Like any power, it's a good thing when used sensibly, but becomes a bad thing if used in an overly-broad fashion. I think to some extent even the White House sees that, which is why Priebus backed down on Green Card holders. Yes, it will stop Syrian refugees from coming in, so I suppose that's a campaign promise kept, though the nature of Trump's rhetoric during the campaign suggested a much broader Muslim entry ban, so it seems odd that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, country that have all produced terrorists, don't have the same restrictions that a bunch of people who have been bombed out of their homes by a civil war suddenly have thrown on them.
But since Trump's base seems pretty irrational, I don't imagine one should expect Trump to be any better. He truly is the reflection of Breitbart America; paranoid, irrational, hate-filled and generally in some intense of state of panic.
You describe a certain kind of investor, I suppose, and one that is too common in some quarters. But not all of us are expecting instant dividends or great leaps in share prices so we can sell at great profit. There are investors who view investments as long-term strategies, with steady growth over time, rather than obsessing over every dip in revenue or profits.
There were certainly be certain types of reactors that will always be needed, but it does seem the case, no matter what the nuclear power advocates (not to mention the oil, natural gas and coal advocates) have to say, that the storage technology is likely to supplant the more "traditional" energy production systems within a few decades. At some point existing reactors will end up having to be dealt with by taxpayers, like any industrial mess. Maybe the technology to adequately deal with nuclear waste will be along by then, who knows. One thing is certain, nuclear as a major producer of electricity anywhere doesn't have a lot of legs left. It's most vocal advocates are already beginning to sound like gold standard kooks.
I'm going to have to find that series again. I read the books about ten years ago, and they were very good, but I remember the series being quite brilliant. Hurt's Caligula was very good indeed.
Absolutely. The fact is that the odds of being killed by a terrorist are minuscule. The fear exhibited here and elsewhere is just simply irrational. It has no basis in reality at all. It demonstrates ably how people simply have very piss poor risk assessment capacity beyond immediate threats. The whole thing is just another version of the "red menace", the "Yellow hoard", "the Papist plot" and a hundred other fantastical unhinged conspiracy theories built out of the ease with which people can be literally frightened out of their wits by the most improbable threats. Meanwhile, today alone there will be, on average, 90 automobile fatalities, which works out to an average of 3.75 automobile fatalities per hour.
My odds of dying from poisoned chocolate are probably about the same as dying in a terrorist attack. Seek psychiatric help, because you have mental health issues
My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation. In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law. While I haven't looked at the laws in question, my assumption is that the laws give the Executive branch fairly wide latitude in determining who is eligible for entry into the country, but that latitude is still at least nominally within the scope of Congress's intent, and if Congress decides to change the parameters, then that isn't an intrusion on constitutionally-mandated Executive powers.
This is a model repeated throughout the government. The FCC, for instance, is a creation of statute, and yet its commissioners are Presidential appointees, barring Senate rejection.
The resistance will have to be legal. The courts are the best shot, and the only one which can really hold the Administration to account, until Congress finally decides that Trump is going to do more damage than good. Already the Senate has made Trump and his bright lights back down on the Mexican 20% tariff over that stupid fucking wall, so I expect the muscle flexing to continue, but cautiously. But if Trump is still behaving this way in 18 months, he'll alienate a lot of members of Congress. This isn't just about what's right or wrong, it's about an Executive that doesn't create complete chaos in government.
Well of course they will. That's what those brave Congressmen and women do, they sit on their hands and let judges do the heavy lifting and take the flack.
And what do you suppose the odds of you being a victim of a terrorist attack? Seriously here. Stop and think for a minute. Are you making a rational assessment? In general terms, the biggest causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer, with accidental deaths being choking, automobile accidents and falls. Terrorist attacks are so far down the list that you might as well start worrying about lightning strikes taking you down. That's why you're a retard, because you're unable to assess risk with anything approaching rationality, are easily stirred up, and really are the most delicate of little snowflakes.
Seek out a psychiatrist, and in the meantime, take a fucking statistics course.
Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, which is what has happened with those who were in transit who had visas. So while that's not a perfect solution, it demonstrates that the checks and balances mean that the President isn't an absolute monarch whose executive orders carry the weight of some sort of royal proclamation.
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation, thus terminating that executive authority. I wouldn't hold my breath on that, however. There's no way a Republican Congress, even if the majority find what he's doing horrifying, are going to start using legislative nuclear bombs at this point. They'll let the courts take the flack, which is what politicians normally do, and hope that by the time that's done, Trump will have moved on to something else.
Tell her not to leave the country. Anyone with a green card isn't safe if they step off of US soil Sorry to say it, but a trip back to the old country now might be a long visit.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I have nothing but admiration for Conway. Sure, she's clearly an amoral sociopath, but she's stunningly brilliant, and I doubt there's anyone Trump owes his victory more to than to her.
While people have been digging coal out of the ground for thousands of years, up until a few hundred years ago, I'd hardly call it an "industry". Coal didn't become a major industry until mass production of steel began to ramp up towards the end of the 18th century.
Can't he be all of the above? I've seen some posts on financial forums that look suspiciously to me like some sort stock scam, feeding off the idea that Donald Trump has godlike powers to make coal yuge again.
The entire point of a carbon tax is to use the free market to shift away from fossil fuels. As to nuclear, even if you deregulated it (which would be insane) it's still insanely expensive, and, guess what, it still requires you to pull minerals out of the ground. It's not renewable, leaves behind some of the most insanely toxic substances in our neck of the galaxy, and beyond that is actually very very very very expensive.
There are ways to build energy storage systems, some as simple as solar pumps. Fission will have its place, at least until the gods of fusion power bequeath upon us a way to produce significant power through fusion reactors, but renewables relaly are the future, and the way you get there is by pricing CO2 emissions to take into account the long-term effects.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is the Right intends to be a pack of willful idiots because "Democrats!"
Like any power, it's a good thing when used sensibly, but becomes a bad thing if used in an overly-broad fashion. I think to some extent even the White House sees that, which is why Priebus backed down on Green Card holders. Yes, it will stop Syrian refugees from coming in, so I suppose that's a campaign promise kept, though the nature of Trump's rhetoric during the campaign suggested a much broader Muslim entry ban, so it seems odd that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, country that have all produced terrorists, don't have the same restrictions that a bunch of people who have been bombed out of their homes by a civil war suddenly have thrown on them.
But since Trump's base seems pretty irrational, I don't imagine one should expect Trump to be any better. He truly is the reflection of Breitbart America; paranoid, irrational, hate-filled and generally in some intense of state of panic.
You describe a certain kind of investor, I suppose, and one that is too common in some quarters. But not all of us are expecting instant dividends or great leaps in share prices so we can sell at great profit. There are investors who view investments as long-term strategies, with steady growth over time, rather than obsessing over every dip in revenue or profits.
There were certainly be certain types of reactors that will always be needed, but it does seem the case, no matter what the nuclear power advocates (not to mention the oil, natural gas and coal advocates) have to say, that the storage technology is likely to supplant the more "traditional" energy production systems within a few decades. At some point existing reactors will end up having to be dealt with by taxpayers, like any industrial mess. Maybe the technology to adequately deal with nuclear waste will be along by then, who knows. One thing is certain, nuclear as a major producer of electricity anywhere doesn't have a lot of legs left. It's most vocal advocates are already beginning to sound like gold standard kooks.
I'm going to have to find that series again. I read the books about ten years ago, and they were very good, but I remember the series being quite brilliant. Hurt's Caligula was very good indeed.
Care to provide a citation for that figure
No, not at all. But how about a sense of perspective here.
Absolutely. The fact is that the odds of being killed by a terrorist are minuscule. The fear exhibited here and elsewhere is just simply irrational. It has no basis in reality at all. It demonstrates ably how people simply have very piss poor risk assessment capacity beyond immediate threats. The whole thing is just another version of the "red menace", the "Yellow hoard", "the Papist plot" and a hundred other fantastical unhinged conspiracy theories built out of the ease with which people can be literally frightened out of their wits by the most improbable threats. Meanwhile, today alone there will be, on average, 90 automobile fatalities, which works out to an average of 3.75 automobile fatalities per hour.
