The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

Forums › Politics › The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

1 | ... | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | ... | 1290

21537 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1709427 25-Jan-2017 14:28

Amiibro:

I had hopes of writing out some long, insightful response but all I can do is sigh. With the latest news coming out of the US today, I'll be surprised if there's going to be enough tomorrows for history to judge this mess for what it truly is. *sigh*

I dont think much has come out that wasn't expected or promised. Plus, these orders aren't calls to action. At least he is getting on with it, credit for that. Repercussions will be in due course

DarthKermit

5312 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1709430 25-Jan-2017 14:33

Americans wanted change from the status quo, and by god they're getting all the change they could possibly ever want (and then some).

tdgeek

21537 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1709438 25-Jan-2017 14:55

DarthKermit:

Americans wanted change from the status quo, and by god they're getting all the change they could possibly ever want (and then some).

To be fair, they are getting the changes that he promised

Fred99

11156 posts

Uber Geek

#1709489 25-Jan-2017 16:24

Pumpedd:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

Not that this matters of course - as according to Trump, climate change is a myth or a plot made up by the Chinese to undermine the USA.

I live in hope that Trump is a myth made up by Trump to undermine Trump.

My wife and I have a very good friend who's a PhD physicist, gay/married, who works as a senior environmental scientist for EPA in DC.
He's still sane, but I expect living with the same hope you express.

Why is his sexual orientation relevant?

Perhaps because he's married and Trump is opposed to same-sex marriage equality. Perhaps Trump actually isn't - but made concessions to keep fundies on side.

What Trump can do about it - who knows?

Presumably withdraw all federal benefits and protections afforded to married opposite sex couples - even if he can't force individual states to repeal their own laws. (But I wouldn't bet on that either - now that it looks like the SCOTUS will be stacked).

Edit - more on that. Trump's team have now unofficially put forward the name of Judge William H. Pryor Jr. to fill the SC vacancy. When he was Alabama attorney general, he actually filed a brief to argue that individual states should be allowed to enact laws to make homosexuality illegal.

Fred99

11156 posts

Uber Geek

#1709491 25-Jan-2017 16:37

tdgeek:

DarthKermit:

Americans wanted change from the status quo, and by god they're getting all the change they could possibly ever want (and then some).

To be fair, they are getting the changes that he promised

Not yet they aren't. He hasn't "locked her up", started targeting women and children / families of terrorists for extermination, extracted payment from Mexico to build the wall to stop Mexican murderers and rapists, introduced a database of all Muslims in the US and banned Muslims from entering the country, deported 11 million illegals, etc ad nauseum.

What he seems to be focusing on instead is "draining the swamp" and refilling it with cronies, liars, conspiracy theorists - and (with fairly spectacular lack of success I must say) trying to discredit the US media. But I don't think he'll be stop trying to do that - not until he gasps his last breath. Controlling the media is paramount to his plans for authoritarian rule.

tdgeek

21537 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1709495 25-Jan-2017 16:55

Fred99:
tdgeek:

DarthKermit:

Americans wanted change from the status quo, and by god they're getting all the change they could possibly ever want (and then some).

To be fair, they are getting the changes that he promised

Not yet they aren't. He hasn't "locked her up", started targeting women and children / families of terrorists for extermination, extracted payment from Mexico to build the wall to stop Mexican murderers and rapists, introduced a database of all Muslims in the US and banned Muslims from entering the country, deported 11 million illegals, etc ad nauseum.

What he seems to be focusing on instead is "draining the swamp" and refilling it with cronies, liars, conspiracy theorists - and (with fairly spectacular lack of success I must say) trying to discredit the US media. But I don't think he'll be stop trying to do that - not until he gasps his last breath. Controlling the media is paramount to his plans for authoritarian rule.

It's day 4. Orders have been signed daily. Rome wasn't built in a day. Today he is to announce how he will build his wall.
Had he been normal it would be looking positive, but he isn't. Making promises is one thing, signingirders usnt a great deal more.the key is action and that's where it will tumble down. Your hope of his failure is still well on track.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1709556 25-Jan-2017 19:12

Didn't Trump call Obama's use of executive orders illegal or unjust or something like that, during the election campaign?

darylblake

1030 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1709558 25-Jan-2017 19:16

Pumpedd:
Didn't Trump call Obama's use of executive orders illegal or unjust or something like that, during the election campaign?

So much rhetoric we will never know.

My guess is he will give the concrete contract for his wall to a company he owns a lot of that hire Mexican workers. Because that's how he rolls.

Batman

Mad Scientist
23077 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1709573 25-Jan-2017 19:38

darylblake:
Pumpedd:

Didn't Trump call Obama's use of executive orders illegal or unjust or something like that, during the election campaign?

