What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[derspiess]

Just heard that Poutine is coming to the White House soon.

Heard that yesterday on the radio-- like this fall.  And why not at this point? 

[FunkMonk]

Moving the capital of Russia to Washington is a bold move, Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.

[HisMajestyBOB]

A more central location would make more sense. Perhaps London?

[mongers]

Moving the capital of Russia to Washington is a bold move, Cotton. We'll see if it pays off.

No, more a puppeting move, maybe Putin will annexing later when the hit to happiness in the states won't be so bad.

[Oexmelin]

Apparently, intercepting Russian communications is about the only way to know what Trump and Putin talked about in that meeting.

[Solmyr]

Just listen to what the Russians are claiming Trump agreed to.

[Razgovory]

Just listen to what the Russians are claiming Trump agreed to.

What are they claiming?

[Solmyr]

Just listen to what the Russians are claiming Trump agreed to.

What are they claiming?

For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-continues-to-shape-narrative-of-helsinki-summit/2018/07/20/3ea54a98-8c40-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

[jimmy olsen]

Trump's lies have finally become dense enough to collapse into a singularity!

https://politics.theonion.com/dozens-of-white-houses-materialize-from-temporal-vortex-1827751333?utm_campaign=SF&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=Main

Dozens Of White Houses Materialize From Temporal Vortex As Trump's Changing Account Of Putin Meeting Tears Apart Space-Time


Friday 11:46am
•SEE MORE: White House

WASHINGTON—Revealing that the physical world could no longer bear the weight of numerous contradictory realities, sources confirmed Friday that dozens of Whites Houses have begun to leak from a temporal vortex as President Trump's rapidly changing story of meeting Putin tears apart space-time. "A White House is blinking in and out of reality atop the Washington Monument, and another has materialized inside the wall of a Georgetown apartment building—it appears the fourth dimensional plane is collapsing in on itself as Trump's untenable, competing statements rupture the very foundation of time and relativity," said astrophysicist Maria Steagall, who confirmed an entire unit of the Army National Guard was instantly vaporized attempting to enter the vortex, and several members of the White House press corps were reportedly stretched out for the entire length of the Milky Way Galaxy and then collapsed to the size of a single atom after simply trying to make sense of the president's conflicting remarks. "One witness reported seeing 6,000 Mike Pences pouring out of a small wormhole in the Cabinet room before suddenly vanishing. Countless universes are colliding and folding over each other every time Trump disputes his earlier statements; this is one of the greatest traumas the fabric of the universe has suffered since the Big Bang. In fact, the sheer heat being created by all these Putin stories battling each other to stabilize space-time may cause a black hole to form at the Earth's core, causing the planet to implode." At press time, scientists studying the vortex had confirmed that Trump was President in every single Earth reality and would be forever.

[Valmy]

Commentary: Pity Rick Perry, President Donald Trump Wants Him to Blow Up Electricity Markets He Pioneered

Chris Tomlinson, Houston Chronicle

July 20, 2018

Pity Rick Perry. His boss demands not only his loyalty but his soul.

The former Texas governor built his political career on the slogan, "Texas, open for business." His conservative philosophy was simple: wipe away regulations, lower taxes and promote free enterprise.
Then he accepted President Donald Trump's offer to serve as secretary of energy.

Perry is struggling to find a plausible excuse to reward Trump's coal-industry donors and supporters by blowing up the nation's competitive electricity markets, which have made U.S. electricity bills the envy of the world.

The fact that Perry oversaw the groundbreaking privatization of the Texas electricity market makes his recent work especially galling. One might expect our former governor to cite his experience, defend free enterprise, encourage private sector solutions and denounce government interference. Not this time.

Trump promised to save and grow the coal and nuclear power industries even though neither is competitive in the age of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. So he's ordered Perry to devise a scheme to force private electric companies to buy expensive electricity from privately-owned nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

For over a year, Perry has floundered in justifying this unprecedented government intervention. In April 2017, he asked experts at the Department of Energy to assess whether increased reliance on gas and renewables would endanger the power supply. They concluded no, it doesn't.

Last fall, he proposed a rule to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requiring the use of coal-fired and nuclear power to guarantee resilience. The Republican majority rejected his reasoning, siding instead with the 95 percent of electric companies and grid operators who said it was unnecessary.

According to a memo obtained last month by Bloomberg News, Perry's new plan is to declare a national emergency under the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act. He says we can't rely on natural gas power plants because pipelines are too vulnerable to cyberattack.

Therefore, subsidies for nuclear and coal-fired power plants are necessary because they keep weeks of fuel on site, Perry argued. His hyperbole fails even basic analysis.

Whether it's snow storms, heat waves, hurricanes or cyberattacks, the most vulnerable links in the power grids are transmission lines. Yet, the Energy Department has not declared an emergency to fortify them.

When confronted with his faulty reasoning, Perry falls back on the last refuge of scoundrels: patriotism.

"You cannot put a dollar figure on the cost to keep America free, to keep the lights on," Perry told the World Gas Conference.

Trump-appointed FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre is not buying it.

"There is no immediate calamity or threat of the ongoing ability of the bulk power system to operate and serve needs," he said.

Perry needs FERC commissioners to sign off on this plan because it picks financial winners and losers, said Rabeha Kamaluddin, a partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney who represents clients at FERC. There is no precedent or evidence to support Perry's plan.

"Then you have the practical business and market perspective," she said. "These are uneconomic plants, and we need to shut them down. You have coal operators who are saying, 'No, don't save us ... the economics don't justify us keeping these open.'"

The American Petroleum Institute called Perry's proposal "unprecedented and misguided." The Electricity Consumers Resources Council warned it "is unnecessary, anticompetitive and would increase the price of electricity to businesses and consumers, resulting in a substantial loss of U.S. manufacturing capacity jobs."

Perry's plan will take $16.7 billion a year from consumers and redistribute it to Trump's coal and nuclear industry allies, according to The Brattle Group, the energy industry's foremost consultants.

While the proposal would save 790 coal-related jobs, according to the non-partisan think tank Resources for the Future, the coal plant emissions would cause 353 to 815 premature deaths in 2019-2020.

None of this criticism is quenching Trump's desire to throw a bone to coal mining CEO Robert Murray at Murray Energy, or electric company CEO Charles Jones of FirstEnergy, Trump buddies who are pushing hard for the rule. Perry's 2016 presidential campaign manager, Jeff Miller, is FirstEnergy's top lobbyist.

Most Texas electric customers won't pay more under Perry's plan because most of the Texas grid is outside federal oversight. But Texas natural gas producers will feel the pinch when Perry orders grid operators to buy from coal and nuclear power plants instead of gas-fired.

Lower gas consumption will only exacerbate the low prices that have hurt Texas natural gas producers in recent years. It's like Perry's forgotten from where he came.

Perry knows better than to pick winners and losers in a competitive market. He needs to stand up for his Texas values and drop this sham before it hurts consumers and Texas businesses.

Granted we are only talking about 16 billion per year out of rates, so enjoy that electricity users, to subsidize a dying industry. But split among us all that is not that much. And sure it fucks over Texas a bit. But Texas did vote for Trump so hey this is what we wanted.

Oh and nice to see that swamp being drained. I am still unsure what sorts of reforms Trump is doing to combat corruption that has all his supporters so excited and sure that he is the dude to do it. Or I guess the idea is that somehow he is incorruptible but even if he was, and evidence suggests just the opposite, the swamp would just fill up again once he leaves.

[Syt]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/trump-is-said-to-seek-repeal-of-california-s-smog-fighting-power?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_medium=social&utm_content=politics

Trump to Seek Repeal of California's Smog-Fighting Power

The Trump administration will seek to revoke California's authority to regulate automobile emissions -- including its mandate for electric car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama's signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California's unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.

As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will likewise assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.

Earlier: EPA Chief Signals Showdown With California on Tailpipe Rules

The proposal is still in the final stages of a broad interagency review led by President Donald Trump's Office of Management and Budget, but these major elements of the plan were not expected to change, the people said.

Messages seeking comment from OMB, NHTSA and the EPA were not immediately returned. California Air Resources Board head Mary Nichols declined to comment. Once the agencies formally unveil the proposal, the public will have a chance to weigh in, with those comments used to develop a final rule that could be implemented as soon as the end of the year.

Although the proposal will outline other options, the administration will put its weight behind the dramatic overhaul, including the revocation of California's cherished authority, the people said.

The state's 2009 waiver under the Clean Air Act has allowed California to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government's. But the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules. Negotiations toward another set of harmonized rules has not yet yielded agreement.

If Trump's plan sticks, it could be his biggest regulatory rollback yet. Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

California, for its part, rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end. "We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world," said Dan Sperling, a member of the state's Air Resources Board said.

The most-populous U.S. state and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on May 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states' rights.

Caught somewhere in the middle are automakers, which in recent months have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama's rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

"This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states' rights," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It's a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?"

Some conservatives have long chafed at the rare authority granted California and welcome the effort to revoke.

"Congress didn't intend for California to set national fuel economy standards," said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. "It's nutty it's been allowed to develop. National fuel economy standards are set by the federal government so that's what we are going to do."

[Valmy]

In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

Yeah...so it does not matter at all. Just a huge waste of time and tax payer money.

[Syt]

So when exactly did Newt Gingrich go insane?

https://secondnexus.com/news/newt-gingrich-compares-donald-trump-abraham-lincoln/?utm_content=inf_677_1164_2&tse_id=INF_ba9aefd08f4d11e89082338b5b67de56

"I guess the question is, in history, we've had some very challenging times, can you think of a bigger abuse of power in our history?" Hannity asked.

"Look, I think the person whose situation is the most like President Trump's was Abraham Lincoln," Gingrich replied. The veteran Republican then implied no president except Lincoln has faced political opposition in the same manner that has vexed Trump.

"Lincoln is fighting to preserve the Constitution, he's fighting to preserve the Union, and he's having to do a lot of different things that are very bold and in some cases very radical, and he is trying to do it in a way that he's deeply, bitterly opposed, not just by the slave-owning South, but also by a substantial number of Democrats in the North, and I think that Trump's in a very similar place."

[Valmy]

So when exactly did Newt Gingrich go insane?

During the Obama era I think. He has been an embarrassment for awhile now.

[garbon]