Trump 2.0

TheVat said:
About that arch thingy... And the lipstick Turnip puts on every pig:


Harold Hongju Koh, a former State Department legal advisor who now teaches international law at Yale Law School, called Trump's justification "laughable and pretextual."

"If there are dangers to which you need to have drones and snipers … Why don't you just move them there now? Why do you need to build an arch?" Koh asked. "Secondly, if the arch is what's creating the national security problem, so much that you need to have these mobile protections on board, then just don't build the arch."

Koh said that if Trump is truly concerned about a threat on the National Mall, he should hold a classified briefing to that effect and ask Congress to militarize the existing monuments. But he thinks it's more likely that Trump is playing the national security card in the hopes of boosting his case in court.

"It's the lipstick he puts on every pig," Koh said. "Immigration is for national security. Terrorists are for national security. Building a border wall is for national security. Building a ballroom is for national security."
Click to expand...
I’m slightly curious as to how claiming something is needed for national security helps him avoid the need for Congressional and other approvals for these constructions. Is national security something the president can determine on his own, bypassing the checks that would otherwise be required?
 
exchemist said:
I’m slightly curious as to how claiming something is needed for national security helps him avoid the need for Congressional and other approvals for these constructions. Is national security something the president can determine on his own, bypassing the checks that would otherwise be required?
Click to expand...
It depends. There are powers that Congress has already authorised or delegated to the President in times of national emergency, for expediency etc. Trump seems to use this to think that if he declares a national emergency - or even the somewhat weaker "it's for national security" - to make the case that Congress have already authorised the President (to do whatever it is he's wanting to do).
So Congress have said: "in situation X we authorise the President to do Y".
Trump continually says: "I am declaring X to be the case/situation... therefore I can do Y".
Hence the court cases when it's not obvious that X is the case, or that Y falls within the powers previously authorised. With the arch debacle, it's clearly not a matter of national security, but he's trying to pull a fast one, so to speak. And even if there were a national emergency, the idea that the arch would be needed when you have the Pentagon and a military base both within a couple of miles or so... it's all just nonsense. The real issue is whether the US systems in place (e.g. Congress, SCOTUS etc) will allow him to get away with the bullshit, which they seem increasingly more reluctant to do, but that's only relative to effectively letting him do what he's wanted thus far.
 
Teehee:

Trump dismantled U.S. climate policy. But his war is cutting emissions.​

While the president remains a climate-change denier, the war with Iran has triggered an unforeseen benefit in the fight against global warming.

September 24, 2026 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

(Gift link)


(...)
The open question is how much of the drop in oil and gas use — known in the industry as “demand destruction” — is permanent. That is hotly debated in the energy industry, with many forecasts showing demand returning to prewar levels in 2027.

But economists generally agree that the longer an energy disruption persists, the more permanent the shift may be.

Drivers burdened by gas shortages and soaring prices turn to hybrids and fully electric vehicles. Utilities unable to get shipments of liquefied natural gas shift to wind, solar and nuclear power. Homeowners trade in their oil-burning furnaces for heat pumps and rooftop panels. The economics of budding technologies, such as geothermal power, start to look more attractive, leading to infrastructure investments that permanently shift what energy is consumed for decades.
 
How It's Going (#WhatTheyVotedFor)

So, Mike Rothschild↱ tries to explain:

God tier AI slop from Trump this morning. A picture of his photo op with Xi, except the spouses are gone, a woman who looks like Natalie Harp is in the background, Trump is only wearing one glove, and what looks like a Russian TU-22 bomber is flying overhead ....​

Remember, nobody forced anyone to vote for this. Yet it is what they voted for.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2103165129466765362
 
TheVat said:
Teehee:

Trump dismantled U.S. climate policy. But his war is cutting emissions.​

While the president remains a climate-change denier, the war with Iran has triggered an unforeseen benefit in the fight against global warming.

September 24, 2026 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

(Gift link)


(...)
The open question is how much of the drop in oil and gas use — known in the industry as “demand destruction” — is permanent. That is hotly debated in the energy industry, with many forecasts showing demand returning to prewar levels in 2027.

But economists generally agree that the longer an energy disruption persists, the more permanent the shift may be.

Drivers burdened by gas shortages and soaring prices turn to hybrids and fully electric vehicles. Utilities unable to get shipments of liquefied natural gas shift to wind, solar and nuclear power. Homeowners trade in their oil-burning furnaces for heat pumps and rooftop panels. The economics of budding technologies, such as geothermal power, start to look more attractive, leading to infrastructure investments that permanently shift what energy is consumed for decades.
Click to expand...
Cutting emissions?

What I see is that the intention of the current conflict is to be the solely supplier of the harmful petroleum. An ambitious goal from the current administration and minions but so far is in progress. This is to say, oil main source around the world will come from US companies and petrodollar will survive very well.

A temporary supply lack of oil is not a permanent solution. Oil production eventually will return back to its former levels.

My concern is how good for people is the option of other sources of energy. Last week I just visited a family that have issues with their oil heating. Replacing it will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, money they don't have. Fixing it will be the better choice even when oil price is very high today.

I don't fell happy knowing about their situation, and this is the situation of many oil heating system owners, gas car drivers, diesel truck drivers and more. How I might wish for them to have greater economical issues caused by high fuel prices?

I drive a gas fueled car. Excuse me but I won't buy an expensive electric car that will change my style of life when I will depend on electric outlets to charge its engine and will limit my freedom of traveling at my will. Electric cars might work great driving inside the city all the time, but I love driving long distances for recreation. I won't buy a vehicle to limit my desires but I will buy a vehicle that fits my life style.

I remember predictions of the 70s that for year 2000 the sky will be filled will a green cloud and several similar apocalyptic situations. Nothing of that is perceived 50 years later.

If the government want people to change from old sources of energy to new energy saver energies "earth friendly", the government must provide grants to make the cost cheaper or even free. With today's electric car vehicles price, I am not even near to buy one of those, and on the contrary, if my current car breaks down, my next car will be a used gas car from 2010 and up.

Nothing against guys trying to "save the world" or against new technologies, but when is about my needs, spending money and freedom of choice always rule. I keep gas fueled car, gas heating system, electricity coming from a company burning coal, and so forth. Ah, life is good.
 
Luchito said:
What I see is that the intention of the current conflict is to be the solely supplier of the harmful petroleum. An ambitious goal from the current administration and minions but so far is in progress. This is to say, oil main source around the world will come from US companies and petrodollar will survive very well.
Click to expand...
This is not the goal of the current US administration. At best they are looking to secure supply for themselves so as not to rely on the global market that can be impacted by such pesky matters as a war they started with Iran. They have made deals with Venezuela to tap their oil fields, but how much investment that gets is yet to be seen, and doubtfully any until the chaos of Trump's term is behind them. It is all about securing supply for themselves, not about controlling the global market per se. And the US "petrodollar" will only survive as long as other countries continue to use the dollar to settle international transactions.
Luchito said:
A temporary supply lack of oil is not a permanent solution. Oil production eventually will return back to its former levels.
Click to expand...
Yes, the current situation is a disruption, not a "new norm". However, with the shortages seen worldwide, many countries are seeing the benefits of reducing their reliance on oil/diesel/petrol, and moving to alternative sources. So demand will reduce as a result, but likely be offset (and more) from population growth (and the commensurate demand).

The rest of your post, take it to an appropriate thread. Your personal circumstances will of course dictate how willing you are not to contribute to the world's pollution, but the first thing is to at least acknowledge that there is a problem. If you can't afford to do what you'd like, okay. But if it's more a matter of not acknowledging the issue, or simply not caring, that's something else. But, whatever, it's a matter for a separate thread, methinks. ;)
 
Some of the EV affordability problem here is the US economic conflict with China, which means their affordable electrics (the Seagull starting around $12K in some foreign markets) are shut out of our market. This is thread relevant, since this regulatory lockout is the Turnip admin's doing. Although, in any administration, there might be requirements to remove some of the Chinese data collection software/hardware in their vehicles due to national security concerns. That could take years to negotiate.

(A related phenomenon here on the data security thing is constant shortage of non-Chinese routers in electronics stores, because people are tossing their Chinese TP-Link routers and replacing them)
 


A few tentative displays of independence among Republicans have expanded in recent days into a stampede, as candidates furiously distance themselves from President Trump ahead of the midterm elections. “This is shaping up to be a nightmare political environment for every Republican, everywhere—period, full stop,” one Texas-based political consultant told us, speaking anonymously to provide a frank assessment. Noting that gas prices across the country are on average $4.50 a gallon, the consultant described the atmosphere as “a fucking disaster for anyone in a competitive race."
Click to expand...

(Article is free, a gift link)
 
Luchito said:
My concern is how good for people is the option of other sources of energy. Last week I just visited a family that have issues with their oil heating. Replacing it will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, money they don't have. Fixing it will be the better choice even when oil price is very high today.
Click to expand...
No, a better choice would be adding insulation, then going to a heat pump. FAR less cost over the next 20 years.

Excuse me but I won't buy an expensive electric car that will change my style of life when I will depend on electric outlets to charge its engine and will limit my freedom of traveling at my will.
Click to expand...

My last EV cost less than your gas car, if you bought new. I spend less time charging it than you do getting gas. And I go wherever I want. AND I don't have to buy gas for months.

I remember predictions of the 70s that for year 2000 the sky will be filled will a green cloud
Click to expand...

Then your memory is faulty. No one predicted a "green cloud" filling the sky in the year 2000.

If the government want people to change from old sources of energy to new energy saver energies "earth friendly", the government must provide grants to make the cost cheaper or even free.
Click to expand...

We used to do that. Trump stopped it because oil companies control him.


Nothing against guys trying to "save the world" or against new technologies, but when is about my needs, spending money and freedom of choice always rule. I keep gas fueled car, gas heating system, electricity coming from a company burning coal, and so forth. Ah, life is good.
Click to expand...

I have two EVs, a heat pump, and a solar power system. My power bill is $26 a month. My gas bill is $0 most months. Ah, life is good!

What's your power bill per month? How about your gas bill?
 
How It's Going (#WhatTheyVotedFor)

Dan Diamond↱ of Washington Post notes:

Russell Brand, who's awaiting trial in London next month on rape and sexual assault charges, will moderate a panel at DC's MAHA summit tomorrow on reforming a U.S. health agency​

Just to be clear, that's a data trader, a quack doctor, and a comedian discussing reform at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tell me it's not What They Voted For; make it make sense, I dare you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2104672593689149637
 
Tiassa said:
Tell me it's not What They Voted For; make it make sense, I dare you.
Click to expand...
Stumped here in flyover country. Best guess is their votes are not for specifics, just for whatever boots out brown people, guts the federal government and kicks over the science applecart. As for a panel on reform, hasn't reform become the code word for "slashing funding until whatever it is breaks down"?
 
billvon said:
No, a better choice would be adding insulation, then going to a heat pump. FAR less cost over the next 20 years.
Click to expand...

Well, the heating system was there when the house was bought. Then, I have been paying solely the monthly payments. If I change my curent heating system, such will cost me tens of thousands of dollars, and years "saving money" with the new system will be "more than a decade" in order to see the real savings. Not for me. I don't live based on hope.
billvon said:
My last EV cost less than your gas car, if you bought new. I spend less time charging it than you do getting gas. And I go wherever I want. AND I don't have to buy gas for months.
Click to expand...
Whatever you want, sure, right. I see guys behind a gas station watching videos in their phones while waiting for hours for their EV to be recharged. What a waste of their lives depending of a charger for hours. And I heard that such charging is not cheap anymore, because electric bills have almost double lately.
billvon said:
Then your memory is faulty. No one predicted a "green cloud" filling the sky in the year 2000.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was an active fanatic of those news papers or magazines like the Enquirer. I will give you the benefit of doubt because my memory can't set correctly the year I read such a prediction, but surely was said "for the next century" the sky will be green. Perhaps based on the movie Soylent Green.
billvon said:
We used to do that. Trump stopped it because oil companies control him.
Click to expand...

Companies have always controlled the administrations, no matter if Republican or Democrat. But thanks for remind me about it.
billvon said:
I have two EVs, a heat pump, and a solar power system. My power bill is $26 a month. My gas bill is $0 most months. Ah, life is good!

What's your power bill per month? How about your gas bill?
Click to expand...

My gas bill seven to eight months in the year is around $22. Winter is different, a way more costly. You seem to be one of the lucky guys who doesn't pay "solar power maintenance bill". Sounds very good. One in my family doesn't pay those charges... no, he does pay such "maintenance bill", I think he told me it was a little more than $80, something like that.
 
time.com

Read TIME’s ‘What Trump Has Built’ Interview Transcript

The U.S. President discussed the war in Iran, press freedom, AI, and more ahead of the midterm elections.
time.com time.com

An interview in Time Magazine with the Orange Doofus.
It's worth a read, even just snippets, as he really does confirm his grotesque narcissism, his delusions, his stupidity, his lack of eloquence, and generally muddled mind.

E.g.
Do you trust Sam Altman?

I like him. Do I trust him? Who do I trust? I like Sam Altman. Smart. Dario's smart. They're all smart. We're dealing with a very high level of IQ. Very very high level. That's a good thing. I like that. I like it. Did you see the story about my uncle?

The one who taught at MIT?

I have the highest of IQs. I have the highest. I'm fine, and I understand that stuff. You know, my uncle was at MIT for 41 years, and you know, I'm a—I believe in genetics, frankly, and I understand. I understand it much more than I think any president would, because I do have an ability on this. I have an ability on those things that were the new frontiers.


The guy's a ****ing moron.
 
Sarkus - when a president makes Otto in A Fish Called Wanda look intelligent, we're in some trouble. -_O

A little good news today - judge issues temporary injunction against the wall construction project along the US/Mexico border which runs through Big Bend, one of our wildest and most beautiful national parks. Judge says plaintiffs have solid legal standing (showing direct harm) to press their suit further. The Big Bend boondoggle is one even a fair number of GOP congress are opposed to, so this is encouraging.
 
Sarkus said:
time.com

Read TIME’s ‘What Trump Has Built’ Interview Transcript

The U.S. President discussed the war in Iran, press freedom, AI, and more ahead of the midterm elections.
time.com time.com

An interview in Time Magazine with the Orange Doofus.
It's worth a read, even just snippets, as he really does confirm his grotesque narcissism, his delusions, his stupidity, his lack of eloquence, and generally muddled mind.

E.g.
Do you trust Sam Altman?

I like him. Do I trust him? Who do I trust? I like Sam Altman. Smart. Dario's smart. They're all smart. We're dealing with a very high level of IQ. Very very high level. That's a good thing. I like that. I like it. Did you see the story about my uncle?

The one who taught at MIT?

I have the highest of IQs. I have the highest. I'm fine, and I understand that stuff. You know, my uncle was at MIT for 41 years, and you know, I'm a—I believe in genetics, frankly, and I understand. I understand it much more than I think any president would, because I do have an ability on this. I have an ability on those things that were the new frontiers.


The guy's a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...
© Rex Tillerson, 2017. :)
 
OHIO MAN DROPS ANVIL ON HIS FOOT SEVERAL TIMES, FINALLY CONCLUDES ITS CURATIVE POWERS FOR INGROWN TOENAIL HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED



SPRINGFIELD, Ohio (AP) — Sipping tea from beer mugs with his co-workers, Kyle Bos listed the ways his life is changing.

Bos has two daughters, with a third due in January. At the grocery store, five items cost as much as a full cart once did. And on Wednesday, Bos and nearly 1,400 other people were laid off from their jobs at what had been the Navistar truck factory in southwestern Ohio.

The layoffs — occurring just three days before President Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday at a nearby high school — were large enough to basically erase an entire year of job growth in the greater Dayton, Ohio, area. And they are one reason why Bos, 30, plans to spend the final weeks before the November election canvassing votes for Democrats.

Asked how many times he had voted for Trump, Bos held up three tattooed fingers. But he said he’s done with the president.

“Something has to change politically in this country,” said Bos, a member of the United Auto Workers who identifies as a centrist. “Seems like it just kept getting worse and worse and worse.”
 
From The Grauniad:

The interruptions seemed to momentarily derail the president as he repeated a lie about James Talarico, the Texas Democrat he claims is a vegan who only pretends to eat meat and secretly vomits every time he does. There is no evidence for this imaginary tale the president has repeated multiple times in recent weeks as Talarico has pulled ahead of the Trump-backed Republican candidate for the US Senate, Ken Paxton.

Trump began his riff with the rare admission that he has been mispronouncing the word vegan, as “vaygan”.

“He is a fake,” Trump said of the Democrat. “He’s a vegan. You know, my wife told me, ‘Sir, do me a favor. You have to do me just a little bit of a favor. It’s not vaygan; it’s vegan’”.

As the president told this story about being asked to pronounce the word correctly, he appeared to get confused about who, exactly, had corrected him. Trump does not usually refer to his wife calling him “Sir”. Moments later he said that the person who made this request of him was a man.

“I don’t know about that stuff. I’m not into it. And he said ‘It’s vegan! Please pronounce that word properly. I called it, vaygan, vaygan. I thought it- how the hell would I know? I like steak.”
------------------------------------------------

Aside from the secret vomit theory, which seems to be serving red meat to the manosphere bros, it's nice to see the president opening his mind to shifting gender identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top