Trump Names Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

a reply to: loam

i am still skeptical of this.
will believe it when i see it

a reply to: luthier

Go ahead and remove coal and see how long you keep the lights on. SMH

a reply to: dashen

originally posted by: loam

DAMN you Trump!

You are going to force me to get a twitter account!

Damn you all you hell!!!!!


In all seriousness, I love his F# you to the MSM using twitter. Although I am unsure whether I will actually sign up.

As far as the SOS pick, I am for it. What we have had the past 8 years sure as F# has NOT worked. Use Syria as example "A".
ETA: Make that the past 28 or so years hasn't worked.....

I will support this pick, as opposed to Hillary or Kerry, until he proves otherwise.

Sure as hell cant be any worse than the last 2 picks

a reply to: Martin75

Good ahead and remove coal and see how long you keep the lights on. SMH

Thanks to fracking, there is no need for coal whatsoever. Now if the coal companies were interested in the long term future of the industry, they would have put the money they used to bribe politicians into R&D to make coal gasification plants competitive with fracking. They didn't, and the coal miners are the losers. No power company is going to re-retrofit a plant to burn coal, even if Trump gets rid of every environmental regulation. It would be an expensive and risky investment. Sorry, but the fact of the matter is you've been lied to.

Oh, by the way, Tillerson is an advocate for nuclear power.

a reply to: Martin75

Who did you expect him to fill his cabinet with, workers from McDonalds?

No, he expected the 'typical' Washington sellout to fill the position.

Can't have anyone not bought and paid for by the 'approved' Washington (read NWO) insider.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dashen

Which is hilarious because that is the future and where all the new manufacturing jobs can come from.

It's going to be really sad in 50 years if we are still using steam turbine tech for energy.

Plastics and petrochemicals is what oil should be used for. Coal just needs to go all together.

Pretending to hold onto old jobs that have no future is counterproductive to human success.

Try to keep in mind that Trump has also recently met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, to discuss the economic opportunities (jobs and business) related to renewable energy, emissions reduction and energy efficiency.

Just because Trump appoints an oil exec Secretary of State, does not mean that he can't develop a long-term renewable energy strategy. Just because he wants to make the US energy independent, which for the moment means exploiting oil, gas and clean coal resources, does not mean he can't be supportive of long-term strategies that promote cleaner (and economical) energy technologies.

a reply to: stosh64

It's so cute that you think the CEO of a company that manages to get ever increasing amounts of corporate welfare despite posting record profits isn't a Washington insider.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: luthier

Go ahead and remove coal and see how long you keep the lights on. SMH

Indeed, it currently is responsible for 50% of energy. The only reason it is not more is because of global warming concerns.
It's a very efficient source of energy.

a reply to: UKTruth

No it isn't. Not efficient at all.





Do you even check things before spouting nonsense?.

a reply to: DJW001
Sounds like this may be good for the US. Develop relations with Russia again .
Obama - Crap himself every time Putin gave him "the look"
Cliinton - We need to start a war against Putin

No thanks ,I will take Trump's crew of businessmen rather than the established warmongering politicians
And while Trumps at it , get shed of the 2 Macs (McCain and McConnell)and put Ryan on the back burner to be seen and not heard

a reply to: testingtesting
Care to list your source? Plus there is much more to look at than just efficiency

World Coal Association

Interesting discussion.

a reply to: testingtesting
Maybe folks mean cash. You know Obama bailed out several "green companies" in the US with BILLIONS of tax dollars. They went bankrupt shortly thereafter >Until this changes ,coal , oil , natural gas are what we have
Or , are you saying do away with these with no replacement . That wouldnt have a good outcome at all
Some folks dont think things through . They stop at the end of their noses

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: UKTruth

No it isn't. Not efficient at all.

Do you even check things before spouting nonsense?.

Do you? I was talking about the cost not the percentage output to input retained. Your chart is irrelevant.

a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe next time explain yourself better just saying "It's a very efficient source of energy" does not come across as "It is the cheapest fuel we can get".

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe next time explain yourself better just saying "It's a very efficient source of energy" does not come across as "It is the cheapest fuel we can get".

Or maybe you could ask for clarification instead of assuming and jumping in?
Always wise.

a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't have to If you put it across in the correct context.
Hows Russia doing btw?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't have to If you put it across in the correct context.
Hows Russia doing btw?.

Seek first to understand then to be understood. It's good advice and avoids embarrassing yourself.
Russia? What do you mean?

So the USA is now a official corporatocracy......