The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Planigale said:
(I am waiting for the first US presidential candidate delivered by caesarian section and the court case about whether they are a 'natural born' US citizen.)
Click to expand...

That was settled in the landmark "State of California V MacBeth" case.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And if they did?

By the way, the president isn't on the state ballot because you don't vote for president.
Click to expand...

What? What are you even trying to say? The state ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, representing slates of electors committed to them.
 
Segnosaur said:
It should also be noted that although E15 gas may sometimes be cheaper, it is also less efficient (less energy per gallon), so its cheaper to fill up, but you won't travel as far. (And some car manufacturers think the higher ethanol blends aren't good for cars.)
Click to expand...
Is the source for all this ethanol supposed to be corn? There must be less resource-intensive crops that could provide it.

There are theories out there that blame America's obesity epidemic on the overproduction of corn. Also its use is associated with miserable conditions in feedlots. The U.S. is very good at growing cereal crops.
 
Minoosh said:
Is the source for all this ethanol supposed to be corn? There must be less resource-intensive crops that could provide it.
Click to expand...


I recall reading that algae farms are a good source of biofuels, while not taking away land from food production like corn biofuel does.
 
Bob001 said:
What? What are you even trying to say? The state ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, representing slates of electors committed to them.
Click to expand...

My ballot has the actual slate of electors listed before it even gives the name of the candidate they support.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I wouldn't have to claim there are other explanations. It is on you for claiming a specific reason to justify it. And your argument from incredulity does not fly.
Click to expand...

I have justified it. The fact that you refuse to believe the obvious is not my problem. Well, it would be if I was concerned to change your opinion, but I'm not.

By the way, we are talking about evidence here and not proof. It doesn't have to be logically watertight, it only has to shift the balance of probabilities in the right direction. I'm surprised that, as a regular poster here, you are not aware of the distinction between evidence and proof.
 
jeremyp said:
I have justified it. The fact that you refuse to believe the obvious is not my problem. Well, it would be if I was concerned to change your opinion, but I'm not.

By the way, we are talking about evidence here and not proof. It doesn't have to be logically watertight, it only has to shift the balance of probabilities in the right direction. I'm surprised that, as a regular poster here, you are not aware of the distinction between evidence and proof.
Click to expand...

You haven't offered anything to shift the balance. It seems your assertion is that it is self evident. Well, you don't get to rely on that.

What you seem to see as evidence is that it is unlikely to make repeated errors of omission. But that seems to be based on very little. Where is the research that repeated omissions is associated with lying or that the probability of each additional omission goes down under a non lying scenario?
 
Minoosh said:
It should also be noted that although E15 gas may sometimes be cheaper, it is also less efficient (less energy per gallon), so its cheaper to fill up, but you won't travel as far. (And some car manufacturers think the higher ethanol blends aren't good for cars.)
Click to expand...
Is the source for all this ethanol supposed to be corn?
Click to expand...

Yup. Most ethanol is produced by corn (at least in the U.S.) Some other plant material (such as sugarcane) has also been used, but America is mostly corn.

(According to Wikipedia, ~40% of the U.S. corn crop is used for ethanol.)
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
I recall reading that algae farms are a good source of biofuels, while not taking away land from food production like corn biofuel does.
Click to expand...
There have been attempts to use Algae to make biofuels either Algae, or into gasoline/oil.)

You're right in that it doesn't take away land from food production. But, I think one of the problems is that the algae needs sunlight, and it can only penetrate so far into water where the algae is growing.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is a logical reason for criminalizing the appearance of corruption. It is very difficult to identify corrupt intent, so it is easy to ban both. However, that does ban things that appear corrupt but are not actually corrupt.

What people then do is conflate corruption with the appearance of corruption.

Corruption is having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. You have no idea if Kushner is acting dishonesty because of this arrangement.
Click to expand...

So I should have said "lack of ethics" instead of "corruption"? The fact that I personally am not in a position to prove that there is any pay-to-play going on doesn't mean that there aren't potential conflicts of interest presented by business partnerships and therefore that it isn't ethical for a high-ranking government to be involved in business deals with foreigners. Heck, most people, at least those with white collar jobs, have restrictions on what sort of outside work they can take on.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
So I should have said "lack of ethics" instead of "corruption"? The fact that I personally am not in a position to prove that there is any pay-to-play going on doesn't mean that there aren't potential conflicts of interest presented by business partnerships and therefore that it isn't ethical for a high-ranking government to be involved in business deals with foreigners. Heck, most people, at least those with white collar jobs, have restrictions on what sort of outside work they can take on.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Segnosaur said:
Yup. Most ethanol is produced by corn (at least in the U.S.) Some other plant material (such as sugarcane) has also been used, but America is mostly corn.

(According to Wikipedia, ~40% of the U.S. corn crop is used for ethanol.)
Click to expand...
And sugarcane is a far more efficient way to produce ethanol. But there are only 3 or 4 states where cane is grown, as opposed to a couple dozen with corn, and ADM isn't in the cane business.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
So I should have said "lack of ethics" instead of "corruption"? The fact that I personally am not in a position to prove that there is any pay-to-play going on doesn't mean that there aren't potential conflicts of interest presented by business partnerships and therefore that it isn't ethical for a high-ranking government to be involved in business deals with foreigners. Heck, most people, at least those with white collar jobs, have restrictions on what sort of outside work they can take on.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's unethical not to disclose those dealings, however. Actually I'm surprised it's not illegal. I haven't read a full accounting of the problems with his clearance - some of that is probably secret, too.
 
I don't expect anyone to blab to the general public about any concerns that were found in Jared's web of dealings, but when I think of all the competent people who accepted then bailed on jobs with the administration, I can't help but wonder ... do they have friends in the Senate? Respected colleagues? Mattis, Kelly, McMasters - are people who have spent their lives keeping secrets for the security of the U.S. just out playing golf or whatever? They don't have a duty to warn me but I hope they would warn others in the loop about potential threats.

I keep thinking that key Republican senators already have information that would convince them to dump Trump in a heartbeat, if they could just figure out how to do it without endangering their own personal power. Not even the party, just their own political fortunes. If they see the potential for massive **** to hit the fan I expect them to be running for cover. That cover would take the form of mildly expressed disagreement with Trump on certain arms sales, for example. Or bland pronouncements in favor of secure national elections. There have to be wedge issues between Trump and those few individuals who could rein him in but choose not to, for the time being.

One area where I think Trump is highly vulnerable with other conservatives is in his tendency to blab state secrets to impress Kim, Putin or their minions, which he is quite capable of doing, and the grownups are probably already not telling him things. He's so uninterested in security briefings that he's not going to miss information he's not getting.

If Senate Republicans remain committed to trying to work around the guy for the sake of their own hides or the party right up until 5.5 years from now they are insane. There is no secret safe with him. A lot of people know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom