Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
1…2526283031…332

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Yeah how low people go to spread fake news and hoaxes....

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794

    Hillary' campaign did the same by hinting during her campaign that Pres Obama's family were different in a bad way. Not as bad as Trump's birther tales i'll grant you that. Only with Trump he rowed back from those statements when he joined the Republican party and became a full time politician.


  • Options
    #813
    Cartouche
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭Cartouche


    Amerika wrote: »


    PS. No deflection. Barack Obama blew $150 Billion to increase renewable energy generation by 1%. With that kind of money we could probably build a wall 100 feet high and staff it with border agents every 100 yards, including the Gulf.

    Fake News
    Never happened


  • Options
    #814
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,762 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Hillary' campaign did the same by hinting during her campaign that Pres Obama's family were different in a bad way. Not as bad as Trump's birther tales i'll grant you that. Only with Trump he rowed back from those statements when he joined the Republican party and became a full time politician.
    Really?

    Please elaborate. I have the popcorn ready.


  • Options
    #815
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Cartouche wrote: »
    Fake News
    Never happened

    Au contraire. You really should get your facts straight if you contend the $150 Billion figure). But I admit I was a little short on my estimate in the increase of renewable energy. Renewable energy accounted for 8.1% in 2009, and 13.4% in 2015, although some reports have the number significantly lower. Regardless, that’s not much of an increase for a $150 Billion expenditure. (see, I can admit when I'm wrong about something.)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/solar-energy-delivers-too-little-bang-for-billions-invested/#451ac2134235


  • Options
    #816
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Hillary' campaign did the same by hinting during her campaign that Pres Obama's family were different in a bad way. Not as bad as Trump's birther tales i'll grant you that. Only with Trump he rowed back from those statements when he joined the Republican party and became a full time politician.

    Well, I guess if hillary did it, it must be OK then.

    I'm just curious, but at what point can we stop with the "but hillary..." stuff?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    Cartouche
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭Cartouche


    Amerika wrote: »
    Au contraire. You really should get your facts straight if you contend the $150 Billion figure). But I admit I was a little short on my estimate in the increase of renewable energy. Renewable energy accounted for 8.1% in 2009, and 13.4% in 2015, although some reports have the number significantly lower. Regardless, that’s not much of an increase for a $150 Billion expenditure. (see, I can admit when I'm wrong about something.)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/solar-energy-delivers-too-little-bang-for-billions-invested/#451ac2134235

    Your source is Forbes ? Terrible journalists , terrible reporting always. They should be ashamed


  • Options
    #818
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,938 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Well, I guess if hillary did it, it must be OK then.

    I'm just curious, but at what point can we stop with the "but hillary..." stuff?

    Probably after Trump gets into a nuclear exchange with China.


  • Options
    #819
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭Harika


    Amerika wrote: »
    Au contraire. You really should get your facts straight if you contend the $150 Billion figure). But I admit I was a little short on my estimate in the increase of renewable energy. Renewable energy accounted for 8.1% in 2009, and 13.4% in 2015, although some reports have the number significantly lower. Regardless, that’s not much of an increase for a $150 Billion expenditure. (see, I can admit when I'm wrong about something.)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/solar-energy-delivers-too-little-bang-for-billions-invested/#451ac2134235

    Not bad if you think it through, 2009 the oil price was 110$ 2015 45$ and in this time when fossil fuel was dirt cheap renewable energies doubled its market share. The economy is also now far less prone to rises and falls of the oil price when Opec decides to put up the prices again. Also under Obama US has become a net exporter of natural gas thanks to the crude gas boom.


  • Options
    #820
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Cartouche wrote: »
    Your source is Forbes ? Terrible journalists , terrible reporting always. They should be ashamed

    That's it? You don't like Forbes so you just deny the figures and call it fake?


  • Options
    #821
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Cartouche wrote: »
    Your source is Forbes ? Terrible journalists , terrible reporting always. They should be ashamed

    Around here we prefer people to attack the content, not the publication.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Harika wrote: »
    Not bad if you think it through, 2009 the oil price was 110$ 2015 45$ and in this time when fossil fuel was dirt cheap renewable energies doubled its market share. The economy is also now far less prone to rises and falls of the oil price when Opec decides to put up the prices again. Also under Obama US has become a net exporter of natural gas thanks to the crude gas boom.

