President Trump

[Stacko]

Priebus confirms that climate denial will be the official policy of Trump’s administration.

Priebus appeared on the latest Fox News Sunday to explain Trump’s apparent “major flips on policy this week in an interview with the New York Times,” as host Chris Wallace put it — including the apostasy of possibly having “an open mind” about “pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.”

Trump is appointing countless climate science deniers to key positions, which tells you vastly more about what he believes and what he’ll do than his latest semi-coherent ramblings. As I wrote last week, Trump’s repetition of the phrase “open mind” during his Times interview was meant to distract from his constant repetition of long-debunked denier talking points (and it worked).

Priebus confirmed Trump wasn’t being forthright with the Times, telling Wallace, “As far as this issue on climate change — the only thing he [Trump] was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he’ll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk, but he’ll have an open mind and listen to people.”

You can’t you have an “open mind” on climate if your default position is “most of it is a bunch of bunk.” What is there to “listen to” if you believe the decades of research by thousands of scientists embraced by every nation in the world is mostly bunk? That’s the definition of epistemic closure of the mind. No surprise, then, that FoxNews — a major promoter of denial — didn’t call Priebus out on this absurd statement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For everyone or for only those who really matter like we have seen for the past 30 years?

 

[TofuFighter]

It's always looked like Trump has intended to buy some short term economic gains with long term costs. By the time the debt comes knocking he'll be long gone with the credit. Sound familiar?
I doubt whether he really believes or cares in the slightest about global warming one way or the other.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Fiat currency is more than just a lubricant to facilitate trade. It is also a means to tweak aggregate demand and satisfy savings desire. It provides a simple way for people to save for the future, or borrow from the future to meet needs now (although it cannot do that on an aggregate basis for real resources).

In any case, you are wrong that every modern economy has a fiat currency. Here is a list of countries which don't, although admittedly many are hellholes which have fixed exchange rates in theory only. But Hong Kong is one.

Also, I would argue that all of the members of the Eurozone do not have a fiat currency (i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc.). Their currencies are fixed to the Euro, which is controlled by a central authority that no one member's government has control over. Not a good situation in my opinion, but I suppose it is better than having another Franco-German war.



They are trying to provoke understanding of a fiat currency system, which far less than 0.1% of people do (in my estimation). It would solve a lot of problems if more people understood how fiat currencies work.

I am always confused why people think it is reasonable to tie your currency to a commodity subject to its own fluctuations that will effect the economy. I mean if it was something fundamental to the economy like oil at least it would make some sense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's always looked like Trump has intended to buy some short term economic gains with long term costs. By the time the debt comes knocking he'll be long gone with the credit. Sound familiar?
I doubt whether he really believes or cares in the slightest about global warming one way or the other.

Sounds like his business plans in general, he is the king of debt after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's always looked like Trump has intended to buy some short term economic gains with long term costs. By the time the debt comes knocking he'll be long gone with the credit. Sound familiar?
I doubt whether he really believes or cares in the slightest about global warming one way or the other.

I doubt he really believes or cares about anything other than Donald Trump. He just says what he audience wants to hear and believes it at the time.

 

[acbytesla]

I am always confused why people think it is reasonable to tie your currency to a commodity subject to its own fluctuations that will effect the economy. I mean if it was something fundamental to the economy like oil at least it would make some sense.

I am not sure it even makes sense then. About 3 years ago a barrel of oil was trading at around a $100 a barrel, now it trades to about $50.


Note* The fixed currencies that Sunmaster refers to do not fix their currency to a commodity but to another currency.

 

[Stacko]

The Orange Menace signals he's serious about revoking health care for millions of Americans.

It would replace the law with a plan that does more to benefit the young, healthy, and rich — and disadvantages the sick, old, and poor. Price’s plan provides significantly less help to those with preexisting conditions than other Republican proposals, particularly the replacement plan offered by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI).

The biggest cut to the poor in Price’s plan is the full repeal of the Medicaid expansion, a program that currently covers millions of low-income Americans, which Price replaces with, well, nothing.

