It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Names Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

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




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Go ahead and remove coal and see how long you keep the lights on. SMH
edit on 12/13/2016 by Martin75 because: spelling....damn phone and spell check



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

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

edit on 12 13 2016 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12 13 2016 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
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.

edit on 12 13 2016 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No it isn't. Not efficient at all.





Do you even check things before spouting nonsense?.
edit on 13-12-2016 by testingtesting because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting
Care to list your source? Plus there is much more to look at than just efficiency

World Coal Association



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   


Interesting discussion.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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.




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
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".



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

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



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

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?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
So the USA is now a official corporatocracy......




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join