Dynadot
Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Who is to Blame for the Troubled US Economy?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • Both Parties

    268 
    votes
    44.7%
  • Neither Party

    57 
    votes
    9.5%
  • Democrats

    133 
    votes
    22.2%
  • Republicans

    141 
    votes
    23.5%
  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.

Impact
8,557
Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun :)

:wave:
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
0
•••
Well worth pasting the entire article.

This will be the nail in the coffin for the US staying the no. 1 global power in my opinion (and maybe the final nail in the coffin to the environment). The US will get left behind and will be playing catch up. If they think that extremely smart and innovative people from other countries (such as South Korea) are just going to give up on innovating and creating, and just lose the jobs (taking jobs from one country's peoples to another) to the US, they are seriously underestimating them. You talk about people underestimating how smart Trump is, well right back at you!

"Make America Wait Again. That is what Donald Trump’s energy policy amounts to. Stop all the clocks, put the technological revolution on hold, ensure that the transition from fossil fuels to clean power is delayed for as long as possible.

Trump is the president that corporate luddites have dreamed of: the man who will let them squeeze every last cent from their oil and coal reserves before they become worthless. They need him because science, technology and people’s demands for a safe and stable world have left them stranded. There is no fair fight that they can win, so their last hope lies with a government that will rig the competition.

To this end, Trump has appointed to his cabinet some of those responsible for a universal crime: inflicted not on particular nations or groups, but on everyone.

Recent research suggests that – if drastic action of the kind envisaged by the Paris agreement on climate change is not taken – ice loss in Antarctica alone could raise sea levels by a metre this century, and by 15 metres in subsequent centuries. Combine this with the melting in Greenland and the thermal expansion of sea water, and you discover that many of the world’s great cities are at existential risk.

The climatic disruption of crucial agricultural zones – in North and Central America, the Middle East, Africa and much of Asia – presents a security threat that could dwarf all others. The civil war in Syria, unless resolute policies are adopted, looks like a glimpse of a possible global future.

These are not, if the risks materialise, shifts to which we can adapt. These crises will be bigger than our capacity to respond to them. They could lead to the rapid and radical simplification of society, which means, to put it brutally, the end of civilisations and many of the people they support. If this happens, it will amount to the greatest crime ever committed. And members of Trump’s proposed cabinet are among the leading perpetrators.

In their careers so far, they have championed the fossil fuel industry while contesting the measures intended to prevent climate breakdown. They appear to have considered the need of a few exceedingly rich people to protect their foolish investments for a few more years, weighed it against the benign climatic conditions that have allowed humanity to flourish, and decided that the foolish investments are more important.

By appointing Rex Tillerson, chief executive of the oil company ExxonMobil, as secretary of state, Trump not only assures the fossil economy that it sits next to his heart, he also provides comfort to another supporter: Vladimir Putin. It was Tillerson who brokered the $500bn (£407bn) deal between Exxon and the state-owned Russian company Rosneft to exploit oil reserves in the Arctic. As a result he was presented with the Russian Order of Friendship by Putin.

The deal was stopped under the sanctions the US imposed after Russia invaded Ukraine. The probability of these sanctions in their current form surviving a Trump government is, to the nearest decimal place, a snowball’s chance in hell. If Russia did interfere in the US election, it will be handsomely rewarded when the deal goes ahead.

Trump’s nominations for energy secretary and interior secretary are both climate change deniers, who – quite coincidentally – have a long history of sponsorship by the fossil fuel industry. His proposed attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, allegedly failed to disclose in his declaration of interests that he leases land to an oil company.

The man nominated to run the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has spent much of his working life campaigning against … the Environmental Protection Agency. As the attorney general in Oklahoma, he launched 14 lawsuits against the EPA, seeking, among other aims, to strike down its Clean Power Plan, its limits on the mercury and other heavy metals released by coal plants and its protection of drinking water supplies and wildlife. Thirteen of these suits were said to include as co-parties companies that had contributed to his campaign funds or to political campaign committees affiliated to him.