Most Republican replacement plans are still white papers rather than actual legislative language. This means they leave out a lot of key details, like who, for example, would qualify for a high-risk pool or how big tax credits would be. But Price’s plan is detailed. It is 242-pages long and lays bare exactly how he would repeal Obamacare — a program Trump is now putting him in charge of.

 

[Belz...]

But, hey, let's give him a chance!

 

[NoahFence]

I was trying to find more info on this. As a citizen, I wouldn't want to reveal my tax records either. From what I could tell, most presidents release the tax records from the times they were in office. Releasing your tax records from the years prior to the presidency seems to have started with Obama. Not sure that makes any difference to this discussion, I just thought it was interesting.

Huh?

The point is to find out if there are conflicts of interest before a candidate takes office.

I wonder why the Cheetos fuhrer didn't comply with this simple bit of transparency.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am not sure it even makes sense then. About 3 years ago a barrel of oil was trading at around a $100 a barrel, now it trades to about $50.


Note* The fixed currencies that Sunmaster refers to do not fix their currency to a commodity but to another currency.

So it is still fiat currency then.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder why the Cheetos fuhrer didn't comply with this simple bit of transparency.

Do you really?

 

[sunmaster14]

So it is still fiat currency then.

No. If you tie your currency to the value of something else, then you have given up control. You can't just make as much currency as you need to stimulate the economy or whatnot. Of course, any sovereign always retains the authority to un-fix their currency (or create a new one), but that's a tautology (implied in the meaning of "sovereign").

 

[NoahFence]

Do you really?

HAHA

No.

 

[turingtest]

But, hey, let's give him a chance!

A lot of the people who are going to be most affected negatively by Trump policies (like Price's plans for replacing Obamacare) are people who supported him; so, sure, give him a chance. After all, buyer's remorse is only an effect of fully paying for (and being stuck with) what you've bought.

 

[The Don]

A lot of the people who are going to be most affected negatively by Trump policies (like Price's plans for replacing Obamacare) are people who supported him; so, sure, give him a chance. After all, buyer's remorse is only an effect of fully paying for (and being stuck with) what you've bought.

IMO there will be no buyers' remorse. If possible things that have had a negative impact will be spun as being positive or completely ignored by the news outlets that Trump supporters consume. If that's not possible and people actually notice that they no longer have healthcare then that will be blamed on Obama, the Democratic Party, immigrants, foreigners and so on. Trump supporters will be confident that their man is working super-hard in their interest and any failures are due to wide-scale conspiracies against him. Conspiracies hatched by "The Establishment".

Even if they have no job, no healthcare, lower welfare payments and so on, Trump supporters will still not have buyers' remorse because Trump "Made America Great Again"

 

[acbytesla]

HAHA

No.

Trump again just proved what a moronic dangerous A-hole he is. He just suggested that burning a flag should result in the loss of citizenship. The man just doesn't get it. The flag is the symbol of our freedom. A greater threat to that symbol would be a flag burning law.

Our freedoms are worth more than symbols.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. If you tie your currency to the value of something else, then you have given up control. You can't just make as much currency as you need to stimulate the economy or whatnot. Of course, any sovereign always retains the authority to un-fix their currency (or create a new one), but that's a tautology (implied in the meaning of "sovereign").

Sure you can, it just hits you differently. If that thing is a different nations currency you have issues maintaining cash reserves and so on.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump again just proved what a moronic dangerous A-hole he is. He just suggested that burning a flag should result in the loss of citizenship. The man just doesn't get it. The flag is the symbol of our freedom. A greater threat to that symbol would be a flag burning law.

Our freedoms are worth more than symbols.

And this is the true genius of trump. Cause so many outrageous scandals that none of them have time to get any traction. Then quietly go about dismantling medicare and so on.

 

[Belz...]

Trump again just proved what a moronic dangerous A-hole he is. He just suggested that burning a flag should result in the loss of citizenship. The man just doesn't get it. The flag is the symbol of our freedom. A greater threat to that symbol would be a flag burning law.

Our freedoms are worth more than symbols.

I think that's one result of the over-patriotism in the US and the reverence of said symbols. It might shock some people here, but I find it silly how people put their hands over their hearts when the anthem plays before hockey games, and some even seem to be raptured by it, cheering wildly when it gets to "our flag was still there".