My odds of dying from poisoned chocolate are probably about the same as dying in a terrorist attack. Seek psychiatric help, because you have mental health issues
Your analogy is off by orders of a magnitude. Quit trying to justify irrational fear.
California is the 6th largest economy in the world.
Ponder that for a moment.
My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation. In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law. While I haven't looked at the laws in question, my assumption is that the laws give the Executive branch fairly wide latitude in determining who is eligible for entry into the country, but that latitude is still at least nominally within the scope of Congress's intent, and if Congress decides to change the parameters, then that isn't an intrusion on constitutionally-mandated Executive powers.
This is a model repeated throughout the government. The FCC, for instance, is a creation of statute, and yet its commissioners are Presidential appointees, barring Senate rejection.
If it's about strong restrictions on refugees, then why exactly go after people with green cards?
The resistance will have to be legal. The courts are the best shot, and the only one which can really hold the Administration to account, until Congress finally decides that Trump is going to do more damage than good. Already the Senate has made Trump and his bright lights back down on the Mexican 20% tariff over that stupid fucking wall, so I expect the muscle flexing to continue, but cautiously. But if Trump is still behaving this way in 18 months, he'll alienate a lot of members of Congress. This isn't just about what's right or wrong, it's about an Executive that doesn't create complete chaos in government.
Well of course they will. That's what those brave Congressmen and women do, they sit on their hands and let judges do the heavy lifting and take the flack.
And what do you suppose the odds of you being a victim of a terrorist attack? Seriously here. Stop and think for a minute. Are you making a rational assessment? In general terms, the biggest causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer, with accidental deaths being choking, automobile accidents and falls. Terrorist attacks are so far down the list that you might as well start worrying about lightning strikes taking you down. That's why you're a retard, because you're unable to assess risk with anything approaching rationality, are easily stirred up, and really are the most delicate of little snowflakes.
Seek out a psychiatrist, and in the meantime, take a fucking statistics course.
The 4chan crowd certainly is. A lovely little army of online Brownshirts.
Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, which is what has happened with those who were in transit who had visas. So while that's not a perfect solution, it demonstrates that the checks and balances mean that the President isn't an absolute monarch whose executive orders carry the weight of some sort of royal proclamation.
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation, thus terminating that executive authority. I wouldn't hold my breath on that, however. There's no way a Republican Congress, even if the majority find what he's doing horrifying, are going to start using legislative nuclear bombs at this point. They'll let the courts take the flack, which is what politicians normally do, and hope that by the time that's done, Trump will have moved on to something else.
Don't you have a 4chan circle jerk to attend to?
This reads like a passage from a Hunter S. Thompson essay.
Tell her not to leave the country. Anyone with a green card isn't safe if they step off of US soil Sorry to say it, but a trip back to the old country now might be a long visit.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I have nothing but admiration for Conway. Sure, she's clearly an amoral sociopath, but she's stunningly brilliant, and I doubt there's anyone Trump owes his victory more to than to her.
While people have been digging coal out of the ground for thousands of years, up until a few hundred years ago, I'd hardly call it an "industry". Coal didn't become a major industry until mass production of steel began to ramp up towards the end of the 18th century.
Can't he be all of the above? I've seen some posts on financial forums that look suspiciously to me like some sort stock scam, feeding off the idea that Donald Trump has godlike powers to make coal yuge again.
The entire point of a carbon tax is to use the free market to shift away from fossil fuels. As to nuclear, even if you deregulated it (which would be insane) it's still insanely expensive, and, guess what, it still requires you to pull minerals out of the ground. It's not renewable, leaves behind some of the most insanely toxic substances in our neck of the galaxy, and beyond that is actually very very very very expensive.
There are ways to build energy storage systems, some as simple as solar pumps. Fission will have its place, at least until the gods of fusion power bequeath upon us a way to produce significant power through fusion reactors, but renewables relaly are the future, and the way you get there is by pricing CO2 emissions to take into account the long-term effects.