Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
What has Trump really accomplished? >

What has Trump really accomplished?

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

What has Trump really accomplished?

Old 02-12-2019, 08:30 AM
  #41  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,610
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
You're right. But it's hard to come up with a sound reason not to move towards cleaner "greener?" sources of energy. Also adapting more responsible habits as far as every day activities. Our biggest problem is that each side takes everything to the extreme when they should be coming up with a sensible, measured and reasonable approach to solving these basic problems.
Mickey: It is EASY to come up with a sound reason not to move towards cleaner "greener" sources of energy. The price point is excessive -- meaning a significantly diminished standard of living will be suffered by ALL of us. There is your reason. It was easy to find. Why can't liberals/progressives/democrats see this and articulate this for themselves?

Let me deepen the dialog. It is all about price point. That sounds simple -- and it is -- but that is the whole of this issue you bring up. If green technology were cost competitive . . . it would already be here. It is NOT cost competitive. It is not like the early years of the semiconductor industry, where the immature technology of semiconductor manufacturing needed the helping hand of massive government investment via the space program. No. Virtually all the green energy initiatives are mature. Mature, but not cost competitive.

The left/progressives/democrats/liberals do not ever say there is a cost to these policies. They always deny there is a price tag. That is deceptive, and even moderately intelligent people smell this out and reject these policies for what they are, snake oil. If they are worth implementing, then their proponents ought to fairly set forth the true costs in standard of living and price of goods to people. That never happens. The left/progressives/democrats/liberals always pretend that there is no downside to their knee-jerk policy recommendation. That, Mickey, is what you have just done -- no down side, no one can possibly think of a negative associated with adoption of green initiatives. But yet it took me 10 seconds to think of a big negative. Again, it is inherent in this whole discussion that green initiatives are NOT cost competitive . . . or they would already be in place in our economy.

Last edited by Alsatian; 02-12-2019 at 11:24 AM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:09 AM
  #42  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 760
Default

Exactly!!! Another thing is the left does everything it can to disrupt any solution but their own and ignore the pitfalls contained in their own energy solutions.
elkman30 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:07 AM
  #43  
Giant Nontypical
 
North Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 8,885
Default

Something that has often been overlooked in US environmental policies is the net impact. The man-made global warming folks always point out the fact that our pollution combines with everyone else's, and that's why we need to limit ours. Then we implement policies that further restrict many industrial and manufacturing facilities here in the U.S. Because as Alsatian has alluded, costs and price are always guiding factors. The same people that want environmental regulations have pushed for free trade. This has shifted products that were made under at least some environmental regulations and guidelines to countries with almost no regulations or guidelines. So while they tout the decrease in pollutants and greenhouses gases here in the US, nary a word is said about the net global increase because goods being produced in countries with far fewer regulations or that simply lie about what they produce.

Ironically, almost everyone has been critical of Trump's war on the free trade agreements, but in reality, some of these global warming proponents should be supporting an end to many of the trade agreements.
North Texan is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:16 AM
  #44  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,987
Default

Originally Posted by North Texan View Post
Something that has often been overlooked in US environmental policies is the net impact. The man-made global warming folks always point out the fact that our pollution combines with everyone else's, and that's why we need to limit ours. Then we implement policies that further restrict many industrial and manufacturing facilities here in the U.S. Because as Alsatian has alluded, costs and price are always guiding factors. The same people that want environmental regulations have pushed for free trade. This has shifted products that were made under at least some environmental regulations and guidelines to countries with almost no regulations or guidelines. So while they tout the decrease in pollutants and greenhouses gases here in the US, nary a word is said about the net global increase because goods being produced in countries with far fewer regulations or that simply lie about what they produce.

Ironically, almost everyone has been critical of Trump's war on the free trade agreements, but in reality, some of these global warming proponents should be supporting an end to many of the trade agreements.
huh? What are you talking about? The Democrats are the ones pushing for environmental laws and greener policies and are also pushing for restrictive trade policies. Trump is with Democrats in wanting to hurt the American consumer by artificially setting prices on the shelf and deciding how Americans should spend their money.

you call for ending our free trade agreements why? Why should we end NAFTA which I've proven over and over again without any one providing an evidence to the contrary that it caused out manufacturing output to raise at a faster rate than before it was in placed. Now Trump's NAFTA 2.0 is going to raise the cost of automobiles at a time when the industry is in decline how does this help the little guy make ends meet? Why do we need government making purchasing decisions for us? I know I can decide on my own what I need to buy without Trump's input. Can you?
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:55 AM
  #45  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,740
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Mickey: It is EASY to come up with a sound reason not to move towards cleaner "greener" sources of energy. The price point is excessive -- meaning a significantly diminished standard of living will be suffered by ALL of us. There is your reason. It was easy to find. Why can't liberals/progressives/democrats see this and articulate this for themselves?

Let me deepen the dialog. It is all about price point. That sounds simple -- and it is -- but that is the whole of this issue you bring up. If green technology were cost competitive . . . it would already be here. It is NOT cost competitive. It is not like the early years of the semiconductor industry, where the immature technology of semiconductor manufacturing needed the helping hand of massive government investment via the space program. No. Virtually all the green energy initiatives are mature. Mature, but not cost competitive.

The left/progressives/democrats/liberals do not ever say there is a cost to these policies. They always deny there is a price tag. That is deceptive, and even moderately intelligent people smell this out and reject these policies for what they are, snake oil. If they are worth implementing, then their proponents ought to fairly set forth the true costs in standard of living and price of goods to people. That never happens. The left/progressives/democrats/liberals always pretend that there is no downside to their knee-jerk policy recommendation. That, Mickey, is what you have just done -- no down side, no one can possibly think of a negative associated with adoption of green initiatives. But yet it took me 10 seconds to think of a big negative. Again, it is inherent in this whole discussion that green initiatives are NOT cost competitive . . . or they would already be in place in our economy.
I'm not so sure that is true about competitiveness of Cleaner energy. Here we have windmills popping up in almost all of my favorite hunting locations. I suppose I liked them because of their prevailing wind patterns as well. Beyond that DTE is switching over to natural gas from coal as we speak. We are still over 50% coal but the new plants are all NG. That's two big steps forward in Michigan. As a nation, I think we are ready to make more responsible choices in our own lives. I am speaking mostly about recycling not about giving up my V-8 pick-up. That's an area where I don't see much in the way of progress. I couldn't afford an electric pick up even if they made one. So having to buy a volt or what have you would have a negative impact on my life as you say.

That's why I suggested a measured and reasonable approach. One where the hysterics from both sides are simply ignored as they should be.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:57 AM
  #46  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,740
Default

Originally Posted by North Texan View Post
Something that has often been overlooked in US environmental policies is the net impact. The man-made global warming folks always point out the fact that our pollution combines with everyone else's, and that's why we need to limit ours. Then we implement policies that further restrict many industrial and manufacturing facilities here in the U.S. Because as Alsatian has alluded, costs and price are always guiding factors. The same people that want environmental regulations have pushed for free trade. This has shifted products that were made under at least some environmental regulations and guidelines to countries with almost no regulations or guidelines. So while they tout the decrease in pollutants and greenhouses gases here in the US, nary a word is said about the net global increase because goods being produced in countries with far fewer regulations or that simply lie about what they produce.

Ironically, almost everyone has been critical of Trump's war on the free trade agreements, but in reality, some of these global warming proponents should be supporting an end to many of the trade agreements.
Trump is not completely insane. Just mostly insane.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:07 PM
  #47  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 760
Default

What is your evidence for Trump being insane beyond your statement just being ad hominem?
elkman30 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:17 PM
  #48  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,987
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
I'm not so sure that is true about competitiveness of Cleaner energy. Here we have windmills popping up in almost all of my favorite hunting locations. I suppose I liked them because of their prevailing wind patterns as well. Beyond that DTE is switching over to natural gas from coal as we speak. We are still over 50% coal but the new plants are all NG. That's two big steps forward in Michigan. As a nation, I think we are ready to make more responsible choices in our own lives. I am speaking mostly about recycling not about giving up my V-8 pick-up. That's an area where I don't see much in the way of progress. I couldn't afford an electric pick up even if they made one. So having to buy a volt or what have you would have a negative impact on my life as you say.

That's why I suggested a measured and reasonable approach. One where the hysterics from both sides are simply ignored as they should be.
you got windmills only because their heavily subsidized just like solar panels. If you actually had to pay full price you wouldn't be saying their competitive.

I'm not ready for electric cars they suck the only thing close is natural gas cars but their only good for local driving I will take a gas guzzling car every day of the week. Had my chariot out a few weeks ago. Got to take it up to around 120 while watching the fuel gage drop. So much fun.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:58 PM
  #49  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,987
Default

Hey Mickey, forget seeing many more windmills The federal subsidies ended and the energy department predicts the boom is over. Natural gas crushes wind power.

on a side note, can you show me anywhere real evidence the CO2 which we exhale is really impacting global warming? Also, we have Yellowstone which will kill us all ready to spew. I wouldn't worry about what your car produces. Its 2500 times more powerful than Mount Saint Helens. That eruption spewed more CO2 than all the vehicles in the world ever have. So think about that one. Your in the blast zone. hahahahaha
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:47 AM
  #50  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,740
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Hey Mickey, forget seeing many more windmills The federal subsidies ended and the energy department predicts the boom is over. Natural gas crushes wind power.

on a side note, can you show me anywhere real evidence the CO2 which we exhale is really impacting global warming? Also, we have Yellowstone which will kill us all ready to spew. I wouldn't worry about what your car produces. Its 2500 times more powerful than Mount Saint Helens. That eruption spewed more CO2 than all the vehicles in the world ever have. So think about that one. Your in the blast zone. hahahahaha
I can't offer any proof Co2 produced by humans is causing anything aside from death to those who wander in areas with too high a concentration. I do know (or at least have read) that Ice core samples drawn from Antarctica show increased Co2 levels at depths which would match times when the earths temperature was warmer. I'm not about to undertake the scientific methodology required to disprove that theory. But feel free and I look forward to reading your paper on the subject.

As for subsidies for wind power, I can't think of any company which has survived for any length of time with out subsidies or out right favoritism from the government.
Mickey Finn is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.