Oh How the Tables have Turned

a reply to: veracity


Well it must be a yearning for confirmation. Maybe it is. I can tell you my point of view didn't come from Murdock, Soros, or turner

a reply to: ketsuko

Eventually, the Republicans will learn how to be really corrupt again. This is why I am independent.

There's an old famous cartoon called "the march of tyranny" which illustrates how the red and blue boots both stomp on us, it's a very valid point and I understand what you're trying to say. Here's the thing, I don't think either democrats or republicans are inherently evil, it's certain administrations which take on certain qualities and it really has little to do with what they claim to believe. Most of us agree the Bush admin was a mess and very corrupt, and I think most also agree a Hillary admin would have been very corrupt. Their political leanings have very little to do with it, which is why Trump shouldn't necessarily be painted as evil simply because he's a republican, he's not even a typical republican and he's probably the most unorthodox president in the history of the world.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Perhaps you should read up on the psyops that get done with media outlets.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume I am a noob in the conspiracy world.

My message is not "go watch some Fox news folks, it's awesome".

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

His is also undignified and personally repulsive which makes leadership and role modelling pretty hard.

Not to mention he is literally an oligarch and appointed oligarchs all over his cabinet.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

His is also undignified and personally repulsive which makes leadership and role modelling pretty hard.

I've said those exact same things before, he is quite an immodest fool. I honestly don't think many people like Trump as a person... but that's not the point is it. You don't need to like your boss for that boss to be good at what they do.

All I have to say is... It could be worse

If you want unity as you claim then first you're going to have to accept reality.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I do accept reality it's those that support him that don't.

He is a former billionaire lobbyist. Oligarch.

And trump is not the boss unless you don't understand how it works. This is where the problems arise. Like I said it goes way past personal issues. It's also his stupid policy ideas. I agree with close to zero of his proposals. His only saving grace in my eyes is he appointed a good judge.

His immigration ideas are based on a lie and a false premise for instance. That the issue is Mexican laborers illigally coming to the country.

Yet it's the employers, even people like exon, that hire them and then cheat both the tax system and competition by creating a falsely low labor cost.

If you started deporting or jailing employears it is absolutely historically proven people will come far less. How about work visa's? The reality even trump wants illegals. Otherwise your grocery store trips are about to get interesting. 15 an hr on the west cost?

Yes I've got it... Trump must be removed for the left to be happy.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Well I am a libertarian, never voted left in my life.

But as a conservative or classical liberal thinking person my concerns are

A. HIS ACTUAL ideas which we could debate if you like somewhere else or here and I could explain how they either are not conservative or are just propaganda.

B. He creates so much drama and feuding literally nothing can get done (which may not be bad considering the ideas floating around both parties)

Let's say he gets himself in an impeachment process even totally bogus and mostly bs because he continues to push obscenity into the white house officials records and the Republicans themselves need to act. Over something stupid. Rand has been playing ball to try and actually do work but I know he is at his end, once he looses the fiscal conservatives he is done with any legislative power. The rank and file republicans are already speaking out about the insanity of the reality TV president show.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


At the time of that interview, calling out the media was a breath of fresh air. It was surprising and new! Now, people are jaded and inured to what was, at the time, shocking discourse.

a reply to: luthier

A. HIS ACTUAL ideas which we could debate if you like somewhere else or here and I could explain how they either are not conservative or are just propaganda.

I really couldn't be bothered because I've had this debate many times before. But I never said I agree with all his ideas, a huge wall is obviously dumb. However he was more than justified in getting out of the climate accord when it was so utterly discriminatory against the U.S. and so lenient with the largest polluters. No libertarian would ever support such nonsense. None of his plans are so insane he should be disavowed as president, that's a very extreme position. The point is, you either have a solid reason to remove him from office or you don't. You can't just say "oh I don't like his hair and his policies, we must get rid of him".

B. He creates so much drama and feuding literally nothing can get done (which may not be bad considering the ideas floating around both parties)

He creates the drama? Sigh... this trend of constantly attacking Trump at every given chance and then blaming the drama on him is getting old. Not to mention he's surrounded by Obama holdovers who are leaking and undermining him constantly, and proving to be very hard to replace with someone who isn't a foe of Trump. Trumps head of media relations was recently replaced with the leader of the Never Trump movement, this is what he's dealing with. Yet he is still destroying the lies from the MSM and their false leaks such as the piss dossier, he's making the left look like complete fools meanwhile they're trying to act like the egg is on his face. Laughable. They never report on the things he accomplishes because they're too busy pushing Russian conspiracy theories.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I don't support the accord. But I know because I study economics the importance of having the tech giants on board with future planning is far more important than the entirely symbolic nature of what he did. You know the next president can do something like Obama as well right? Also industry is and should be moving towards alternative high efficiency operation. When lobbyists control the market in an oligarchy they can promote winners and loses with subsidies. Then the other guy gets in and picks his winners. Fossil fuels have gotten more than 5 times the development grants and subsidies than renewables over the same time period.

So I am a realist. The goal is employing people. Doing it with 60 coal jobs vs planning more gigafactory like projects is utterly foolish.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So personally attacking people in a vulgar manner isn't dramatic?

Sigh the disciples will protect anything.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So I am a realist. The goal is employing people. Doing it with 60 coal jobs vs planning more gigafactory like projects is utterly foolish.

Destroying the coal industry because you want all energy to renewable is not a realist approach and it doesn't create jobs. Please read my thread "It could be worse" to see what happens when you try to build a nations infrastructure on only renewable and clean energy sources and let the coal industry die. I agree that renewable energy sources are the future but there is still a place for more traditional energy sources, especially in places like Australia where most of our energy comes from coal power plants. The fact is the U.S. now releases a very moderate amount of pollution compared to the largest polluters and they shouldn't have to carry the world on their back.

So personally attacking people in a vulgar manner isn't dramatic?

I don't doubt he's said some pretty inflammatory things but I'd bet 99% of them were responses to some one who attacked him first. Do you care to give an example of one of these vulgar attacks on someone you think didn't deserve it?

Sigh the disciples will protect anything.

Yes because disciples write threads like this about their master:

Trump Won't Be Cancelling World War 3 After All
Donald Trump: Imperialistic Authoritarian?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If you knew anything about economics you would know the coal industry is being destroyed by the market. It's being propped up by Washington. Natural gas is the thing taking away jobs.

And it doesn't matter. Attacking back is acting just like the idiot who bothered you to begin with. Famous quote being be weary of making arguments with crazy people, the observer has trouble telling who is who.

Also be weary of propaganda. Trump is a master of it he has done very little bit waive his arms around.

If you want to speak about a specific economic event I one of your articles it may be easier to have a meaningful dialogue. It's pretty hard to just make a vague statement then through a link in that is an opinion piece.

Also would love your take on getting rid of drinking water regulations to make coal mining more competitive. Do you believe pollution regulation should be removed to make a dieing industry have a few more years? Or should you start retraining?

a reply to: luthier

Yes that's always the same old argument I hear... "coal is in the decline, it's just natural market forces, lets ignore the fact it didn't really start declining till around 08 when Obama got in office, but yeah what was I saying, oh right coal is doomed so we should just forget about those idiots and move onto greener pastures, it's for the good of the planet".

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


Coal has been dying since fracking become an established national method.

Maybe take a look at some actual economic journals rather than msm pieces.

Maybe read some Milton and Hayek while your at it. Get a little grasp of the situation besides the fix news narrative.

Also it's about effeciency silly and resource preservation for the future generations. But I guess you don't get that part.

a reply to: luthier

Maybe take a look at some actual economic journals rather than msm pieces.

You sure make a lot of assumptions about where I get my information. The only reason I have some idea of the history of coal production is because I recently had this debate with someone else, who provided this handy dandy chart as proof of coals decline:

I responded that it only seemed to decline after 08, to which he responded he has another better chart which shows the level of employment in the coal industry has declined since the 90's. However I would argue that many industries have experienced a drop in employees due to factors such as automation and improved production methods. It's a jump to assume that just because the number of employees drops the industry must be dying.

Also it's about effeciency silly and resource preservation for the future generations. But I guess you don't get that part.

If we really cared about efficiency and minimizing fossil fuel use we'd switch to highly efficient, extremely safe, very cheap solutions such as liquid fluoride thorium reactors or something similar. You assume I don't have any care for the planet, which couldn't be further from the truth. I simply understand the fact that some level of carbon pollution is sustainable and not necessarily bad, it can even be good for trees and plants. Of course I believe nations like China release too much pollution but I don't think the U.S. should be cuckolded for no good reason. Issues like mass deforestation, dumping of waste in the environment, over-fishing our oceans, or any other number of critical things we can actually see with our eyes go ignored in favor of global warming fear mongering. That's not to say we shouldn't have some concern for global warming, but there comes a point where it's just virtue signalling rhetoric.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You don't get it.

It's about pollution not just carbon. Like ground water.

It's also about preserving the resource for the possibility it may be needed in the future, and for oil and gas it is needed for synthetics not as fuel.

And have you looked at the growth of fracking and natural gas and it's cost over the same time.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Like you, I am not historically a major consumer of Main Stream Media(MSM). I occasionally check it out when major shifts seem to be occurring, ie. lead up to Dessert Storm(1990-1991), Federal assault on Branch Davidians (1993), 2000 election, 9-11, U.S. led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, U.S. led invasion of Iraq (2003), U.S. supported and militarily supplied Israeli dismemberment of Lebanon (2006), you get the picture.

From what I saw, the U.S. plan was to be the arbiter of the New World Order(NWO), as derived from a motto:

Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New order of the ages"; English: /ˈnoʊvəs ˈɔːrdoʊ sɛˈklɔərəm/; Latin pronunciation: [ˈnɔwʊs ˈoːrdoː seːˈkɫoːrũː]) is the second of two mottos that appear on the reverse (or back side) of the Great Seal of the United States. (The first motto is Annuit cœptis, literally translated "[He/she/it] has favored our undertakings".) The Great Seal was first designed in 1782, and has been printed on the back of the United States one-dollar bill since 1935. The phrase Novus ordo seclorum is sometimes mistranslated as "New World Order" by people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design.[1]
Novus Ordo Seclorum

The first time I recall hearing the term was by G.H.W.Bush in his speech about how the U.N. was backing the U.S. at the U.S. lead in Liberating a weak nation from the grip of a stronger aggressor nation. Turn the tables, the son of that Preident went to the U.N. to do the opposite thing, get the World(as represented by U.N. security council) to approve the invasion and occupation of a weaker nation by a stronger nation. He failed. The UNSC (United Nations Security Council) did not approve. U.S. as World arbiter had slipped.

Ideologically, I do not support the notion that the U.S. should be the Arbiter for the World. The notion that the President of the United States should be considered "the most powerful man in the World" is ludicrous to me. She/he should rightfully be regarded as Head of State among other heads of state, no more-no less.

Not being a consumer of entertainment side of MSM, I had no idea who Donald Trump was, since I didn't watch Howard Stern, or Chris Matthews on MSNBC (evidently he has interviewed him about 12 times over the last 20 years), to be shown this coming Monday. I didn't watch The Apprentice, or beauty pageants. So I did not have MSM concocted idea of who this man's public persona was. I see now that MSM produced this man. How ironic that MSM is the target of his attacks. He is not an ideological politician, he is an outrageous entertainment distraction for those who financed him.

The agenda behind the man in my opinion is to cause the U.S. to become irrelevant on the World stage. Isolationists may approve of this. I don't particularly subscribe to Isolationism.

W. Bush was aligned with and backed by Neo-Cons. Neo-Cons ideologically stand for U.S. control of the World (Pax Americana) for the benefit of Israel. These same Neo-Cons like David Frum, Bill Crystal, Max Boot, are now frequent guests on MSNBC, speaking unfavorably about Donald Trump.

So the Trump string pullers want to gut America and the Neo-Cons would like the nonsense which weakens the U.S to stop, so that when they come back to power they will have a strong U.S. to dictate to the World.

My position: The U.S. should take it's rightful place as a nation among nations, neither ruler of the World, nor gutted shell of a nation.

a reply to: luthier

I agree pollution leeching into the environment is a bad thing, but factories release far more toxic pollution than power plants, especially if they're using "clean coal" filtering mechanisms. Also I don't recall saying oil should be burnt as fast as possible, I've written a thread showing that if we continue burning our oil at this rate there will be none left within 100 years at most. I'm not sure how we burn most of our oil but I assume it's cars and trucks, and I would argue in favor of a shift to electric vehicles.

However I wouldn't dismiss the relevance of normal petroleum fueled cars and I wouldn't expect them to go away even when people have cleaner options, and I wouldn't force them to stop using their "old obsolete cars". We will burn up our oil, there is simply no way around it, so we're going to have to eventually find synthetic alternatives or recycle old rubber and plastic as long as we can. As far as I'm aware there are already quite good synthetic options available.

This argument is much the same as the overpopulation argument. Of course we want our world population to stop exploding but we must also accept the fact it's hard to force people not to have children and we will probably destroy this planet unless we find a way to leave this planet and start colonizing the solar system and eventually the galaxy. We cannot peg all our hopes on the ability of humans to regulate themselves, it will never happen, which is why we need truly long term sustainable solutions which allow growth without destroying ourselves in the process.