Trump hits undo on Biden AI safety order, EV mandate, emissions standards, and more US President Donald Trump has wasted no time in culling Biden-era programs, including the elimination of the prior administration's executive orders on AI safety and electric vehicles, and freezing funds for EV infrastructure. Trump revoked nearly 80 Biden EOs in his first day in office, including EO 14037, the EV mandate, and …
Trump could... be down on the fairway and a sudden gust of wind causes a golf ball in flight to change direction and hit him right on the head. A MAGA hat does not offer much protection, and he ends up dazed and concussed.
Now he has turned into a born-again environmentalist, and rejoins Paris climate treaty, reverses the drilling etc
Of course, the safety of people is less important than the profits of the richest man in the world..
I assume you mean Musk, the second richest man in the world? The same Musk who owns Tesla? Who exclusively make EVs, along with solar tiles (allegedly) and battery packs for business and pleasure? So the Musk that stands to lose money with the EV mandate being lifted, and all the greenwash rolled back?
1) Tesla has a head start on other manufacturers, removing incentives will hit their competitors more.
2) It's all performative for the twisted anti-environmentalism that pervades his voter base, they want clean water and clean air but don't want to be told they need to change to get it. An EV mandate could be reintroduced under the guise of promoting AMERICAN! industry and countering the ENEMY Chinese manufacturers and Trump's supporters would cheer it in the streets
2) It's all performative for the twisted anti-environmentalism that pervades his voter base
No, it's about the twisted environmentalists who want to cover the world in solar panels and windmills and increasing the cost of, well, everything. Perhaps Trump has looked at the catastrophic consequences of energy and 'environmental' policies in places like the UK and Germany and has decided, sensibly to nope right out of that shitshow. Especially when there's no clear evidence or correlation between CO2 and imminent Thermageddon.
But then the far-left have always preferred feelings rather than facts. So many Americans might be feeling cold right now, which they feel is due to Global Warming.. and of course they're dead wrong.
" it's about the twisted environmentalists who want to cover the world in solar panels and windmills and increasing the cost of, well, everything"
^ That is a medieval outdated attitude not least because uncontrolled climate change also comes with its own massive costs as we can from what's happened in states like California and Florida.
That is a medieval outdated attitude not least because uncontrolled climate change also comes with its own massive costs as we can from what's happened in states like California and Florida.
Thank you for making my point for me. What, exactly, do you mean by 'uncontrolled climate change'? Can you at least have a stab at defining and quantifying this, especially the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature?
As for Florida, I assume you mean hurricanes? In which case you might want to have a read of this peer-reviewed paper. Proper science et al that-
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047711
Key Points
* In the past 5-years, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased markedly
* Tropical cyclone ACE is modulated by ENSO and PDO on a global scale
* Heightened North Atlantic hurricane activity is not unexpected
And there's no evidence (or inverse correlation) between CO2, ACE, ENSO, PDO or AMO. And by inverse correlation, it's a strange kind of physics that allows CO2 to have positive and negative effects simultaneously.. Or climate 'scientists' have googled poorly and hit on Gerrold's Laws of Infernal Dynamics rather than the more usual Newton's ones.
Then for California, I'm assuming you think CO2 caused the fires. But that's mostly ENSO, PDO and incompetence. Get some rainy years, stuff grows. Get some dry years, it dries out and becomes fuel. Don't do anything to reduce the fuel load and you get the LA fires.
This article is from 2011. I live on the Gulf of *Mexico* coast of Florida, we had three major storms within 3 months, much more than a normal season on this side. Milton was devastating for some communities, and went all the way to North Carolina. These patterns are NOT normal. Even if climate change is a natural phenomenon, wouldn’t it behoove us to cut back on carbon emissions, so we don’t exacerbate the situation?
No, sorry, you lose the argument. They don't mill grain, or anything else. If you have to use childish derogatory terms, then it means your argument has no real merit of it's own.
Sure it does. It's called an analogy. Windmills were once used to convert wind power to energy that performed useful work. Sometimes. When the wind actually blew. Wind turbines do much the same thing only 'mill' electrons. Sometimes. The Age of Sail gave way to the Age of Steam because steam was just better at performing useful work.. Yet for some reason, (ok, the massive profits from subsidies) the neo-luddites want us to go back to using pre-Industrial technology, despite all the well known disadvantages that lead to windmills becoming obsolete.
But it's also entertaining to ask Greens why we stopped using windmills, and then why we're trying to rely on their modern version to power datacentres, hospitals, schools, or just people's homes.
"Perhaps Trump has looked at the catastrophic consequences of energy and 'environmental' policies in places like the UK and Germany"
Ummm... *what* catastrophic consequences? I'm in the UK - the only problems we've had are price rises due to a dependence on fossil fuels during the war on Ukraine. More wind, tide, and nuclear would reduce our problems, not increase them...
As for 'no clear evidence or correlation between CO2 and imminent Thermageddon'... oh dear god, I don't know where to start.
CO2 absorbs infra red light (heat) - look on youtube, you can see a video of a guy with a thermal camera looking at a candle - when he looks at it thru CO2, the image disappears because the heat is absorbed by the CO2.
The greenhouse effect exists because whilst there is a balance between incoming and outgoing infrared form the sun being blocked, the energy from other frequencies (e.g. visible light) that gets absorbed by objects on the ground is not radiated back at the same frequencies - a brick does not glow at night in visible light - but it does glow in infra-red.
So some light gets in at one frequency, but when re-radiated at another, can't get back out again. This results in warming.
Some CO2 is good - the earth would be uncomfortably cooler if there was none.
But by the same token, too much CO2 is bad, and we will get uncomfortably warm (or more simply, there will be more heat in the atmosphere, making it more volatile).
CO2 is measurably increasing.
Why?
Because we are digging 100 million year's worth of it out of the ground and burning it in one century. The Earth can't respond or equalise fast enough to accommodate that so the CO2 levels are rising.
Hopefully that makes sense, if there's any bit you are not happy about, please just ask.
"1) Tesla has a head start on other manufacturers, removing incentives will hit their competitors more."
Tesla has an early marketing advantage in EV's, but darn near everybody else can build a better car.
Consider companies that have models that can be purchased with different petrol and diesel engines. Kia's original Ionic came in a petrol, hybrid and full electric version. Some companies have had nearly identical models that were equipped with a small 4 cylinder in one region and bottomed out with a V-6 in others. The Ford Mustang has been availible in model years with a V-6, a 4.6L V-8 and a high performance 5L V-8. Fitting an electric power train and battery would yield a better base level automobile than Tesla makes.
Look up Edison Motors in Canada who are building a handful of hybrid diesel semi trucks. Their demo unit is a hybrid aimed at the logging industry and is built on an existing frame much in the same way that Marc and Martin built the first Tesla Roadster. That first Tesla used a chassis from Lotus and rightly so. The magic was the electric drive train and shortening the time to market by not needing to reinvent a quality chassis just to be different was an advantage. I think Edison Motors has taken a page out of that play book. They can get loads of truck chassis cheap on the used market that fit their needs and once cleaned up, build on top of them.
"I think the point is, TESLA will be the only choice in EVs. In other words, a monopoly. trump and musk will find a way to make this happen."
And we'll all be eating at Taco Bell when all restaurants are Taco Bell?
Tesla makes two luxury priced cars with YoY declining sales, one mainstream vehicle in two sizes and one total embarrassment. There's not much variety there for people to find something that fits their needs.
"So the Musk that stands to lose money with the EV mandate being lifted"
Hmmmmm, Tesla is established in the EV market so kicking the props out from under anybody else that needs a government subsidy to allow them to sell their EV at a price that isn't too far underwater is a tactic. It's a risky proposition for Elon, but once you make a name in a niche, you always want to keep raising the bar for anybody else to get in. I don't think it will work here, but others might.
Yaeh, that one I really don't understand. Most of his EO's are clearly "because Biden", which at least is consistent (for Trump, anyway) It seems to fly in the face of his claims about all the foreign drugs being imported into the USA and how he wants to stop all that (I assume so the local US drugs producers can have a better stab at the market and not be undercut by dirty foreigners :-))
"Most of his EO's are clearly "because Trump","
FIFY. I know it was 4 years ago but try to remember how Biden splurged out a whole load of EOs to cancel what Trump had done.
I mean, it was so secret even the BBC knew about it
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55738746
>I rather get the feeling that Trump's entire plan was to wing it to becoming President so that he can simply fuck with everyone for the lulz.
Well, he did sign an Executive Order yesterday that mandates that all everybody is the sex at the time of conception. So Trump now becomes the first female President and same-sex marriages are now the official federal standard in the country.
Well, he did sign an Executive Order yesterday that mandates that all everybody is the sex at the time of conception. So Trump now becomes the first female President and same-sex marriages are now the official federal standard in the country.
I haven't seen anything about same-sex marriages, or Trump transitioning anything other than into power. And I also don't entirely agree with the policy. From the Bbc-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx84en1yp4o
Trump also signed an order designating two genders only - male and female – and declaring that they cannot be changed.
"As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female," Trump said during his inaugural address earlier on Monday.
This is kind of a scientific approach, ie if you're born XY, you're male, if XX, female. But I do think people who transition & go through surgery should be allowed to identify as their desired gender. I also think for medical reasons, birth gender should still be recorded in official records because biological gender still matters for some treatments.. Which also gets a bit interesting if trans people are given hormones to develop male or female characteristics, does that also mean they also become susceptable to typically male or female conditions? So for example screening for breast or cervical cancer. If the cervix has been removed, obviously no risk of that one.
But breast (and other ) cancers get more complicated, eg if a person carries a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, they're at a higher risk of developing breast and other cancers. During transitioning, most of the breast is removed, but the risk remains.. Plus men can also develop breast cancer, although the risk is much lower. One of my relatives worked on the team that identified the genetic risk, and their pet peeve is that both biological men and women should be screened for that mutation. Plus hormone therapy might increase the risk of developing cancers, if the person carries that mutation.
And then there's more politically sensitive stuff like sports, where genetic gender can give a competitive advantage, increase injury risk to other competitors and reduce fairness, which is what sports is supposed to be about.
But in general, I think a person who goes through a long, painful and I guess in the US, expensive process to go from M-F or F-M should be allowed to identify as their new gender, and in the vast majority of cases, it just doesn't matter what their birth gender may have been.
You haven't read the Executive order have you? I'll link it so you can
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
I quote
"(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."
At *conception*, all fetuses have a female phenotype and do not start to develop male characteristics until a month or so later. Under the Executive Order, Trump has mandated that the federal government considers all people as female. Because he's an idiot.
At *conception*, all fetuses have a female phenotype and do not start to develop male characteristics until a month or so later.
First, define conception.. Which the US may have to do I guess. So at conception, there may be both X & Y chromosomes, and what happens next depends on what the SRY gene does during initial meiosis, but X and Y chromosomes are present at conception. So I think it's wrong to say all fetuses are female, but then that also depends on how you define the transition from embryo to fetus, by which point SRY transfer (I think?) has already occured, and cells started to differentiate.
But this is also why I think absolutes in gender determination are wrong when that differentiation can lead to exceptions like XX males.
"First, define conception.."
Well, as per most political statements, it's a bit woolly in the EO. It only mentions "conception" twice, which is the two statements quoted above. The EO DOES NOT specify what "conception" means in terms of the EO. Which means it will be left to the courts to decide on a legal definition. Which only leave the dictionary definition unless and until this EO gets challenged in court[*]. The general consensus seems to be either the moment of fertilisation or, about 6 days later, the implanting of the egg into the uterine lining. Either definition is long before the the 6-7 weeks it takes for the foetus to start developing possible male characteristics.
* Of course, being the USA and appointed or elected officials currently afraid to contradict Trump, anything could happen :-)
Either definition is long before the the 6-7 weeks it takes for the foetus to start developing possible male characteristics.
Or female. The SRY gene is on the Y chromosome, so at conception, and I think during the embryonic stage, 'gender' isn't defined until SRY is transcribed to an X chromosome. Then it starts the differentiation process. If it doesn't transcribe, it'll be male. So I'm pretty sure it's wrong to say that gender/sex is fixed at the moment of conception, but happens after that 6-7 weeks when embryo transitions to fetus.
But that gives me something to look up later, like can you have viable sperm with no Y chromosome..
Hey Elon! I scrapped some government subsidies! This spending cuts idea of yours was really great! All the environmental crap like electric cars we don't want any more! What do you mean "not THAT spending"? What share price is going down?
"Tesla is a meme stock at this point. It is going to take more than a few bad quarters for the stock to drop down to a more realistic valuation."
If you draw an average through Tesla sales from around 2Q2023, growth has been flat. Hence, why they say on earnings calls that they are "preparing for their next growth phase". Without new shipping products, I don't see how they can be poised for growth. Their cars are not cheap and they are already selling to world markets where people can afford to purchase them. They've painted a target on their backs by talking up how wonderful their margins are on large battery packs. They aren't the only company in that market and if there IS tons of margin, bragging will only make other companies take an interest until the market average margin is much lower and typical of other margins for similar things.
They also boast of more cash on hand than the company has ever earned in net profits. What's up with that?
Trump clearly has been given a heads up that the scam of making everyone use USD for international trade and thus need USD reserves is up, which has implications for the national debt. You can tell when that was: he immediately warned Europe to continue trading internationally in USD 'or else' (if you want to know which will replace it, think 'cheap ways to produce energy' and keep an eye out what is about to happen this and next year- and their currency is also accepted by the World Bank as a reserve currency).
Long story short: this gang of crooks actually knows the game is up, so expect the next 4 years to be mainly asset stripping and capital flight, which is also why they went full tilt for every crypto scam they could come up with. Give it two to four years, and none of this will still be at the value it is now (if any at all) because while the pumped up value is high, these people will quietly get rid of their holdings and leave whoever was dumb enough to go for this scam holding the bag - if you want to play that game, play it now and bail the very second the price goes flat. Also expect massive purchases abroad as a means to pump capital out of the US because when this show collapses it will be ugly, with the man in the street once again being the victim. I think it will be as big as when the bubble burst in the Japanese economy. Heck, they may even start a few wars because nothing converts tax money into private assets with no awkward questions asked faster.
I'm not sure four years is enough to rob the place blind, but I'm certain they will try. If you are not in the US, be very, very aware of leveraged buyouts by any entity with US connections because the US part of leveraged assets may lose their value overnight, resulting in a chain of failure.
I feel sorry for the US and I hope I am wrong, but I do not find the signs encouraging because the current administration can after one day already be summed up in two words:
"Crime pays"
Yeah, I'm confident of two things over the next four years.
1. The real terms value of the US national debt will balloon.
2. Iff there any benefit accrued from this, you'll have to be a multi-millionaire to see it. (But, hey, you "owned the libs"; just don't spend that warm emotional glow all at once.)
"Safe bet - you can say those 2 things about every administration in the last couple of decades."
Patentable BS.
If you said "Every *republican* administration", then you'd be right. But of course you didn't.
Democrats actually have managed to, not only not to balloon the debt, but to reduce it. Not every time, but at least some times.
Not a single republican management has been even tried to do that.
Ya think?
He's pardoned people who tried to mount an insurrection against their own government and just signed away the birthright of citizenship. Say what you want about immigrants and their children, but the constitution is pretty damn clear, and I don't think any amount of executive ordering can arbitrarily amend the constitution (guess what, there's even an amendment spelling out the correct way to change it, and willy waving ain't it).
"..."people who know" about the Jews."
This is a bit hairy nowadays :Does it mean Jews in Israel, Jews who support Jews in Israel or the Other(TM) Jews, who don't support a holocaust even when it's Israel doing it?
According to Wiesenthal -institute you are not allowed to hate the first or second group, it makes you an antisemite. Which obviously shows which side they are on: The Money(TM) side.
[...] and just signed away the birthright of citizenship.
No, he didn't. What he did was to wave his hands a bit (he does do that a lot, doesn't he) and his gums (he does do that a lot, doesn't he) but birthright citizenship is still around, and will be for quite some time. Because you can't cancel a Constitutional amendment with an EO.
But the President is a God-King, according to the Supreme Court, so he can start enforcing this regardless of legality.
Eg refusing to renew passports. Then bundling everyone into a van if they 'look foreign', and holding them until they produce a passport or expensive lawyer.
There's a lot of ways to destroy a lot of people, even if the thing gets thrown out eventually.
There are still a lot of children who have lost their parents from last time he was in power.
you can't cancel a Constitutional amendment with an EO
Trump is in charge of the Executive. Executive Orders change how the Federal government does things. He has stripped birthright citizenship away with this EO, if you are a child born to an undocumented migrant in America today, and apply for a passport, the Federal government will not issue you one - the order prevents them.
There are supposed to be checks and balances - the Legislate and Judiciary. The Legislate pass laws that the Executive must abide by, and the enforcement of that is through the Judiciary. If the Judiciary do not enforce the law, all that falls apart. This is the next part of the waiting, for the test cases that have been brought to be judged - only then will we know precisely how deep of a hole we are in.
"but birthright citizenship is still around, and will be for quite some time."
The weird thing is that I may be able to claim nationality. My mother, born and raised in a little town not far from Baltimore, came to the UK to do her nurse's training, fell for a Scottish bloke, and then I turned up to complicate whatever plans they may have had.
Not that I'm interested, it's just a weird quirk of how the rules are, a bit like the arcane tax system (especially for non-residents).
**** The weird thing is that I may be able to claim nationality.
From what I can tell, yes.
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952, to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.
Yes, that interplay can sometimes get mad. My son legally holds three passports: one of my nationality, one of his mother's and one of the country he was born in. All valid, all renewed on time and all with full legal rights, which in one case means he can hold title to business or land without having to involve a national for 50% because technically he is one himself.
Just gets a bit annoying as he has to keep track of three separate renewal cycles, but that's a small price to pay for the flexibility it offers.
The current interpretation is spelled out explicitly here...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
"... the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
It should be the case with any country that if you happen to give birth while on hols or on a temporary visa or there illegally then your baby does NOT become a citizen of that country.
If the parent(s) are there legally and on a long term basis (green card etc) then probably it applies. Certainly if one of the parents is a US citizen.
Section 3 says: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
So much for that safeguard.
"He's pardoned people who tried to mount an insurrection against their own government"
How many insurrectionists did he pardon? Its a very round number- 0. Not one charged with insurrection. Saying it doesnt make it so. Riot yes but not insurrection, just as the other thing wasnt 'mostly peaceful protests' with fire in the background.
"and I don't think any amount of executive ordering can arbitrarily amend the constitution"
A fact that Biden was checked on with the 28th amendment rubbish posted on his account.
This post has been deleted by its author
the Republican platform only saying that the party supports "AI Development rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing."
An AI that is rooted in free speech is going to be a right wing bigot, they have tried this before and its always a terrible idea. But heck maybe Elon 'Nazi Salute' Musk can create a free speech AI for Trump which can generate policy ideas for the Republican party for the next 4 years. As its probably going to come up with better ones than Trump does.
What the hell is "free speech" when applied to a mindless machine with a tendency towards spewing insipid bollocks?
Somebody might want to remind these twats that "free speech" does not absolve one of the consequences of saying things. You know, libel/slander, hate speech, antisemitism, threatening acts of terror, blah blah bloody blah.
What the hell is "human flourishing"? Oxford defines the second word as "developing rapidly and successfully". One of those applies to AI. One.
"Somebody might want to remind these twats that "free speech" does not absolve one of the consequences of saying things. You know, libel/slander, hate speech, antisemitism, threatening acts of terror, blah blah bloody blah."
Been tried thousands of times, doesn't work. The amount of ignorance (I use it to mean willfully ignoring something) is beyond staggering.
@LBJsPNS
"You really need to stop listening to people who tell you comforting lies and have been penalized for it."
Who are you talking about? Even the democrats have given up lying about Bidens ability. It took them a long time of pretending and covering up for him but finally they could not hide it.
Maybe you need to stop listening to the comforting lies you were told.
"It's going to be an interesting four years."
Terrifying is more like and the really worrying bit is that, like a former citizen of the Austrian Empire, he spelt out exactly what he was going to do before he was elected. And people still elected him. Still, think of the poor lawyers, they are in for a bonanza few years.
Chris Cosgrove
From the article:
The Trump EO orders all agencies to "immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)," with a particular callout for funds reserved for electric vehicle infrastructure development.
Yeah, but there is this little law passed in 1974 that states that a US President cannot do that.
Not that tRump has any respect for the law, and so long as he's President, the lickspittle SCOTUS says he can do what he wants. But you can't overturn a law with an Executive Order, so <raspberry /> to you tRump!
Trump "I'm going to stop this thing that you think happens" (waves bit of paper with his signature on it)
<sounds of crowds cheering>
Courts "You can't do that"
<crowds murmur>
Trump "These partisan judges are enemies of the people. You wanted me to do this thing and they won't let me"
<crowds boo. Sounds of sharpening of pitchforks and torches being lit>
(probably followed by email to Trump supporters asking for monetary donations)
"Unless you can quote me a federal law that states that a President can't alter the terms of federally-backed student loans, then No."
