Trump

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I haven't fact-checked this, but USA Today probably checked this out. It would be fairly easy for them to do that.

Trump got a standing ovation for promising that he would have legislation enacted that would prevent immigrants from being eligible for welfare for 5 years. Bill Clinton signed that law in 1996.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sts/420014001/

As best I can tell, all of the following are true.

1) The law already exists
2) The law is barely enforced
3) Trump has no idea what he is talking about regarding policy matters
4) Trump was directed to say he wants to improve #2 (enforcement), but got mixed up and implied #1 (new law)
5) Did I mention that Trump has no idea what he is talking about regarding policy matters?

[wufan]

@Aargh: is only referring to one renewable energy in his post, but I took his comment about "most adamantly opposed to renewable energy sources" as referring to those who are opposed to any form of renewable energy. We're all opposed to some forms of renewable energy. Slave labor could be renewable energy, and we should all be opposed to that. I think the argument is people who find something wrong with every renewable energy tend to have strong, personal financial incentives in place.

Also, to clarify, I don't believe it's accurate to say there's no reason to be against hydroelectric or nuclear power unless you believe people are inherently evil. A huge portion of our uranium consumption is imported, we have waste issues, and safety concerns. None of the reasons I'm hesitant about nuclear power are that I distrust people.

On your first point: who is opposed to renewable energy that is economically viable for economic reasons. Show me these people/corporations if they exist.

On two. You are correct. Irrational fear is a second reason people oppose renewable energy. We should try to get past that.

[wufan]

I've concluded that people tend to believe what they want to believe and tend to not beleive what they don't want to believe. That makes rational discussions of conflicting viewpoints nearly impossible. Politicians can say things that are obviously incorrect and those who want to believe it will believe it.

Trump is the guy in charge now, so he's the one who's going to have his feet held to the fire. The corollary to "you lost, get over it" is "you won, deal with it". Trump said he was going to build a wall, spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, vastly reduce insurance premiums while keeping everyone covered, make a huge increase in military spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. People who wanted to believe that, believed it.

To me, those statements were lies. To those who wanted to believe that was possible, those statements were the truth. To those who knew that could never be accomplished, but supported the party or the person making the statements, it was just puffery. Sort of like a used car salesman telling a prospective buyer that the one-owner car was driven to church twice on Sunday, and once a week to the grocery store, always parked in a garage, and he knew the previous owner who religiously changed the oil every 3,000 miles.

People see facts and objects as tools or obstacles. Facts that are useful to us are put into practice. Facts that present obstacles are confronted or avoided. Facts that are neither useful nor an obstacle are discarded as noise. Trumps lies are ancillary to underlying truths as they don't disagree with his stated purpose in office. They are just surface noise that manifests itself while completely avoiding the issues.

That's why this manifests itself as people believe what they want. Ancillary facts of one group are just noise to another.

[wufan]

Or maybe they just think those huge wind turbines, with their cacophony of lights at night, are one of the most egregious single inventions to ever hit the prairie horizon. It's hilariously ironic that liberal environmentalists love them; I assume none of them live somewhere where their favorite panorama while enjoying the great outdoors has been ruined by sea of windmill skyscrapers for as far as the eye can see.

Visually, you'd be hard pressed to come up with another industrial item that has defaced the land as much as the wind turbine. Maybe an open strip mine? Can't come up with much else of similar scale.

I'm not a Brownback fan or a hater, nor am I anything close to an environmentalist, but one of the most effective things that guy has done in office is his restriction on wind turbine development in the Flint Hills.

I legitatemately believe that wind farms on the prairie are beautiful!

[wufan]

I think the vast majority of people would be all for Wind and solar so long as it is stable, affordable and efficient. Im not sure it is all of those things now. I believe that sometime in the relatively near future, the U.S. will invent an energy source that will check all those boxes. At which point, it wont matter what the fossil fuel companies do.

They came up with it decades ago. It's nuclear.

[wufan]

My father-in-law was not allowed to contract wind farms onto his property because it changed the migratory pattern of some bird which was endangered in his count. There are less than 10000 of these birds that flock through the area annually. Interestingly, they mate down south with several million others that choose to fly four counties west...through a wind farm.

