnvironmentalismvsAnthropocentrism 76

You side strongly towards “Anthropocentrism”, meaning you strongly believe humankind is the central element of existence. This theme is most important to you.

 

PrivacyvsSecurity 96

You side extremely towards “Security”, meaning you very strongly believe the government should do everything within its power to ensure the security of its citizens. This theme is most important to you.

 

GlobalizationvsProtectionism 12

 

You side slightly towards “Protectionism”, meaning you more often believe globalization is detrimental to the safety, compensation, environment, and standard of living of workers. This theme is most important to you.

 

PacifismvsMilitarism 24

 

You side slightly towards “Militarism”, meaning you more often believe we should use whatever force necessary to protect ourselves against foreign threats. This theme is most important to you.

 

UnilateralismvsMultilateralism 48

 

You side moderately towards “Unilateralism”, meaning you believe policy decisions should be made solely by those who are most affected by the outcome of the decision, despite opposition from those who are less affected or not affected by the outcome of the decision. This theme is most important to you.

 

MulticulturalismvsAssimilation 44

 

You side moderately towards “Assimilation”, meaning you believe we should be a unified culture. This theme is most important to you.

 

ToughvsTender 46

You side moderately towards “Tough”, meaning you believe in tough love and have little sympathy for those that break the law or make bad choices. This theme is most important to you.

 

TraditionalvsProgressive 18

 

You side slightly towards “Traditional”, meaning you more often believe we should be a civilized nation that honors traditional morals and values. This theme is more important to you.

 

Laissez-fairevsKeynesian 76

 

You side strongly towards “Keynesian”, meaning you strongly believe the government should provide economic assistance to stabilize the economy. This theme is more important to you.

 

CentralizationvsDecentralization 64

 

You side moderately towards “Centralization”, meaning you believe the nation should be unified in its decisions to serve the best interests of all citizens. This theme is more important to you.

 

Small GovernmentvsBig Government 38

 

You side moderately towards “Big Government”, meaning you believe the government should do more to address social inequality, corruption, and assistance for its citizens. This theme is more important to you.

 

IsolationismvsImperialism 58

 

You side moderately towards “Imperialism”, meaning you believe we should proactively address potential issues before they turn into a serious and immediate threat. This theme is more important to you.

 

CapitalismvsSocialism 68

 

You side moderately towards “Socialism”, meaning you support an economic system which advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. This theme is more important to you.

 

CollectivismvsIndividualism 4

You are a centrist on Collectivism and Individualism issues. This theme is more important to you.

 

RegulationvsDeregulation 2

You are a centrist on Regulation and Deregulation issues. This theme is more important to you.

 

PopulismvsElitism 0

You are a centrist on Populism and Elitism issues. This theme is more important to you.

[Sunshine Jesse]

You are a: Communist Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Cosmopolitan Liberal

 

Collectivism score: 83%

Authoritarianism score: -17%

Internationalism score: -33%

Tribalism score: -17%

Liberalism score: 17%

 

 

Explanation key:

 

Collectivism refers economic intervention, whether the society or state should intervene in the economy to redistribute wealth from the more to the less successful. The negative percentages indicate opposition to such intervention.

 

Authoritarianism refers to state power to control the actions of individuals to prevent them from harming others or themselves, and also to establish the will of the majority over society. Negative percentages indicate opposition to state power.

 

Internationalism refers to political involvement in other nations or global affairs, either via war, treaty or international organizations. Negative percentages indicate isolationist beliefs, and the belief in national sovereignty.

 

Tribalism refers to identity or nationalism, favoring your own nation over foreigners. Negative percentages indicate opposition to national or ethnic identity and oriented towards pan-humanism.

 

Liberalism refers to acceptance of historically illegal or immoral social practices or customs. Negative percentages indicate opposition to such acceptance.

 

 

That is a lot of labels.

[Aerion Brightflame]

But that doesn't win you a trade war.

 

A trade war is characterised by the fact it's about damaging the others trade. US steel doesn't do that, because you aren't talking about trading it, just making it and using it in the US.

 

There's a reason why in a global market manufactoring jobs of non high end technology (And even then) moved out of a lot of first world nations. The demand for higher wages and regulations say make it cost a lot more than moving the plant and shipping the stuff. Subsidies can only change that so much. Especially given all these new steel companies will have a tonne of frontload costs to get through to start up with, and have to build the right connections.

 

Wouldn't, in theory, there be a risk of the amount of subsidies needed to make American steel or whatever profitable end up costing more than the actual net benefit to the economy? And thus still be a terrible, failing choice? Or where it becomes automated to the point it's actually providing hardly any jobs to the economy.

 

Because if we've established that China arguably has more barganing power when it comes to tariffs because of the sheer amount of stuff they export, then you have a really hard time making American Steel valuable as a trading commodity.

 

So is this sort of move because you want to win a trade war, or because you want to bring back American manufactoring? Because I don't see how it applies to the former, and I've no idea why you want to bring back an industry that's arguably unviable currently in the US.

 

Like if you want to achieve both, become a trading power and a manufactoring power, you do a Germany; You make and export high end goods, but you manufacter as many of the raw materials as possible within the nation. This proposal doesn't seem like that, it just seems like you are saying 'Well we made a lot in the 50's and 60's before all the factories moved away, let's bring the factories back and be Great Again' completely ignoring why the jobs went away in the first place. It seems backwards.

[Phantom Roxas]

The ONLY thing jones have ever been right about is climate change being a Chinese pushed agenda

 

and pretty sure he copied that from Trump

 

And I doubt that either of them are right about that either.

[cr47t]

The ONLY thing jones have ever been right about is climate change being a Chinese pushed agenda

 

and pretty sure he copied that from Trump

Actually, as far as I am concerned, the ONLY think jones has been right about is nothing, i.e. all his theories are false and either made up by him or stolen from some other crazy false theorist.

 

AfD? Are you crazy? And who are the other 2?

 

battery tech blows atm

 

Also both give lower energy yield than coal or fossil fuel

 

and give nowhere near the yield of Nuclear

Like I have said before, I do accept nuclear as a valid alternative. You just have to be very careful with it if you don't want a disaster and fallout and stuff like that.

 

EDIT; http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gardner-china-climate-leadership-20161204-story.html Someone discuss and bias check this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Spencer speaks of Mr. Trump’s campaign as a 'body without a head' and considers many of his policies 'half-baked

 

 

Altright making a very dangerous enemy >:|