    But isn't the fact that the economy is far less prone to rises and falls of the oil price when OPEC increases prices a factor of the increases of natural gas, and not renewable energy? And natural gas is not a renewable energy. Also, the fact that the US has become a net exporter of natural gas is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.


  • Options
    #823
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭Harika


    Amerika wrote: »
    But isn't the fact that the economy is far less prone to rises and falls of the oil price when OPEC increases prices a factor of the increases of natural gas, and not renewable energy? And natural gas is not a renewable energy. Also, the fact that the US has become a net exporter of natural gas is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

    Gas and oil prices are very interlinked and if it was because or in spite of Obama, has to be shown by historians.


  • Options
    #824
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    That's it? You don't like Forbes so you just deny the figures and call it fake?

    Pretty sure he's just mimicking Trump supporters to be honest.


  • Options
    #825
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Amerika wrote: »
    Around here we prefer people to attack the content, not the publication.

    Sure. Happy to. In that case click through to the CNN article they're citing for their numbers and notice that the $150 billion they're talking about for green initiatives includes funding for Nuclear, High Speed Rail, smart metering, R&D, energy conservation, cleaning up nuclear test sites and adding insulation to homes.

    In other words, $150 billion on green initiatives isn't $150 billion in renewables subsidies. Forbes screwed up.


  • Options
    #826
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Well, I guess if hillary did it, it must be OK then.

    I'm just curious, but at what point can we stop with the "but hillary..." stuff?

    Given that Hillary was the rival in the election contest her campaign standards equally dropped to Trump's level. Infact Trump was staying on message during the election while the Democrats were straying from the economic, political & security arguments. Trump's arguments were too strong for the Democrats they resorted to a dirty tricks campaign. Nixon would have been proud.


  • Options
    #827
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Given that Hillary was the rival in the election contest her campaign standards equally dropped to Trump's level. Infact Trump was staying on message during the election while the Democrats were straying from the economic, political & security arguments. Trump's arguments were too strong for the Democrats they resorted to a dirty tricks campaign. Nixon would have been proud.

    I honestly dont know how you peddle stuff like this with a straight face.


  • Options
    #828
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    L wrote: »
    Sure. Happy to. In that case click through to the CNN article they're citing for their numbers and notice that the $150 billion they're talking about for green initiatives includes funding for Nuclear, High Speed Rail, smart metering, R&D, energy conservation, cleaning up nuclear test sites and adding insulation to homes.

    In other words, $150 billion on green initiatives isn't $150 billion in renewables subsidies. Forbes screwed up.

    Thank you for the link.

    I don't think Forbes screwed up, at all.

    From that 2012 CNN article you provided: ‘Nearly $100 billion of that will go towards supporting renewable energy, including subsidies for current wind, solar and biofuel projects as well as R&D for promising new technologies.’

    ‘Promising?’ What is promising?

    I take it the majority of that $100 Billion was spent on wind, solar and biofuel projects. So, what was the overall increase that can be attributed to those three, from 2009 to today?

    ‘Money well spent?’ I’m sure there are a whole lot of people that would tend to disagree.


  • Options
    #829
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭Harika


    Amerika wrote: »

    ‘Money well spent?’ I’m sure there are a whole lot of people that would tend to disagree.

    It's a long term investment, as the US was/is far behind China and Germany in development of sustainable energy technology and with the pure focus on the fossil energy it would have dropped even further behind.


  • Options
    #830
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Harika wrote: »
    It's a long term investment, as the US was/is far behind China and Germany in development of sustainable energy technology and with the pure focus on the fossil energy it would have dropped even further behind.

    Could you provide support for this. I would be interested in reading about it.

    It's a wonder why all those democrat crony political friends and donor solar companies that received obscene amounts of government funds when out of business, then, wouldn't you say?

    What I find most interesting about this side-bar discussion is we don't seem to mind wasting a good portion of some $150 Billion, but are aghast at the idea of spending some $25-$35 Billion, which could very well be paid for my Mexico, to stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages and destroying our economy.


