Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

CIA says Putin helped Trump win

734 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14
10 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

Funny you should call him a petulant man-child when we just elected exactly that to be our next president, a man most concerned with the reported size of his crowds and how wealthy people think he is.

He has already reaching across the aisle more in his first few days than Obama did his entire presidency and that is NOT an exaggeration.  Obama's attitude was "I won." period and  "We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”   His legacy legislation was passed by bending the senate rules, ignoring ALL republican warnings and passed without a single republican vote.  It was/is an utter disaster.

I find it humorous that while Trump is tearing Obama's 8 years to shreds, just as he promised, the press and people like you are concentrating on these ridiculous argument about who said what when and almost completely ignoring the real show that is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.   It is called sleight of hand, watch what my right hand is doing while my left makes the swap.  I don't know for sure if that is what is going on but I do notice that there are a LOT of posts here about this silliness and none about the two pipelines Obama and the environmentalists fought for eight years that just got approved on day two of Trump.    :whistle:

10 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

The republicans share at least just as much blame as Obama for failing to work with the president. After all as you well know, the legislative branch is essentially equally as powerful as the President.

Obama didn't even work well when he owned both houses hence his failure to get one budget passed his first seven years.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/aug/27/obama-never-passed-a-budget/

President Barack Obama will be the first president in this great country who will not have passed a budget in his first term of office. He submitted a budget that was defeated by a vote of 97-0. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for it.

In his first two years in office, instead of focusing on the economy, he passed the stimulus bill (which did not work because he pushed for clean energy), and the Affordable Healthcare Act (which had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was so controversial). In fact, we had to wait until it was passed before we saw what was in it.

In 2010, the Republicans won a majority in the House, and they have submitted 33 budget bills that have been shelved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The bills were not allowed for discussion or for a vote. The president refuses to negotiate with the Republicans.

I would like to say that all voters need to ask any person running for public office how the candidates plan on breaking this deadlock in Washington, D.C. If they can’t answer that question, they don’t deserve our vote.

Please, the man was one of, if not the worst, negotiators in our history, he couldn't even negotiate a budget when he had a veto proof majority in both houses.  :rolleyes:

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
11 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

 

   I don't know for sure if that is what is going on but I do notice that there are a LOT of posts here about this silliness and none about the two pipelines Obama and the environmentalists fought for eight years that just got approved on day two of Trump.    :whistle:

 

 

I have to be honest I had not heard about that.  What a scumbag. This does not bode well for the future of the earth that he's doing stupid crap like this for his and his buddies portfolios just a few days into taking office. I cant wait to read the reactions from the thousands of veterans who made them stand down before. 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I have to be honest I had not heard about that.  What a scumbag. This does not bode well for the future of the earth that he's doing stupid crap like this for his and his buddies portfolios just a few days into taking office. I cant wait to read the reactions from the thousands of veterans who made them stand down before. 

From what I've seen the Indians are loving the new way they are going about this. Protest is over. But no, lets rush to judgment before we know anything, ADMITTEDLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I have to be honest I had not heard about that.  What a scumbag. This does not bode well for the future of the earth that he's doing stupid crap like this for his and his buddies portfolios just a few days into taking office. I cant wait to read the reactions from the thousands of veterans who made them stand down before. 

Wow, for a conspiracy guy I am surprised you missed this one.  Presently, all that oil is moved by rail, a significantly less safe method of transportation than a pipeline and guess who owns a large stake in those railroads?  I'll let you figure that out but the oil is moving either way, so you can have it rolling along on rails in tank cars or safely ensconced in a pipeline, hundreds of which already cross all that "sacred land".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Wow, for a conspiracy guy I am surprised you missed this one.  Presently, all that oil is moved by rail, a significantly less safe method of transportation than a pipeline and guess who owns a large stake in those railroads?  I'll let you figure that out but the oil is moving either way, so you can have it rolling along on rails in tank cars or safely ensconced in a pipeline, hundreds of which already cross all that "sacred land".  

I tend to go dark during my time off of work. I actually just started a thread on the issue ! 

I understand the logistical problems of moving oil, its just time that we become adults and figure out other ways of doing things. We know the damage caused by pipelines lasts forever, we know that oil spills cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem, we know that we dont even really know the extent of spills in remote areas. Its just time to find a better way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I tend to go dark during my time off of work. I actually just started a thread on the issue ! 

I understand the logistical problems of moving oil, its just time that we become adults and figure out other ways of doing things. We know the damage caused by pipelines lasts forever, we know that oil spills cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem, we know that we dont even really know the extent of spills in remote areas. Its just time to find a better way. 

So you prefer the less safe trains to a more safe pipeline.  Gotcha.  Maybe read this article about the ups and downs of each mode f transporting crude.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#20ff58215777

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Merc14 said:

So you prefer the less safe trains to a more safe pipeline.  Gotcha.  Maybe read this article about the ups and downs of each mode f transporting crude.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#20ff58215777

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

No man what im saying is its time we had some leadership who was adult enough to stand up and force our nation to find alternative technologies and enforce the use thereof. 

Its not a left vs right issue, its a common sense issue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No man what im saying is its time we had some leadership who was adult enough to stand up and force our nation to find alternative technologies and enforce the use thereof. 

Its not a left vs right issue, its a common sense issue. 

The only alternative that is viable at this time is nuclear which Trump has said he will make much easier to build.  No matter what, that will take time to design build and bring on line so oil and gas will be the go to energy for the next couple of decades at least.  Obama spent billions of your dollars on solar and wind and most have gone bankrupt and shuddered their doors, if he'd taken the lead and ushered in the new generation of nuclear we'd be bringing plants on-line now, but he was a puppet of the radical environmentalists and chose stupid over realistic. 

As an aside I am very surprised at your use of the "enforce the use thereof" line.  are you suggesting the feds should have required us to use solar panels, at our expense, just as the feds required us to use those horrible CFL lightbulbs?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Merc14 said:

The only alternative that is viable at this time is nuclear which Trump has said he will make much easier to build.  No matter what, that will take time to design build and bring on line so oil and gas will be the go to energy for the next couple of decades at least.  Obama spent billions of your dollars on solar and wind and most have gone bankrupt and shuddered their doors, if he'd taken the lead and ushered in the new generation of nuclear we'd be bringing plants on-line now, but he was a puppet of the radical environmentalists and chose stupid over realistic. 

As an aside I am very surprised at your use of the "enforce the use thereof" line.  are you suggesting the feds should have required us to use solar panels, at our expense, just as the feds required us to use those horrible CFL lightbulbs?

 

Not necessarily, (and remember im speaking largely theoretically here)  it seems to me that if alternative energy sources are made available at a reasonable cost then the government simply can tax the hell out of fossil fuels and allow the market to correct itself without ever actually having to ban or force the use of anything, if you can afford it you can buy it. 

I don't know or understand all the particulars but the solar and wind farms in my area are expanding seemingly monthly so there is some good from that tech. (lots of both sun and wind in the desert though) 

IDK im wrestling with the issue in general but i definitely feel like expanding any operation surrounding fossil fuels is short sighted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

My question is....how many windmills would it take to power New York City?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, skliss said:

My question is....how many windmills would it take to power New York City?

I would think NYC should be powered by tidal energy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Just now, skliss said:

My question is....how many windmills would it take to power New York City?

Agreed, anyone thinking they can replace even 25% of our energy production with wind and solar is wildly uninformed on the subject.   Fusion is the golden goal but new generation nuclear is very safe and economically feasible if the regulations are brought under control. Right now it is nearly impossible to build a plant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

It's a practical concern...who gets to live next to the gazillion windmills it would take to power a city that size?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
37 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The only alternative that is viable at this time is nuclear which Trump has said he will make much easier to build.  No matter what, that will take time to design build and bring on line so oil and gas will be the go to energy for the next couple of decades at least.  Obama spent billions of your dollars on solar and wind and most have gone bankrupt and shuddered their doors, if he'd taken the lead and ushered in the new generation of nuclear we'd be bringing plants on-line now, but he was a puppet of the radical environmentalists and chose stupid over realistic. 

As an aside I am very surprised at your use of the "enforce the use thereof" line.  are you suggesting the feds should have required us to use solar panels, at our expense, just as the feds required us to use those horrible CFL lightbulbs?

 

13% of our power generation already comes from renewable sources. We could get to 25% if we wanted to, but that would require a lot of investment, energy, time, and work. The future of the earth is not worth it we have decided, we would rather have economic growth now and risk creating terrible conditions on the planet 100+ years from now (who cares, we won't be alive then) than deal with the problem head on.

We are already at the start of the next mass extinction. Ocean levels are already rising. The canary in the coal mine has already died, but we will keep mining anyways until it blows up in our face, because that is what we have always done in history. We are incapable of tackling future problems that do not affect us now if the solution causes any amount of pain to us now. This is human nature, it is not the fault of any side, but the legacy we are leaving for future generations if we fail to act is going to be dismal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
30 minutes ago, skliss said:

It's a practical concern...who gets to live next to the gazillion windmills it would take to power a city that size?

This may not be the right question to ask though, the right question to ask might be where are we going to house the millions of displaced people 50+ years from now when the ocean levels render entire cities and towns underwater?

When that happens, the thought of living next to a big windmill farm is not going to seem so bad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Just a little minor and painless Lifestyle change to the current wasteful nature of the major population city wide would knock at least 25% off the current base level power consumption rates ... but then again that would mean a hole in the annual provisional funds needed to keep a bloated bureaucratic system on track ...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
35 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

13% of our power generation already comes from renewable sources. We could get to 25% if we wanted to, but that would require a lot of investment, energy, time, and work. The future of the earth is not worth it we have decided, we would rather have economic growth now and risk creating terrible conditions on the planet 100+ years from now (who cares, we won't be alive then) than deal with the problem head on.

Yes, 7% hydroelectric and 6% the rest.  Not sure where we can get more hydroelectric, which is by far the best, but your numbers, as usual, are very misleading   https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3  :

  • Coal = 33%
  • Natural gas = 33%
  • Nuclear = 20%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
    • Biomass = 1.6%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.6%
    • Wind = 4.7%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases = <1% 

So in actuality we have 0.6% solar and 4.7% wind, the two sources farmer is hand waving about.  Going from that to 25% is not simple in any way and storing that much energy when these sources are not producing (let's not forget folks, that the sun doesn't shine 24/7 and neither does the wind blow 24/7) is not technology we have at the moment, at least in that size. Geothermal can produce 24/7 but isn't practicable everywhere.  I'm

35 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

We are already at the start of the next mass extinction. Ocean levels are already rising. The canary in the coal mine has already died, but we will keep mining anyways until it blows up in our face, because that is what we have always done in history. We are incapable of tackling future problems that do not affect us now if the solution causes any amount of pain to us now. This is human nature, it is not the fault of any side, but the legacy we are leaving for future generations if we fail to act is going to be dismal.

Oh brother, time to derail this thread with an AGW witch hunt, someone alert doug. 

Nuclear power is the only feasible source at the moment and I am not talking about my generation's nuclear power, I am talking about generation IV reactors, ready to come on line now http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx   and possibly molten salt reactors ij a decade or two that use spent nuclear fuel rods for power, in the future  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/07/150724-next-gen-reactors-seek-to-revive-nuclear-power/

Even environmentalists (the rational ones) agree nuclear must be part of the near future so as to replace coal and aging gen II plants.  Trump has promised to reduce regulations and environmental red tape so these new plants can be built and brought on line in a realistic time frame, let's hope he acts fast and this actually happens so those electric cars become viable.   

Fusion, of course, is the main goal but that is decades in the future.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
39 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, 7% hydroelectric and 6% the rest.  Not sure where we can get more hydroelectric, which is by far the best, but your numbers, as usual, are very misleading   https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3  :

  • Coal = 33%
  • Natural gas = 33%
  • Nuclear = 20%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
    • Biomass = 1.6%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.6%
    • Wind = 4.7%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases = <1% 

So in actuality we have 0.6% solar and 4.7% wind, the two sources farmer is hand waving about.  Going from that to 25% is not simple in any way and storing that much energy when these sources are not producing (let's not forget folks, that the sun doesn't shine 24/7 and neither does the wind blow 24/7) is not technology we have at the moment, at least in that size. Geothermal can produce 24/7 but isn't practicable everywhere.  I'm

Oh brother, time to derail this thread with an AGW witch hunt, someone alert doug. 

Nuclear power is the only feasible source at the moment and I am not talking about my generation's nuclear power, I am talking about generation IV reactors, ready to come on line now http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx   and possibly molten salt reactors ij a decade or two that use spent nuclear fuel rods for power, in the future  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/07/150724-next-gen-reactors-seek-to-revive-nuclear-power/

Even environmentalists (the rational ones) agree nuclear must be part of the near future so as to replace coal and aging gen II plants.  Trump has promised to reduce regulations and environmental red tape so these new plants can be built and brought on line in a realistic time frame, let's hope he acts fast and this actually happens so those electric cars become viable.   

Fusion, of course, is the main goal but that is decades in the future.

I completely agree that next generation nuclear reactors need to be a big part of this, and next generation reactor designs are inherently far safer than past designs, but given how deadly a nuclear disaster is we need good regulations to ensure that no corners are cut and that the reactors are built as safely as they reasonably can be.

Not sure how my numbers are misleading, perhaps because I did not dive into the breakdown of details like you did? Sorry, I am at work and I only have limited windows of time to respond on here while at work.

We could get to 25% now if we moved from a centralized power distribution model to a more granular model. For example if roofs were all done in solar panels and if every house had some small wind turbines on top it would make a huge dent in that number. This would obviously hurt electric companies bottom line but it would give more autonomy and self sufficiency to homeowners who did this. Tesla has demonstrated battery technology that would enable storing of wind and solar energy at the residential level during non generating times. This may very well be the model of the future that we need to move towards. 

 

AGW witch hunt? It has been PROVEN beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that AGW is real and is having a measurable quantifiable effect on the environment. Trying to discredit AGW by referring to it as a 'witch hunt' is intellectually dishonest and flat out dangerous for the future of humanity. I will fight against that mentality with everything that I have got because my kid's future is at stake. This is THE MOST important issue facing the world right now and my generation gets it, my generation understands this issue and trust me, we cannot wait until your generation gets the hell out of our way so we can do something about it. You inaction is inexcusable and your bull**** conspiracy theories about it need to stop. Face the reality or shut the hell up and get out of the way so my generation can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

I completely agree that next generation nuclear reactors need to be a big part of this, and next generation reactor designs are inherently far safer than past designs, but given how deadly a nuclear disaster is we need good regulations to ensure that no corners are cut and that the reactors are built as safely as they reasonably can be.

The gen III and gen III+ reactors are already certified and challenged by the lunatic left so no further challenges can be made.  The regulations regarding acquiring the land is what needs to change so a snail darter doesn't hold up a reactor for twenty years.

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

Not sure how my numbers are misleading, perhaps because I did not dive into the breakdown of details like you did? Sorry, I am at work and I only have limited windows of time to respond on here while at work.

You didn't break out that the bulk of that 13% was hydroelectric while the discussion was about wind and solar.  I told you I would call you out every time you cherry pick and that is what I am doing.

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

We could get to 25% now if we moved from a centralized power distribution model to a more granular model. For example if roofs were all done in solar panels and if every house had some small wind turbines on top it would make a huge dent in that number. This would obviously hurt electric companies bottom line but it would give more autonomy and self sufficiency to homeowners who did this. Tesla has demonstrated battery technology that would enable storing of wind and solar energy at the residential level during non generating times. This may very well be the model of the future that we need to move towards. 

I don't argue with zealots

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
13 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The gen III and gen III+ reactors are already certified and challenged by the lunatic left so no further challenges can be made.  The regulations regarding acquiring the land is what needs to change so a snail darter doesn't hold up a reactor for twenty years.

You didn't break out that the bulk of that 13% was hydroelectric while the discussion was about wind and solar.  I told you I would call you out every time you cherry pick and that is what I am doing.

I don't argue with zealots

 

I simply stated that 13% is from renewable sources, which is factually correct. But perhaps you have 'alternative facts' like your man does to challenge anything that you don't agree with.

Trump supporters, so predictable!

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Since we are on this tangent, I get 100% of our electrical power from wind turbines.

And no, I can't see them out of my front window.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Since we are on this tangent, I get 100% of our electrical power from wind turbines.

And no, I can't see them out of my front window.

Is that something you did yourself or is your community on wind power? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
22 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

I simply stated that 13% is from renewable sources, which is factually correct. But perhaps you have 'alternative facts' like your man does to challenge anything that you don't agree with.

Trump supporters, so predictable!

The conversation was, specifically, about wind and solar.  period.  You dropped a number in there that included Hydroelectric, geo etc. which is not something being discussed since there are limited places to tap for hydro and geo electric, unfortunately.   You should've spelled out exactly what those numbers were comprised of, given the topic being discussed between farmer and I, yet you didn't which means one of two things, you were ignorant of that fact or you were intentionally trying to mislead us. 

I didn't know the exact numbers but I knew yours were way off so I looked it up, took just a few seconds, and sure enough you were leaving a BIG part out.  Called you out on it and now you will parse words back and forth till something new comes along.  Sorry, not playing, just know, as I have told you before, I will call you out every time I catch you cherry picking numbers.   

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Is that something you did yourself or is your community on wind power? 

 

 

It's a community option that I enjoy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.