[RoyalShock]

My father-in-law was not allowed to contract wind farms onto his property because it changed the migratory pattern of some bird which was endangered in his count. There are less than 10000 of these birds that flock through the area annually. Interestingly, they mate down south with several million others that choose to fly four counties west...through a wind farm.

So the government is just as bad at predicting animal behavior as they are human behavior. I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

[jdshock]

On your first point: who is opposed to renewable energy that is economically viable for economic reasons. Show me these people/corporations if they exist.

I think it's pretty clearly viable presently. There are tons of solar companies right now, and it's only going to get more profitable. It's probably less profitable than an already established, multi-billion dollar company in fossil fuels.

On two. You are correct. Irrational fear is a second reason people oppose renewable energy. We should try to get past that.

That's a pretty harsh response. Most uranium is imported. While I'm all for free trade, I also hate the idea of something like energy being susceptible to manipulation by foreign governments. This is one of the biggest concerns with fossil fuels, and we actually get most of our oil from friendly places. I'll admit that safety concerns are "irrational" in the sense that most people immediately think of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, and not the hundreds of plants that never fail. But they still should cause people to have a respect for nuclear power. There's a reason nuclear power plants are locked down as much as they are, and it's not because the energy is incredibly safe. Lastly, to say nuclear waste is an "irrational fear" ignores that there are many, many smart people who recognize the problem with waste. If it's an irrational fear, post your solution to nuclear reprocessing that no one has implemented yet.

[SB Shock]

---

They came up with it decades ago. It's nuclear.

China is working nuclear powered cars

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/is-a-nuclear-powered-car-in-our-future/

[SB Shock]

I think it's pretty clearly viable presently. There are tons of solar companies right now, and it's only going to get more profitable. It's probably less profitable than an already established, multi-billion dollar company in fossil fuels.



That's a pretty harsh response. Most uranium is imported. While I'm all for free trade, I also hate the idea of something like energy being susceptible to manipulation by foreign governments. This is one of the biggest concerns with fossil fuels, and we actually get most of our oil from friendly places. I'll admit that safety concerns are "irrational" in the sense that most people immediately think of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, and not the hundreds of plants that never fail. But they still should cause people to have a respect for nuclear power. There's a reason nuclear power plants are locked down as much as they are, and it's not because the energy is incredibly safe. Lastly, to say nuclear waste is an "irrational fear" ignores that there are many, many smart people who recognize the problem with waste. If it's an irrational fear, post your solution to nuclear reprocessing that no one has implemented yet.

Have u checked out Tesla solar power technology for houses. Almost break even if u believe their calculations.

[DUShock]

@SB Shock: but we did that back in 1985.

[shockmonster]

Just lol. Our president shouldn't insinuate anything that isn't true. The dude lies over 68 percent of the time. That isn't an attack on truth. Y'all are hopeless.

No the President shouldn't say or insinuate untruths. I agree with that.

So what did President O'Bama do when he said that there wasn't a smidgen of truth of corruption in the IRS? How did he lie about the Libya situation happening because of an anti-muslim tape? It happens all the time and it happened all the time with President O'bama too.

Trump is sometimes very difficult to stomach, because he is more outwardly self-centered that most Presidents, but don't give the "KRAP" that your O'Bama guy didn't insinuate untruths too.

Be fair and admit that it happens all the time, and you don't like President Trump for other reasons than he insinuates untruths.

On last comment. Comey also said partial truths in his role as a witness before Congress. He was totally inconsistent in his dealings with the Clinton and Trump. He treated both of them wrong and became so political that he did need to go.

[jdshock]

Have u checked out Tesla solar power technology for houses. Almost break even if u believe their calculations.

I'm not sure which side you're trying to argue. I am only arguing about the profitability from a business perspective since @wufan: has stated companies would happily start producing solar if it were profitable.

I agree, though, there are many household technologies that actually tend to have decent returns. Tesla's solar roof is promising. There are geothermal HVAC systems that tend to have pretty good returns.

[shockmonster]

My health insurance premiums did not go down 2500, when Obama insinuated they would. Is he a liar?

This is totally right. Trump may be a liar but O'bama lied just as much.

Trump is difficult to like for other reasons, not because he insinuates untruths.

[WuDrWu]

nm