• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

The US is paying energy company $1 billion in settlement over ocean wind power project that never got to generate any power despite being well along in construction. It gets better.

article said:
TotalEnergies will instead invest the $928 million from the wind leases in a liquefied natural gas facility in Texas, shale gas production and oil drilling.
Click to expand...
The world is making less and less sense. I understand there is an argument against the use of intermittent sources for 24/7 energy needs, but it seems kind of insane to stop construction of something that would have created green energy... and trade it off with LNG. All for no real reason other than Trump "doesn't like" wind power.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The US is paying energy company $1 billion in settlement over ocean wind power project that never got to generate any power despite being well along in construction. It gets better.

article said:
TotalEnergies will instead invest the $928 million from the wind leases in a liquefied natural gas facility in Texas, shale gas production and oil drilling.
Click to expand...
The world is making less and less sense. I understand there is an argument against the use of intermittent sources for 24/7 energy needs, but it seems kind of insane to stop construction of something that would have created green energy... and trade it off with LNG. All for no real reason other than Trump "doesn't like" wind power.
Click to expand...

President Insane
 
Trump's FEMA authorizes FEMA disaster relief for red states at a much greater rate than for Blue states.

89% of Red state requests are approved
only 23% of Blue state requests are approved.

Exactly as I'd have expected. The President is a scumbag.



There has never been such a sharp partisan disparity in the approval of federal disaster funds since FEMA was created in 1979, according to a review of 2,500 natural disaster declarations by POLITICO’s E&E News.

...

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, “There is no politicization to the President’s decisions on disaster aid.”

FEMA.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh, of the White House says it's not Politics then it must be politics.

I call liar on Abigail Jackson. And the Trump administration are scum.


 
ZiprHead said:
Dershowitz says if Trump had been president in 1935-36 instead of FDR the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened because Trump would’ve taken out Hitler and the Nazis.
Click to expand...
(Soundtrack to Hearst Metrotone newsreel, August 10, 1939, 'Feisty Fuhrer Welcomes U.S. Pres')
Narrator: Here in breezy Berlin, the Nazi's beloved chieftan, Adolph Hitler, welcomes President Trump to a session of the Reichstag. (Footage of Hitler at microphone, speaking in a frenzy) Hospitable Herr Hitler tells the boisterous burgomasters of his friendly relations with the States. (Footage of ruddy-faced legislators laughing and applauding) Now the frisky fuhrer brings on the American President, while a band plays the Horst Wessel Song, favorite song of the Reich. (Trump dances to the microphone, jabbing his fists to the beat. Claps Hitler on back.)
Trump: What a song! What a fuhrer!! You love your fuhrer!! (roar from assembly) And he wants peace, do you know that? He told me he wants nothing but peace. Right, Adolph? (Hitler beams, assembly roars approval) You know, he took me to one of your beerhalls, and I don't drink beer, but he let me order a Coke. (Laughter) And I saw everyone was eating cheese, and they brought me the biggest piece of cheese you ever saw in your life. And it was -- what was that cheese called?
Hitler: Butterkase.
Trump: Yeah, butter-kahza. Butter-kahza, and I ate the whole damn thing. (Ruddy faced legislators laugh hysterically) You know, that Johnny Weissmuller is one of you guys. We call him Tarzan in my country. And he's a good old Heinie! And I heard when he takes a shower, the other guys can't believe what they see. They grow 'em big over here, right? (hysterical laughter, Hitler holds his sides, Goering spits out a piece of sausage roll) And you know, I tell everyone in my country that we have friends over here in -- you call it Doitch-land, right? I like to say Doitch-land.
Narrator: The President warms to his task and speaks to the German notables for well over an hour.
Trump: (mid-speech) So, I promise you we are your friends in America. The American farmer likes you. The factory worker likes you. The German guys that make the pretzels, of course they like you. The black men that clean the streets like you. I love black men!! (dead silent assembly, stricken look on faces; Hitler taken aback) But when your fuhrer says you have to round up the foreign element, I'm 100% with you. They poison the life blood of your country! (Assembly erupts in thunderous roar of approval)
Narrator: At this point the American President receives a five minute standing ovation, which only ends when a fretful fuhrer calms the crowd.
Trump: I knew you'd like that -- and it's true! Got to keep the blood of Doitch-land pure and true, am I right? (applause) And there's Goebbels back there, I think he started masturbating when I said that. (footage of explosive laughter from legislators) So I leave you now, but I won't say goodbye, I'll say 'Owf veeder-zane', which is what you guys say, right? (hugs Hitler; both wave)
Narrator: And so a bright-eyed Berlin and its forceful fuhrer was ready to be won over by a perky American President.
 
Last edited:


May be fake news. Trump was admitted to the HOF in 2013, before he had any political power.
 
ZiprHead said:
Dershowitz says if Trump had been president in 1935-36 instead of FDR the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened because Trump would’ve taken out Hitler and the Nazis.
Click to expand...
To dinner and a show?

Not sure how that would have prevented the holocaust.
 
bilby said:
ZiprHead said:
Dershowitz says if Trump had been president in 1935-36 instead of FDR the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened because Trump would’ve taken out Hitler and the Nazis.
Click to expand...
To dinner and a show?

Not sure how that would have prevented the holocaust.
Click to expand...
Electoral-Vote.com had a good piece on Dershowitz's absurd claim. In summary, the US simply didn't have the military to defeat Germany in the 1935-36, let alone the US supporting such a military adventure in Europe in the first place. After all, WWII started in 1941* and we didn't invade Normandy until 1944!

What I'd add would be the entire issue of going to Germany and defeating the Nazis.

FDR (1935): We are going to Germany to stop the Nazis!
Public: Why?
FDR (1935): To stop the Holocaust.... oh wait...

I suppose one other consideration for Dershowitz's statement could also be to deflect the US "military aim" back to nuclear weapons and not regime change. The results have been more positive with that being a goal, whereas regime change was an absolute flop, especially with Trump trying to rally the Iranians and Kurds to step up and overthrow the government. But I might be reading too much into it there.

Finally, Trump would have been a Nazi.
 
ZiprHead said:
Dershowitz says if Trump had been president in 1935-36 instead of FDR the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened because Trump would’ve taken out Hitler and the Nazis.



Bullshit. Trump would have been his biggest ally.
Click to expand...

He would have taken them out to dinner, maybe, and bought a nice dress for himself so he could look nice for his bae.
 
Dear Earth: Please don't blame us because our president is an a-hole.

I mean, blame us, we let him get elected, but most of us think he's a humongous a-hole, and are counting the days until he's gone.

Maybe we can be friends again after that?

Until then, we'll do all we can to minimize his damage. But just know that we stand united against a-holes.

Love always,

America
Click to expand...

The above is from the link in the prior post. We need more humor.
 
ZiprHead said:
View attachment 53902
Click to expand...
I always find it problematic when I see this kind of framing. It reeks of the "slanted shelves" issue I keep seeing in media.

Why would a report seek so hard to hide such a stark imbalance behind visual cues that are inverse of the normal expectation?

The lower number is normally put below the higher number; the other way cues one to think the lower number is the higher, regardless of the actual number. Same with green/red. When two numbers are being linked to bars, usually the bars are scaled to show proportion; when there is a proportion of colors, one would expect a pie chart that reveals actual ratios, or the bars to be proportionally different in length -- any failure in presenting those proportions should be considered dishonest.

As a result, it's the classic "presenting a loss with the framing of a win".
 
Jarhyn said:
Why would a report seek so hard to hide such a stark imbalance behind visual cues that are inverse of the normal expectation?
Click to expand...
I googled approve/disapprove graphics and they routinely start with approve in green, followed by disapprove in red.
The bar-length proportionality may be a different matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom