Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWord-salad transcript of Trump's remarks at a New York fundraiser last week about coal and windmills
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2018, 03:34 AM - Edit history (1)
Daniel Dale Verified account @ddale8
Here's the transcript of Trump's remarks at a New York fundraiser last week about coal and windmills.
Link to tweet
Bwahaaaha!
I had been holding in my laughter at the sheer stupidity of it, right until you pointed that out...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Oren Kessler
?Verified account @OrenKessler
6h6 hours ago
Replying to @ddale8
"subsidary"?
I've never heard that word and the Internet doesn't seem to have either. Even if he meant or said "subsidiary," it doesn't seem that word is ever used to mean a beneficiary of a subsidy. @RobinSimcox
10 replies 12 retweets 151 likes
Daniel Dale
?Verified account @ddale8
6h6 hours ago
He did say subsidary. I dont think its a word either.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1216 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Word-salad transcript of Trump's remarks at a New York fundraiser last week about coal and windmills (Original Post)
riversedge
Aug 2018
OP
Trump lies as easily as he breaths. He asks: "Who wants to have energy where you need a subsidy?",
mia
Aug 2018
#1
mia
(8,363 posts)1. Trump lies as easily as he breaths. He asks: "Who wants to have energy where you need a subsidy?",
yet he's planning "to give billions of dollars in subsidies to coal and nuclear-power plants."
Donald Trump hopes to save Americas failing coal-fired power plants
REPUBLICANS have long prided themselves on their commitment to free markets. These days, however, there seem to be fewer and fewer industries in which the GOP is unwilling to intervene. On June 1stjust as Americas fellow members of the G7, a club of the worlds biggest economies, were condemning Donald Trumps tariffs on steel and aluminium at a meeting in Canadathe president announced a new regulatory plan for Americas energy market. The proposal, which was detailed in a 41-page memo circulated among senior White House staff, would prop up ailing coal- and nuclear-power generators by forcing electricity-grid operators to buy energy from unprofitable plants. The official justification for the policy was national security. But the chief beneficiaries would be a small number of companies, located mainly in Midwestern states whose voters backed Mr Trump in the presidential election of 2016 (see map).
Mr Trumps plan has been in the making for months. Last September Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the countrys top electricity regulator, to give billions of dollars in subsidies to coal- and nuclear-power plants that keep 90 days worth of fuel supplies on site. The commission, which includes four members appointed by Mr Trump, rejected the proposal unanimously. Six months later FirstEnergy, a power company in Ohio, asked the Department of Energy to invoke Section 202 of the Federal Power Acta declaration normally reserved for times of war and other emergenciesto intervene in energy markets to prevent coal and nuclear power plants from shutting down. The firms plea fell on deaf ears, and it declared bankruptcy two days later. In May, however, the tide turned, when Mr Perry told members of the House of Representatives that he was considering using the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prop up failing power plants in the name of national security.
Mr Trumps latest proposal would direct regional grid operators to buy power from coal and nuclear plants, which have been struggling to compete with natural gas and renewable-energy sources for years. The cost, however, would be borne by consumers, and could come to as much as $12bn a year. This heavy-handed intervention in energy markets has upset many orthodox Republicans, and even some bosses in the coal industry. In December Nora Brownell, a former FERC commissioner appointed by George W. Bush, described the proposed subsidies as cash for cronies. The Energy Department is nevertheless expected to carry out its plan in the coming months. Whether it survives legal challenges by natural gas and renewable energy companies is unclear. While the executive branchs emergency powers are broad, and while the courts tend to defer to the executive on national security matters, legal experts reckon that the plan has a slim chance of success in the long-term.
Mr Perry, however, has no reservations about advancing the presidents industrial policy. Whats the cost of freedom, Mr Perry asked lawmakers in October while defending the Trump administrations proposed regulations to benefit particular energy companies. What does it cost to build a system to keep America free?
REPUBLICANS have long prided themselves on their commitment to free markets. These days, however, there seem to be fewer and fewer industries in which the GOP is unwilling to intervene. On June 1stjust as Americas fellow members of the G7, a club of the worlds biggest economies, were condemning Donald Trumps tariffs on steel and aluminium at a meeting in Canadathe president announced a new regulatory plan for Americas energy market. The proposal, which was detailed in a 41-page memo circulated among senior White House staff, would prop up ailing coal- and nuclear-power generators by forcing electricity-grid operators to buy energy from unprofitable plants. The official justification for the policy was national security. But the chief beneficiaries would be a small number of companies, located mainly in Midwestern states whose voters backed Mr Trump in the presidential election of 2016 (see map).
Mr Trumps plan has been in the making for months. Last September Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the countrys top electricity regulator, to give billions of dollars in subsidies to coal- and nuclear-power plants that keep 90 days worth of fuel supplies on site. The commission, which includes four members appointed by Mr Trump, rejected the proposal unanimously. Six months later FirstEnergy, a power company in Ohio, asked the Department of Energy to invoke Section 202 of the Federal Power Acta declaration normally reserved for times of war and other emergenciesto intervene in energy markets to prevent coal and nuclear power plants from shutting down. The firms plea fell on deaf ears, and it declared bankruptcy two days later. In May, however, the tide turned, when Mr Perry told members of the House of Representatives that he was considering using the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prop up failing power plants in the name of national security.
Mr Trumps latest proposal would direct regional grid operators to buy power from coal and nuclear plants, which have been struggling to compete with natural gas and renewable-energy sources for years. The cost, however, would be borne by consumers, and could come to as much as $12bn a year. This heavy-handed intervention in energy markets has upset many orthodox Republicans, and even some bosses in the coal industry. In December Nora Brownell, a former FERC commissioner appointed by George W. Bush, described the proposed subsidies as cash for cronies. The Energy Department is nevertheless expected to carry out its plan in the coming months. Whether it survives legal challenges by natural gas and renewable energy companies is unclear. While the executive branchs emergency powers are broad, and while the courts tend to defer to the executive on national security matters, legal experts reckon that the plan has a slim chance of success in the long-term.
Mr Perry, however, has no reservations about advancing the presidents industrial policy. Whats the cost of freedom, Mr Perry asked lawmakers in October while defending the Trump administrations proposed regulations to benefit particular energy companies. What does it cost to build a system to keep America free?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/06/donald-trump-hopes-to-save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
riversedge
(70,414 posts)7. buying votes is the name of the game for trump
procon
(15,805 posts)2. That was unintelligible. He sounds like a toddler or a old dementia patient. nt
milestogo
(16,829 posts)6. He sounds like a raving lunatic.
riversedge
(70,414 posts)3. Here's a transcript of another absurdly incorrect Trump claim about energy in the same speech.
Daniel Dale
?Verified account @ddale8
4h4 hours ago
Here's a transcript of another absurdly incorrect Trump claim about energy in the same speech.
He claimed New York's fracking ban means its shale gas "flows" to other states, which are getting rich from it. Shale gas is...trapped in shale...which is why you need to frack it.
Link to tweet
dansolo
(5,376 posts)4. Didn't he file a lawsuit in Scotland over windmills?
This rant had nothing to do with energy, and everything to do with one of his properties.
https://qz.com/1291269/the-scottish-wind-farm-donald-trump-tried-to-block-is-now-complete/
Sancho
(9,070 posts)5. He must have a serious problem...normal people don't talk like tRump...