  • Options
    #831
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Democrats today brought the ' Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 ' which would require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest. It also would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any specific matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest that come before their agencies.

    Now watch certain people claim that this is a bad idea and see it thrown out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,754 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Democrats today brought the ' Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 ' which would require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest. It also would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any specific matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest that come before their agencies.

    Now watch certain people claim that this is a bad idea and see it thrown out.

    I await Kellyanne Goebbels Conway's comments on this with baited breath.


  • Options
    #833
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Democrats today brought the ' Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 ' which would require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest. It also would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any specific matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest that come before their agencies.

    Now watch certain people claim that this is a bad idea and see it thrown out.
    I see this as simply the first of many sore loser anti-Trump laws the Democrats will introduce.


  • Options
    #834
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Amerika wrote: »
    I see this as simply the first of many sore loser anti-Trump laws the Democrats will introduce.

    Yep you're right, trying to hold politicians accountable is being a sore loser. What was that about draining the swamp? Seems the only ones against the draining are Trump and his team.

    I love how you went through all the possible rebuttals in your head, concluded none of them were good enough and then just played the 'sore loser' card.


  • Options
    #835
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    How would someone who wants to drain the swamp be against this.


  • Options
    #836
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Amerika wrote: »
    Thank you for the link.

    Glad to provide it though it's in the Forbes article, you linked, as a source.
    Amerika wrote: »
    I don't think Forbes screwed up, at all.

    Since they said it was $150b for renewables, I'm pretty sure they did. The basics of responsible journalism means being careful not to turn it into a game of chinese whispers as someone in turn cites your article, and someone else in turn cites their article.
    Amerika wrote: »
    I take it the majority of that $100 Billion was spent on wind, solar and biofuel projects.

    Well, without a better source it's hard to say but it's fairly unlikely given that source gives the energy expenditures as ballpark $36b, the eia quote a lower figure again & subsidies for the US are apparently about ~$0.02/KWh for renewables.

    It's also worth bearing in mind that much of those big flashy numbers is in soft money figures - they're government loan guarantees & loans rather than actual hard cash.
    Amerika wrote: »
    So, what was the overall increase that can be attributed to those three, from 2009 to today?

    I gave this a few posts back but if you're interested this link has a breakdown of all the US energy gen for a good many years.
    Amerika wrote: »
    ‘Money well spent?’ I’m sure there are a whole lot of people that would tend to disagree.

    Anyone in particular?


  • Options
    #837
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    How would someone who wants to drain the swamp be against this.

    Because he doesn't even know what he's against or for. He simply reads 'Democrats' and thinks, hmm, I must be against this, cause Donald probably is (and wouldn't he be, it clearly stops him from being a crook).

    Amerika and his ilk wouldn't know political ethics if they hit him in the face.


  • Options
    #838
    Bozacke
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭Bozacke


    Amerika wrote: »
    I see this as simply the first of many sore loser anti-Trump laws the Democrats will introduce.

    You are Unbelievable! This is a good thing to ensure the President , not just Trump, but any President, doesn't have a conflict of interest and will not be able to profit from their presidency! Trump supporters are so blind to reality, they are sad!


  • Options
    #839
    Bozacke
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭Bozacke


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Given that Hillary was the rival in the election contest her campaign standards equally dropped to Trump's level. Infact Trump was staying on message during the election while the Democrats were straying from the economic, political & security arguments. Trump's arguments were too strong for the Democrats they resorted to a dirty tricks campaign. Nixon would have been proud.

    You obviously were following the wrong election, as the Trump machine was feeding the uneducated Christians and Rust Belt people to buy in to all of Trump's lies. Plus, it was the Trump machine that was feeding the crazy lies about Hillary, calling her a criminal, chanting lock her up, burning her in effigy and producing crazy propaganda lies like Pizzagate!!


  • Options
    #840
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Amerika wrote: »
    No, Trump is know for getting projects accomplished on time, and under budget. Something our government can't begin to fathom.

    Of course he does, he skips the bill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,938 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    How would someone who wants to drain the swamp be against this.

    Speaking of "draining the swamp", I bet the Republicans would be foaming at the mouth if Clinton won and revealed Elon Musk as a cabinet pick - he is a US citizen after all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement