monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You don't remember the 3 plus million the US murdered in 1950-53? You don't remember Iraq, Afghanistan, where 1 to 2 million have died, Nicaragua, 50,000, Vietnam, 3 million plus, Cambodia a million, Indonesia, a million, Laos, ... .

What kind of evil are you all?

Pikers compared to the USA.



That's exactly what I mean.

Honestly, The last time I saw it laid out with any detail was on Obama's campaign website, so that's been like 5 years ago - 2012. But I will try to find som efigures for you. Listen, why does it seem like your side has to believe everyone on the other side has to be some wild-eyed kook that's trying to save the world by advocating for wrecking the country's business? That's the same as those on my side believing everyone who is conservative must be a heartless, corporate sold-out greedy pig who doesn't care how the planet's raped as long as they get theirs, isn't it? Seems like there's a whole lot of room for reasoned compromise in there somewhere.

So you are pro-Eastern bloc. It seems just about every place you have mentioned is a place where Communism was spreading or trying to spread. I was right about the posters, t-shirt and beret. No wonder you are so pissed at the US post WWII, we stood in the way of the Russians and their attempt to spread the filth around the world. Your anger and hatred is so starting to make sense now.

I'm hoping just a show of united force. If this little trip goes hot, I'm incredibly concerned.

Some of us have been through a mill with JTT/Camlok a long long time, as the Stones would say, except that it has not been romantic.

I hope when the new system gets going there will be some blanking button.

Conservatives don't want ACA. That speaks enough volumes about their "every life matters."
According to this article, it's been 52 times.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/gop-tried-to-repeal-obamacare-52-times/

Warning shot to Bannon.
https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?action=showLetter&umid=2_0_0_1_1_AAZ3w0MAHYUcWO6RHwxzgBFo1jI&box=Inbox&src=td&.rand=358943113
Trump doesn't like to play second fiddle.

You seem convinced it's either the ACA or single payer or everyone dies. Why so extreme, if people don't agree with either of those choices, they want people dead.

The following is a really good piece writing about the Trump WH, I think Blatham should appreciate it (perhaps). It is too long to post it all.

The Problem in Trump White House? Trump./ Daily Beast

I thought Kushner and Ivanka were more liberal than most at the WH. No wonder there is tension to say the least between Bannon and Kushner.

You forget easily; the GOP did not have a replacement for ACA. They just spent a few years trying to repeal it. They kept saying "repeal and replace." They didn't have the replace.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/25/anatomy-of-a-disaster-trump-didnt-care-and-the-gop-didnt-have-a-plan/

If the GOP didn't have a "replace," there would surely have been some deaths.

I agree fully with that goal. Until a couple of years ago our electrical power has for many decades come 51% from Coal, about 40% from nuclear plants and 9% from renewable sources 2/3rds of which ( 6% of total came from hydroelectric power and 3% from wind & solar).In the last 5 years we have seen a massive shift from coal to natural gas, resulting from improved directional drilling techniques and fracking , which has reduced the coal fraction to about 25% and yielded a GHG reduction about five times what has been achieved thru in several decades of heavy subsidies for wind and solar power. Moreover the natural gas transition delivered power at less than the economic cost of coal, partly compensating for the subsidies on renewables, and lowering the cost of a commodity that everyone, rich and poor, uses.

We are fast approaching the block obsolescence of our ~ 95 nuclear plants which today deliver emission free power at about the same low cost as natural gas. With what will we replace them? Oddly environmentalists and AGW advocates generally vehemently oppose nuclear power, notwithstanding it's far safer record than all the other major sources, and the zero emission that result from it's use. . Doubling our natural gas output doesn't look likely, and wind & solar are very expensive and yield only ~25% of the power per unit generating capacity installed, compared to other sources ( wind and sun are limited sources).

At current cost rates replacing nuclear power with wind and solar would raise the real cost of electricity by about 60% on average, and this ignores the additional cost of replacing the base load generating or storage capacity needed to serve a 24/7 grid in a world in which the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time.

What would you do? This may be a good point at which to begin a reasoned practical discussion of alternatives.

At least for the far right wacko conservative side, the middle of the road cons can go either way - couple, three or four million dead, hey no big deal!

Well I think that could certainly be right if we are talking about truly gradual, but as long as cheap fossil fuel energy is plentiful there's not much economic advantage to changing over to alternative, unless, of course, you factor in an economic impact of dire climate change results which returns us to whether or not the threat is legitimate in the sense of being catastrophic.

At the same time, most of the proposal that I've read that attempt to address climate change from a preventative standpoint contemplate drastic economic consequences related to roughly going cold turkey on fossil fuels.

Some combination of gradual change in energy sources and mitigation make the most sense to me.

One of the first things the federal government can do is to stop encouraging people from building homes in the most threatened areas (coastlines) by subsidizing flood insurance.

Makes sense when you realize that other than South Korea and our military bases, Japan is most threatened by North Korea. They should have some say in what happens and it appears they've had their say.

I actually agree and appreciate that Japan, a regional power, is stepping up to handle what should be considered primarily their problem.

It just gives me pause - pause in all caps - that Japan is steaming beside the US. Historical significance is skull-shaking.

Japan has been one of our most reliable allies since WWII

We probably shouldn't have hamstrung their military the way we did. They weren't about to go all Tojo anytime soon (or late) after their crushing defeat and they could have been there with the UK in helping us around the world.

Irrational fear of nuclear energy makes an alternative energy course implausible. A rapid government enforced and financed shift from fossil fuel to the other alternatives will cripple our economy and drastically lower our standard of living.

Bill Nye and Al Gore may be happy, but few liberal suburbanites will be.

EDIT: Although Walmart will boom even greater than it is now.

Helping you rape and pillage, not a chance. Yankeeland is much too greedy to share.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKBN17D0A4

North Korea threatens to "destroy" South Korea and the USA with nuclear weapons virtually every day. And the fatboy does it to the roaring approval of massive crowds. They are indeed "looking for trouble." They're gunna find it, too