More winning for Big Oil

But his base really isn't that big. He didn't even win the popular vote and that was with a boatload of swing voters who just couldn't stand HRC. I don't believe he can win another election. He has the worst approval ratings in history and his own party is distancing themselves and tossing around the idea of running another candidate. The Dems ran a shit candidate in 2016, so assuming they learned that lesson I don't see it as much of a challenge to unseat him. Everyday we learn of more dysfunction in this White House and he isn't gaining popularity. But no one thought he would win the first go around either so.... Maybe if he starts a war he can win on the "don't change horses midstream" principal, who knows.
If you run two turds up there, you vote for the one with less corn in it?

No way he gets re elected. His base isn't large enough, especially since it has gotten even smaller.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
But his base really isn't that big. He didn't even win the popular vote and that was with a boatload of swing voters who just couldn't stand HRC. I don't believe he can win another election. He has the worst approval ratings in history and his own party is distancing themselves and tossing around the idea of running another candidate. The Dems ran a shit candidate in 2016, so assuming they learned that lesson I don't see it as much of a challenge to unseat him. Everyday we learn of more dysfunction in this White House and he isn't gaining popularity. But no one thought he would win the first go around either so.... Maybe if he starts a war he can win on the "don't change horses midstream" principle, who knows.

I'd love to see the dems and the reps both put forth really good middle of the road candidates with substantive debates .. wouldn't it be nice if deciding between the R and D was really hard because they were both really good??
 
The dems needs to figure out one simple thing. If your candidate is outspoken against guns, you automatically lose 40% of the vote right off the top. Before the first debate, and nothing you can say will get it back.

Get someone who is SENSIBLE about guns, and not an uninformed twit that doesn't know the different between a semi auto and a MACHINE GUN, and you might actually be able
to get some sensible republicans to listen to your message.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
I'd love to see the dems and the reps both put forth really good middle of the road candidates with substantive debates .. wouldn't it be nice if deciding between the R and D was really hard because they were both really good??
But it was Republican voters who chose Trump in the primaries, so it's kind of on them to demand a better candidate isn't it? Trump ran against 16 Republican politicians and you guys chose him.... I'm not saying that the Dems did much better, but Hillary was kind of an institution in the Dem party and ever since she ran against Obama in 2008 everyone knew she was probably the top choice for most Dems in 2016. At least it makes sense and there was a logical progression. Trump came in and hijacked the GOP because the voters were apparently too stupid to see through his bullshit. I understand why a lot of people voted for him over Hilary, but I don't understand how he made it through the primaries and emerged as the best thing the Republican's could offer.
 
But it was Republican voters who chose Trump in the primaries, so it's kind of on them to demand a better candidate isn't it? Trump ran against 16 Republican politicians and you guys chose him.... I'm not saying that the Dems did much better, but Hillary was kind of an institution in the Dem party and ever since she ran against Obama in 2008 everyone knew she was probably the top choice for most Dems in 2016. At least it makes sense and there was a logical progression. Trump came in and hijacked the GOP because the voters were apparently too stupid to see through his bullshit. I understand why a lot of people voted for him over Hilary, but I don't understand how he made it through the primaries and emerged as the best thing the Republican's could offer.
He made it through the primaries because when the other candidates opened their mouths, all that came out was DC gibberish. People were willing to try anything. Once.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
He made it through the primaries because when the other candidates opened their mouths, all that came out was DC gibberish. People were willing to try anything. Once.
I hear that, but I still think he was without a doubt the most unqualified and morally compromised person on that stage. No point in reliving it now, but we all know there were countless things he said/did that should have eliminated him for any voter who held any respect in the office of POTUS. There were better people in the running.
 
In case it hasn't been posted here yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...c-507pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.19b3980a71e5

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets.

The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.

At the same time, the commission said that it shared Perry’s stated goal of strengthening the “resilience” of the electricity grid and directed regional transmission operators to provide information to help the commission examine the matter “holistically.” The operators have 60 days to submit materials. At that time, the agency can issue another order.

Perry’s proposal favored power plants able to store a 90-day fuel supply on site, unlike renewable energy or natural gas plants.

The plan, however, was widely seen as an effort to alter the balance of competitive electricity markets that federal regulators have been cultivating since the late 1980s. And critics said that it would have largely helped a handful of coal and nuclear companies, including the utility FirstEnergy and coal-mining firm Murray Energy, while raising rates for consumers.

“The Commission’s endorsement of markets does not conflict with its oversight of reliability, and the Commission has been able to focus on both without compromising its commitment to either,” the FERC said in an order.

The FERC said that while it had not used the term “resilience,” it had pursued policies that would “ensure the uninterrupted supply of electricity in the face of fuel disruptions or extreme weather threats.”

Perry issued a statement saying that “as intended, my proposal initiated a national debate on the resiliency of our electric system.”

But most analysts saw the decision as a setback for the administration.

“This outright rejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear shows that Commissioners of both parties have little interest in manipulating electricity markets in favor of any fuel source,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former consultant at the Obama-era Energy Department, now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

“The law and common sense prevailed over special interests today,” John Moore, director of the Sustainable FERC Project Coalition, said in a statement. “The FERC correctly found that the Department of Energy’s proposal violated the basic requirements of the Federal Power Act. Secretary Perry’s plan would have subsidized coal and nuclear plants with a 90-day fuel supply yet Perry never explained why those plants were inherently more reliable or resilient.”

Although the FERC could issue a new order after submissions by regional grid operators, the language in the current order suggested it would stand by the trend toward free competitive electricity markets.

“This is really FERC saying that any change we make to the grid is going to be grounded in fact,” Greg Wetstone, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said in an interview. “This is shifting to a real-world process based on what’s actually happening to the nation’s grid, and that’s great news for renewable energy.”

Perry had argued that coal and nuclear power plants would fare better in extreme weather conditions such as the polar vortex that gripped large parts of the nation just four years ago. Yet opponents of Perry’s plan said that the current bout of extreme cold undercut Perry’s argument as regional grids had excess power on hand and many power plants switched from natural gas to oil largely because of cheaper prices. One of the few major outages was the result of a failed transmission line that took a New England nuclear plant offline.

The FERC order issued Monday included three members’ concurring comments that revealed some difference of opinion beneath the unanimous vote. Cheryl LaFleur, a Democrat, said that “even had a resilience issue been demonstrated, I have serious concerns about the nature of the proposed remedy, which would address the issue not through market rules but through out-of-market payments to certain designated resources.” She said that Perry’ proposal “sought to freeze yesterday’s resources in place indefinitely.”

By comparison, Neil Chatterjee, a Republican and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), wrote in his separate comments that “I applaud Secretary Perry’s bold leadership in jump-starting a national conversation on this urgent challenge,” and expressed concern about the “many nuclear and coal units particularly at risk of economic retirement despite their significant contribution to bulk power system resilience.”

Chatterjee said he would have preferred an “interim step” in response to Perry. He said the FERC order to seek more information about resilience was “only the first step” rather than a final one.

The other members of the commission are Chairman Kevin J. McIntyre and Robert F. Powelson, both Republicans, and Richard Glick, a Democrat. LaFleur is the only member appointed before Trump took office.
 
He made it through the primaries because when the other candidates opened their mouths, all that came out was DC gibberish. People were willing to try anything. Once.
Exactly! That is why we don't need another "More of the Same" Democrat that tells us how much they oppose Environmental Degradation but don't do shit about it. And we don't need a Republican who would sell Alaska back to the Russians for a cheaper price than we paid for it. Both parties are hooked on the $! How many "Moderates", "Centrists", what ever you want to call them do we go through until there is no planet left to sustain life?????
 

Latest posts