Trump’s appointments reflect what I call the Pollution Paradox. The more polluting a company is, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it is not regulated out of existence. Campaign finance therefore comes to be dominated by dirty companies, ensuring that they wield the greatest influence, crowding out their cleaner rivals. Trump’s cabinet is stuffed with people who owe their political careers to filth.

It was once possible to argue, rightly or wrongly, that the human benefits of developing fossil fuel reserves might outweigh the harm. But a combination of more refined climate science, which now presents the risks in stark terms, and the plummeting costs of clean technologies renders this argument as obsolete as a coal-fired power station.

As the US burrows into the past, China is investing massively in renewable energy, electric cars and new battery technologies. The Chinese government claims that this new industrial revolution will generate 13m jobs. This, by contrast to Trump’s promise to create millions of jobs through reanimating coal, at least has a chance of materialising. It is not just that returning to an old technology when better ones are available is difficult; it is also that coal mining has been automated to the extent that it now supports few jobs. Trump’s attempt to revive the fossil era will serve no one but the coal barons.

Understandably, commentators have been seeking glimpses of light in Trump’s position. But there are none. He could not have made it clearer, through his public statements, the Republican platform and his appointments, that he intends to the greatest extent possible to shut down funding for both climate science and clean energy, rip up the Paris agreement, sustain fossil fuel subsidies and annul the laws that protect people and the rest of the world from the impacts of dirty energy.

His candidacy was represented as an insurgency, challenging established power. But his position on climate change reveals what should have been obvious from the beginning: he and his team represent the incumbents, fighting off insurgent technologies and political challenges to moribund business models. They will hold back the tide of change for as long as they can. And then the barrier will burst."
 
0
•••
I guess you need to ask yourselves what made America so rich and powerful in the first place (aka what Americans call "great"):

Stage one: Ethnic cleansing of the natives

Cotton (i.e. slavery, exploitation, greed)
Opium (i.e. destroying other people's lives and bullying another country into accepting it)
Oil (i.e. destruction of the planet and irreversible climate change)
Tobacco (i.e. profiting from addiction, death and misery)
Factory farming (i.e. no compassion, living hell for other innocent living beings, supremacist way of thinking)
Rubber (destruction of the rain forest, enslaving natives, more death)
War and arms (profiting from all wars)
Banking (funding the destruction of the planet, including wars, and to this day still funding the destruction of the environment albeit more secretly than in the past)
Products (palm oil, pesticides, destruction of the environment, mass animal extinction)

Oh and I assume there were "some good things" too(?)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
These are not, if the risks materialise, shifts to which we can adapt. These crises will be bigger than our capacity to respond to them. They could lead to the rapid and radical simplification of society
Oops! It's too late already.
 
1
•••
CBS News.jpg

After a page of hard-hitting Trump stories, CBS news shows that they don't play favorites by asking the hard questions of Obama as well.
 
1
•••
0
•••
0
•••
Lefty protests are peaceful? LOL... that's the height of impossibility! Lefties don't believe in peaceful protests because they are totally intolerant towards those that think differently.

And you aren't?! LMAO!!!

(Logical fallacy: False Cause: different opinions or tolerance thereof has nothing to do with whether the those involved act out violently or not.)

Bah - you don't have a clue. Maybe for once pay attention to those with first hand information instead of just regurgitating propaganda from Breitbart infowars and meme generators.

Speaking of not having a clue, the coro... oops ...inauguration is tomorrow. There are 690 government positions which need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Silly little things, like positions in the NSA. Guess how many he's appointed so far? 28. (Today's news might have #29.). Normally at least 100 are in place by this time. He may want to reconsider his plans to take the weekend off and jump right into his new job so he can catch up.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Last edited:
1
•••
0
•••
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/michelle-obama-white-house-slavery.html

“turned to African-American — enslaved and free — to provide the bulk of labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings.”