Congress controls the purse strings of the US, not the President. While a President can negotiate a treaty where money is spent, such a treaty must be ratified by Congress for that money to be allocated and handed over. "Forgiving" student loans is handing out money as they are backed by the government which must then use money paid in via taxes and tariffs to make the lenders (or the tax payers) whole. In the real world, a forgiven loan is considered income for tax purposes. Will the people that have nominally had their loans forgiven have to pay tax on that?
Trump "These partisan judges are enemies of the people. You wanted me to do this thing and they won't let me"
The cognitive dissonance is stronk in this one. Haven't we spent months listening to the far-left telling us that the President has absolute power, and is going to be a dictator? Especially as he's somehow stacked the decks of the Supreme Court.. Who, of course pointed out that any immunity only extends to official actions (unlike Biden's pardons), and can still listen & rule on disputes.. Except they'll decide based on evidence, not the polls.
In the post truth, polarised, populist America everything is performative.
That the Supreme Court is right aligned (and depleted of ethical thinking) is immaterial. Their decisions can be framed by Trump (holding the largest megaphone) in whatever way portrays him best - agents of the deep state one day, upholders of the original ideals of 1776 the next.
The dichotomy is in the Americans who vote for a terrible example of a human being expecting him to be their saviour from all the things they were told were wrong with the country.
"Haven't we spent months listening to the far-left telling us that the President has absolute power, and is going to be a dictator?"
Yes and he's erasing the diktats of the previous emperor. Congress needs to remove the Executive Order for anything below the immediate need to defend the US from an outside attacker.
I'm fed up with all the anti-Trump nonsense. The Americans have a name for it; TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You all hate Trump simply because you've been told to. Reversing the criticism, all that Trump is a mad Hitler stuff for a moment: The Trump haters must believe; i) anyone should be allowed entry and given money, ii) Government should have an open cheque book, iii) War is good, iv) free speech is bad, v) China should be given every advantage possible, vi) plant food is bad and the earth's orbit is a perfect circle, there is no precession and the sun is 100% stable, vii) The WHO is interested in making people healthy and not run by an ex-communist, now globalist power grabber, funded by pharmaceutical companies who make most money when people are ill, viii) That the Biden family weren't being paid by China and Trump is paid by Russia, ix) All the people Biden pardonned was just for fun because they hadn't done anything wrong, x) all the legal attacks on Trump had nothing to do with politics, money and power and xi) America must be made weak and useless.
Are you all insane? You have been programmed by a media owned by the power elite's system. Just wait and see what Trump brings although the last administration was doing it's best to derail him by ramping the debt and escalating their war in Ukraine. I am sure Trump will not do everything "nice" and he will have character traits that are undesirable but he "appears" so much better than what has gone before.
Please understand, the bankers have been running the world for the best part of a century. They get more control, money and power by creating debt through disaster and destruction (war, pandemics, endless genders, racial division etc) then printing more money for the debtors on which they charge interest. Imagine you make up some paper or some electronic digits, tell people they can swap them for real things and then get more paper and digital money back in an ever increasing cycle that buys you real power and control. No wonder they got rid of the gold system.
This post has been deleted by its author
Finally somewhere here who was granted a healthy portion of brain cells by the Lord. The amount of climate sheeples here, who just are smart enough to parrot what the WEF and Georg Soros owned media outlets tell, them is worrying.
Trump will change the world for good, European lightweight politicians may exercise tough language , USA has a trade deficit of 300 billion dollars with Europe.
If Europe wishes to sustain this, it needs to be competitive, energy prices are a significant factor in this equation. Spoiler alert, windmills are too expensive per watt of energy and can not sustain continuous energy delivery.
Maybe there was a reason why people moved from wind energy to coal powered steam engines in the 19th century.
And in the mean time, US car makers can restart their assembly lines for V8 engines, so Americans can laugh about European climate sheeples in their rattling 3 cylinder lawnmower engined cars that cost a fortune to make and even more to repair after they explode within 60,000 miles.
Maybe the average European citizens learned something from what happened in the USA, and make a choice for a positive future instead of leftist fear mongering and poverty.
"USA has a trade deficit of 300 billion dollars with Europe"
... in a currency which doesn't have any value. USA has so much debt that it's literally bankrupt. The only reason people haven't noticed yet, is the position as single currency for buying oil.
I remember the panic in USA when Iran declared that they'll sell their oil in Euros and *immediately* USA started to prepare attacking Iran: No rocking petrodollar allowed.
The only reason people haven't noticed yet, is the position as single currency for buying oil.
Yes, but that is under severe pressure. First of all, geopolitical shifts mean that it's now not only the Middle East that sells oil (which fuelled - sorry - the rumour that the petrodollar agreement was cancelled until it was pointed out that no such thing exists nor thus was cancelled), secondly, the primary use for oil is energy, and that shift has really only just begon. I don't think the latter will be driven by green energy just yet, I think the intermediate stage will be nuclear, mainly small Thorium sources as they're cheaper and quicker to build and several factors cheaper to run. And they're ready for deployment, but by China. Who are a bit too big to bomb as they may shoot back.
In short, the reserve currency holdings will be quietly and slowly flushed by each country, and with it wanes the US ability to influence world events. I'm guessing the CIA might have to get back to old school assassinations of national leaders, but even that will eventually not enough to turn the tide as the various scandals such as the CDO mess and the first Trump administration have already given other nations a hint that economic disconnection from the US is no longer just optional, it has become essential.
BTW, even Trump is aware of this.
Hmmm. Is this not the definition of the meme coin that DJT just created to enrich himself? A valueless token that people swap fiat currency for that enriches the person issuing the coin. Hypocritical, or what.
Some of his policies are very deliberately de-stabilising. I can understand that. But he is meant to lead for the benefit of the people of the US, and it strikes me (from the outside) that many of his policies will result in serious harm to the US population in general, while benefiting an elite much like the system you say he is attacking, but just a different group of people.
I'm just waiting for a serious TB or Measles outbreak (more than the US currently has) because of the withdrawal of public vaccination programs, or the riots against mass deportation, price rises of manufactured goods from outside of the US because of the tariffs he's talked about, or the attempts that I expect him to make to change the US Constitution to allow him to remain in power at the end of this term.
Leaving organisations like the WHO, and world agreements like the Paris Climate Accord, with the possibility that he could take the US out of the UN and NATO will just isolate the US from the rest of the world. And if he manages to destabilise the Dollar as the primary currency for world trade, much of the power he can use to influence rest of the world will disappear like a puff of smoke. He's treading a fine line which cold ultimately damage the US. And if the US disappears into a national hole and pulls the rock over their collective heads, there are other countries with and agenda to fill the vacuum left by the US in world politics.
Time will tell, but I believe that he won't be able to blame everything that I expect to befall the US on those who went before. If he's deemed by his supporters to have broken his promises, regardless of how he tries to blame other people, his popularity could drastically fall.
"serious TB or Measles outbreak"
The TB vaccine is not regularly given in the US.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24128530/tuberculosis-vaccine-efficacy-solutions-tb-bcg
"Given the low burden of TB in the US, BCG is not routinely given to infants, but it is commonly used in many other countries"
It is only in places where TB is endemic that the vaccines are routinely given. But if you look at how they are used in countries where TB is not particularly common, where they are used is to contain an outbreak, so people in the immediate environment of a significant TB outbreak are given the vaccine to prevent it spreading. This is common in all western countries that have public health programmes.
The current resurgence of TB in developed countries including the US is partly because of the worsening general state of health of elements of the population, and partly because there is no, or only a slow use of vaccines where there is an outbreak.
I expect the current trend of increasing numbers of cases of TB in the US over the last few years to increase and accelerate if the use of vaccines is not continued, something that looks likely if the people who DJT has surrounded himself with actually do what they say they want to. I do expect there to be significant outbreaks of many illnesses in the US that are currently kept in check by vaccination programmes in the coming years.
But as has been said. time will tell.
"accelerate if the use of vaccines is not continued"
But its not used in the US so not sure what your point is. You're trying to do an 'orange man bad' but failing. The fact is the US has NEVER done mass TB vaccination unlike for example large chunks of Europe where it was actually mandatory in some countries. It used to be done routinely at school in the UK but I think that has stopped.
The other issue is the BGC vaccine is becoming less and less effective against new strains. Its over 100 years old.
... where your free speech isn't actively suppressed, just made irrelevant
... where the lines between truth and fiction are deliberately blurred to lull people into compliance or resignation
... where rule of law depends on which billionaires you know
... where pollution is the policy of the day, and climate activism is a thoughtcrime
and where we refuse to think about complicated topics like gender identity.
Oh brave new world,
That has such people in it.
"complicated topics like gender identity"
How is it complicated? For decades the old gender stereotypes (boys like blue and toy cars, girls like pink and dolls) have been slowly but surely whittled away such that no-one really cared if a boy wanted to wear makeup or a girl wanted to wear jeans and a t-shirt and climb trees.
And then suddenly 'gender identity' and 'intersectionality' appeared and parents were being told their 5 year old boy who doesn't like to play with 'boy' toys was 'born in the wrong body' and needs medical treatment for the rest of their life.
Te reality is that the medical profession has discovered that it is easier and more profitable to ignore mental health issues and tell people all their ills will be fixed if we give you lots of drugs and cut you up.
"Te reality is that the medical profession has discovered that it is easier and more profitable to ignore mental health issues and tell people all their ills will be fixed if we give you lots of drugs and cut you up."
That may be true in the US, where the health industry appears to exist to extract wealth rather than encourage health. But around the world there are a stunning variety of health systems, many with responsible and tough regulation.
"How is it complicated? For decades the old gender stereotypes (boys like blue and toy cars, girls like pink and dolls) have been slowly but surely whittled away such that no-one really cared if a boy wanted to wear makeup or a girl wanted to wear jeans and a t-shirt and climb trees."
Gender Identity as a standard bearing issue for the right arose in the mid 2010s, Murdoch's press pumped it up (scare stories about bathrooms & changing rooms* general hullabaloo) & suddenly we had a new bogeyman, or woman, to vilify, alongside immigrants, the unemployed, single mothers, the homeless - people generally at the bottom of society with no voice & little influence. Prior to this it wasn't an issue for generally (maybe for some fundamentalist Abrahamics) & came with the usual finger-pointing-at-someone-different attitude from western societies.
It is made complicated by loud voices screaming at each other about something they feel deeply about, or think they know, while the rest of us would rather let the people discovering or comfortable in their chosen gender be. Maybe have a chat, discover the arguments, try and come to a consensus. But that is Not Allowed, no. Everyone _must_ have a fully formed opinion immediately & no one can ever change their opinion, because... reasons.
*As has been pointed out by many people, & a few stand-up routines, people intent on sneaking into private areas they should not have access to are unlikely to go through psychological, chemical and physical treatment just to access a gender-specific area if they are otherwise kept out by a sign on a door. Yer pervert is more likely to sneak in, drill a hole, install a camera, maybe try accessing a computer & its peripherals surreptitiously or, possibly, throw on some gender-specific disguise - most of the suff you'd find in a 70s or 80s sex comedy but without the humorous comeuppance.
How is it complicated?
What 'gender' is an XX male? There are a number of genetic conditions where biology isn't as clear cut, with an infamous example being intersex babies. Gender at birth may not have been clear, so they got assigned the closest approximation.. and then the kids and families had to live with the consequences of those decisions. But outside the medical trade and affected families, it wasn't really discussed much.
I'd still argue that for the vast majority of time, it doesn't matter. So Bob becomes Alice. I don't care, I just want them to finish the report.
"What 'gender' is an XX male? There are a number of genetic conditions where biology isn't as clear cut, with an infamous example being intersex babies. Gender at birth may not have been clear, so they got assigned the closest approximation.. and then the kids and families had to live with the consequences of those decisions. But outside the medical trade and affected families, it wasn't really discussed much."
There are abnormalities, but the vast majority of people are born as male or female. Many of the ones with genetic/chromosomal abnormalities are also sterile. Where outward characteristics are involved, surgery might be suggested to alter those persons in a way that conforms to whichever equipment has the most development/functionality, if possible.
There is no way to choose to be the opposite sex as there isn't anyway to make a complete changeover. Most reports find that those that try via drugs and surgery don't wind up in a happier place.
Here's to another four years of the administration accusing their opponents of doing the things they themselves are almost certainly doing.
I can't work out if this is stupidity, or that they have so much pride in themselves for getting away with it that they can't help but sorta-brag about it.
I can't work out if this is stupidity, or that they have so much pride in themselves for getting away with it that they can't help but sorta-brag about it.
I think there's a 3rd option. Trump figured out he could distract the Demorats/far-left by lovebombing them with 100+ EOs on day 1. Some seem like obvious trolls, like renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. But now the Dems have to figure out which battles to fight and where to spend their energy & resources. So instead of another 4yrs just attacking one Trump, they now have over a hundred targets to deal with.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