So much rhetoric we will never know.

My guess is he will give the concrete contract for his wall to a company he owns a lot of that hire Mexican workers. Because that's how he rolls.

Nailed it!

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

DarthKermit

5312 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1709597 25-Jan-2017 20:16

Cheaper Mexican workers = more profit for whoever scores the contract from Herr Trump.

Stan

929 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1709636 25-Jan-2017 21:20

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

I would love to see the EPA gutted like a fish. Their regulations have caused outboard engines to become complicated and consequently expensive and unreliable.

I'd "love" to modify my log-burning fire to undo design features which keep emissions down to levels which have been deemed to be acceptable.
But I won't do that - because I like and care about my neighbours.

The log fire I had was clean air approved, and it does keep emissions down, as in you cannot keep it smouldering overnight which is smokey

Your saying that your clean air approved logfire is smokey because of the clean air design?

No - the reverse. It would be convenient (but "dirty") to modify the burner so that it could be "choked off" to smoulder all night.

The emissions (particulate in g/kg fuel) of the new burner are less than 1/10 those of the old burner it replaced.

Less than 1/10th is a bit of an over exaggeration unless you are referring to ULEBs vs open fires. Burners from 20-30 years ago were around 4-5g/kg, most moderns fires are around 1g/kg.

Also you can get clean air overnight burners here are some examples 1, 2, 3, 4

I work in the industry so I am somewhat pedantic.

Fred99

11156 posts

Uber Geek

#1709652 25-Jan-2017 22:11

Stan:

Less than 1/10th is a bit of an over exaggeration unless you are referring to ULEBs vs open fires. Burners from 20-30 years ago were around 4-5g/kg, most moderns fires are around 1g/kg.

Also you can get clean air overnight burners here are some examples 1, 2, 3, 4

I work in the industry so I am somewhat pedantic.

2.3.2 Testing of older (pre 1994) wood burners In winter 2005 an in situ emission-testing programme was carried out to test the validity of existing emission factors for older (pre 1994) solid fuel burners in Tokoroa (Wilton, Smith, Dey, & Webley, 2006). A total of 96 measurements were made from across 12 households. Households operated the burners as they normally would and used their own fuel. The measurement method was the ARS in situ method described in section 2.2.2 and included cold start emissions. The average emissions were 11 grams per kilogram (wet weight) and 14 grams per kilogram (dry weight) and compared favourably with emission factors of 11-13 grams per kilogram used in inventories for older burners in New Zealand.

(Source https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/WoodburnerReportFinal.pdf section 2.3.2)

No - I don't think I was exaggerating. Old burner was about 1990, new burner is IIRC 0.8 g/kg, so I'm quite happy with my "less than 1/10th" estimate.

Sorry - this is a little off-topic.

Fred99

11156 posts

Uber Geek

#1709660 25-Jan-2017 22:26

Fred99 in Berlin in 1989.
On the bucket list is to do the same to Trump's wall - if he ever builds it.

gzt

11684 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1709664 25-Jan-2017 22:27

Stan

Fred99

Clearly that's a debate that could go on for hours and already has. No parting shots on wood burners. Create another thread for that.

Stan

929 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1709682 25-Jan-2017 22:55

Fred99:

Stan:

Less than 1/10th is a bit of an over exaggeration unless you are referring to ULEBs vs open fires. Burners from 20-30 years ago were around 4-5g/kg, most moderns fires are around 1g/kg.

Also you can get clean air overnight burners here are some examples 1, 2, 3, 4

I work in the industry so I am somewhat pedantic.

2.3.2 Testing of older (pre 1994) wood burners In winter 2005 an in situ emission-testing programme was carried out to test the validity of existing emission factors for older (pre 1994) solid fuel burners in Tokoroa (Wilton, Smith, Dey, & Webley, 2006). A total of 96 measurements were made from across 12 households. Households operated the burners as they normally would and used their own fuel. The measurement method was the ARS in situ method described in section 2.2.2 and included cold start emissions. The average emissions were 11 grams per kilogram (wet weight) and 14 grams per kilogram (dry weight) and compared favourably with emission factors of 11-13 grams per kilogram used in inventories for older burners in New Zealand.

(Source https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/WoodburnerReportFinal.pdf section 2.3.2)

No - I don't think I was exaggerating. Old burner was about 1990, new burner is IIRC 0.8 g/kg, so I'm quite happy with my "less than 1/10th" estimate.

Sorry - this is a little off-topic.

"The measurement method was the ARS in situ method described in section 2.2.2 and included cold start emissions"

Do you know the testing methodology of modern wood burners?

Sorry taken to PM too ot

1 | ... | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | ... | 1290