Plus it's a metaphor for America, as a whole.

Would there be a White House without them?
"The association said slaves had worked at the government’s quarry in Aquia, Va., to cut the stone for the walls of the White House. The construction team included white laborers from Maryland and Virginia and immigrants from Ireland, Scotland and other parts of Europe, the association said."

They were part of the construction team. So why do you lie, by saying that slaves built the White House? You should have said they HELPED build the White House.

Why is Michelle talking about slavery? Is she also a slave?

How about you... do you live in a house built by slaves? Who built your house? Or don't you give a damn?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Liberals on Inauguration day...
 
1
•••
1
•••
1
•••
1
•••
No bias in the news media. I was just reading CBS news, and though the page was filled with hard-hitting Trump stories, they were also doing some serious investigative work on Obama...
CBS News.jpg
 
0
•••
0
•••
Wonder why that is?
Don't know. But I agree that his almond consumption is of the utmost concern. Along with how he manages to stay so trim and handsome.
 
0
•••
1
•••
Don't know. But I agree that his almond consumption is of the utmost concern. Along with how he manages to stay so trim and handsome.
That was more of a rhetorical question.

In my opinion, it's because they finally know who the next Commander-in-chief will be and in order to get on his good side to get some questions in the White House press room addressed by their reporters, they will need to show him that they're not totally against him. Otherwise, he may continue to use unconventional methods of answering questions.
 
1
•••
"The association said slaves had worked at the government’s quarry in Aquia, Va., to cut the stone for the walls of the White House. The construction team included white laborers from Maryland and Virginia and immigrants from Ireland, Scotland and other parts of Europe, the association said."

They were part of the construction team. So why do you lie, by saying that slaves built the White House? You should have said they HELPED build the White House.

Why is Michelle talking about slavery? Is she also a slave?

How about you... do you live in a house built by slaves? Who built your house? Or don't you give a damn?
How did they 'build' up the wealth to pay the construction team? Cotton? Plantations? Slavery?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
There are 690 government positions which need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Silly little things, like positions in the NSA. Guess how many he's appointed so far? 28. (Today's news might have #29.). Normally at least 100 are in place by this time. He may want to reconsider his plans to take the weekend off and jump right into his new job so he can catch up.
Also not listening to security briefings, seems like Donald Trump cannot wait for the US to be attacked again like 9-11. He is likely weakening ties with existing security because after 1 attack he can initiate a ban on Muslims entering the country, round up existing Muslims (there are already 'camps' set up, how convenient(?), considering it is in the manifesto of the so called 'Illuminati' to rid the world of religion and mainly Islam), just like what happened to the Japanese Americans during WW2 (except most likely much worse) being rounded up (the framework is in place). "A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". He will let it happen like Pearl Harbour (and who knows about 9 11?).

Russia will follow suit and declare all out war on Islam.
 
1
•••
Last edited:
0
•••
Also not listening to security briefings, seems like Donald Trump cannot wait for the US to be attacked again like 9-11. He is likely weakening ties with existing security because after 1 attack he can initiate a ban on Muslims entering the country, round up existing Muslims (there are already 'camps' set up, how convenient(?), considering it is in the manifesto of the so called 'Illuminati' to rid the world of religion and mainly Islam), just like what happened to the Japanese Americans during WW2 (except most likely much worse) being rounded up (the framework is in place). "A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". He will let it happen like Pearl Harbour (and who knows about 9 11?).

Russia will follow suit and declare all out war on Islam.

You must be smoking some really good shit.
 
2
•••
You must be smoking some really good sh*t.
The guy is a wannabe dictator. He loves Putin and has "great respect for him" (a guy that murders his opponents and doesn't allow freedom of speech). Don't "underestimate" him. Listen to the words he himself spoke regarding Muslims and e.g. the retweets of white supremacists.
 
1
•••
Back