So you can sign a copy of the contract that only you will have? I don't think that's the way contracts are made.
I guess voting for Trump is considered signing your side of the contract
Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
441–450 of 1001 posts
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#442He's handing America's world dominance handedly to China. Start learning Chinese folks, America is done.
How does American world dominance help the people who voted for Trump?
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#443So you can sign a copy of the contract that only you will have? I don't think that's the way contracts are made.
He was voted for president democratically, that's the populous signing their part of the contract.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#444Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#445"Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC"
Ok, I'm on board with all of those... Then, besides a few other points, it just gets worse and worse the further into it you go.
If he accomplishes all 6, or even half, that's great. I just hope he won't have enough time to ruin everything else. At least now (especially after Dubya) we know we need outsiders vigilantly watching every move (and non-move) he makes.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible. In fact, in 5-10 minutes of specifically looking at the topic I still don't see why you're mocking the concept.
I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible. The average US citizen probably knows that burning carbon-based fuels re-forms molecular bonds, in such a way that the resulting stuff (CO2 and water) embodies much lower energy. Just start applying that concept to the notion of capturing that carbon. The result is that you're going to…
> coal is one of the cheapest fuels around
> the result is you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy
Nothing in those "basic thermodynamics" conclusions, which I agree are obviously true, implies that it's commercially nonviable. Yes, it will by necessity be more expensive than dirty coal. Will it be more expensive than anything else? I'm not sure. It would require advanced knowledge of sequestering methods and the energy market. Certainly more than basic thermodynamics.
To be honest, you're the one making the mistake here by assigning "clean coal" to being snake oil with only basic thermodynamics in play. Without more knowledge than that, there's no reason it couldn't be the most viable clean energy option.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened? They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs…
Oil is traded internationally, no matter how much we produce, its still part of a global market.
If you are energy independent then you can screw the international market. If you can server yourself then you do not have to dance by the music of other producers.
Unless of course you want to play some other game altogether.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#448SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. Pardon my naivety but who does this target?
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple thermodynamics. We get energy from coal by burning it then extracting some of the heat. The waste products are basically carbon dioxide and heat. Clean coal is about capturing that carbon dioxide, which means spending energy to separate the CO2 from other gasses, then liquefy it. This sequestration process costs about 30% of the energy originally extracted from the coal. I fully support clean coal since it inc…
Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea. 30% sounds like a reasonable number, interesting to know. Whether that's a commercially viable amount or not, I have no idea. And your last point, I agree with. We should certainly mak…
Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea.
No, we should mock people for entertaining the idea and being unable to muster enough knowledge and reason to start being very skeptical. It's basically the same sort of estimation that happens when watching Shark Tank and wondering, "Well, that's a nifty product. What are the margins?" Basic Thermodynamics isn't too far off from accounting. There's a big difference between "works technically, in theory" and "would it work in the real world?" Essentially, you're saying it's okay that people can spout basic science, but still can't apply it in their actual lives in a market economy. Shouldn't that be the lower bar?
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels? Some people say we can cut all of this govern…
Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal. My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military.
With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?