The least popular president in 70 years
The 45% approval rate from two independent polls.
57% say he's exceeded his authority.
A whopping 34% approval for Musk with only 26% approving his massacre of the government programs.
63% don't like his "marauders" having access to government databases.
I'm starting seeing jail sentences in some people futures. Perhaps, not Trump's and Musk's, as our justice system seems to be decisively impotent in front of the rich and powerful, but some of their lesser minions are going to get quite a hungover after the feast. Just wait.
[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-is-the-most-unpopular-president-in-more-than-70-years-sorry-maga-opinion/ar-AA1zOER0[/URL]
2 photos
Of course, Trump hates Zellenskyy because he is NOT a dictator
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2985853]If the President of Ukraine is truly a dictator, when why does't Trump like him?
There are plenty of examples in the world of dictators that Trump likes![/QUOTE]You are right.
This just in:
Trump the Cowardly Liar back-pedals like a big, fat, lying clown pussy on him calling Zellenskyy a dictator when confronted about it by his own hand-picked, utterly compliant and subservient Nazi Dictator-style press corp:
[B]Donald Trump Denies Calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy A 'Dictator' Days After Calling Him A 'Dictator'.
Feb. 27, 2025[/B]
[URL]https://uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-denies-calling-volodymyr-192122510.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAL3MyBR_rYrzTmh_f1UGFaVRI-cExPvIvcggnY2xdATx2cGUWicgKYhtvqTCoxtjyDyFoR351PVDIFKPkI4Vy0zg1GLHAnRspSly8lYJ4h-Jt-Ur6nzWNqIMNUakkIkKwZWLdoNL7H1T5ehHalQp5Dzm6SxwMKBaEvSqCX5GQcgc[/URL]
[QUOTE]Donald Trump has denied calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator - barely a week after calling him a dictator.
The US president stunned reporters with the bare-faced lie as he sat alongside Keir Starmer in the White House.
Trump attacked Zelenskyy in a tirade on his Truth Social account last week.
He said: He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle. [B]A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy[/b] better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.
[B]But asked by a reporter in the Oval Office if he still thinks Zelenskyy is a dictator, Trump replied: "Did I say that? I cant believe I said that. Next question."[/b][/QUOTE]See video in the link.
But the far more important question is; now that his America-hating lord and savior cult leader has so publicly back-pedaled on his huge lie, will Elvis follow suit as slavishly lemming-like as he follows his America-hating cult leader Trump on every other point?
Or, more realistically, when will Elvis follow his previous lie about this with an even bigger lie that "he can't believe he said that" just as his America-hating, dictator-loving cult leader Donald Trump did?
2 photos
For the sake of USA Stock Market investors, Trump must stop talking.
See chart below for the typical stock market decline today as Trump was stationed in front of a microphone talking, talking, talking, blathering and slobbering out one embarrassing lie after another, a colossal lie about how terrible the Biden and Obama economies were vs his "greatest economy in the history of the world", a shockingly stupid lie about who pays tariffs, an array of bewildering, incoherent lies about what is happening under Trump's current spectacular mishandling of the Envy of the World Economy he inherited from Biden-Harris and on and on.
Stock Market due diligence simply does not include falling for the same blithering, blathering, incoherent lies that MAGAs slurp up with a big spoon in a determination to do as much serious harm to themselves and everyone else as possible.
To re-cap on the state of the USA Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 Index for market watchers like Trump used to be back when he was far more shrewdly simply coasting on the terrific economic trajectories he inherited from Obama-Biden and not DOING anything to effect the economy:
It is up a mere 1. 35% since the November 5th election almost 4 months ago.
It is DOWN 2. 25% since Trump's Inauguration day about 6 weeks ago.
Seriously, has Trump said or done anything in the past 3-4 months that would inspire a serious investor, home purchaser, entrepreneur or "job creator" to invest in anything, buy anything, expand a business or hire rather than fire anyone? Much less to fly anywhere.
And speaking of flying anywhere; That is also unless the prospect of a Trump's Pandemic Part 2 combination of drug-resistant HIV / AIDS, Ebola and Child-Killing Measles works to inspire such a thing.
Again, otherwise known by MAGAs and their Russian bot script-writers as, "The Greatest First Month in the History of Presidential Terms".
Uh-huh.
USA Largest cities have a better AQI, but oil-and-gas flaring not so much...
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985772]That is not true. [URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/01/23/air-pollution-chinese-and-american-cities-in-comparison-infographic/[/URL][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny;2985845]Haha! Yeah, take a look at this list of the top 500 most polluted cities by particulate matter concentration. Three hundred and ninety-seven (397) of them are in China. None are in the USA. I was in China not long ago, and came back home through a large Texas city. There is no comparison in air quality.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration[/url][/QUOTE]
Funny, how your article on air pollution/quality index (AQI), is like 10 years old. BTW, I was only comparing the largest cities.
Annoyingly, any current and/or up-to-date AQI informational comparisons (in 2023/2024) of current AQI, in China's larger cities, is unavailable and or very spotty at best. However, most older data points, do indicate that Beijing vs. New York, for example, had NY's AQI, as being 3x better. But oddly had Beijing on par with NY for noise pollution...go figure!
So, while I was incorrect in my opinions on China's air quality, it is interesting to note, that many journalists and video bloggers with boots-on-the-ground, on recent 2024/2025 scouting trips to China's largest cities (Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Shenzhen), swear up and down, they feel the air/noise quality and pollution is cleaner and better than back home...go figure!
If China has reached peek coal (in 2024), the AQI might be is something worth watching, if my assumption of this inverse correlation, makes any sense?
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985772]Yeah, you are missing the point on natural gas. It is a waste product from oil production and is flared off instead of being used. The worst of it is going on in Siberia. This is where I get angry at climate change weirdos. They do not get that. They have this dumb natural gas bad and carbon fuel bad approach.
[URL]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-07-25-mn-16837-story.html[/URL]
When cosmonauts look down from their space station at Earth, they say the brightest spot they see is not a metropolis in America or Europe. It is the oil fields of Western Siberia, where thousands of wells flare off the natural gas they produce in giant wasteful torches. A single flare at the Portovaya LNG facility in Russia is estimated to produce more black carbon than the entire country of Finland.
...
In Texas, we have enough sun and wind to to compete with natural gas but there is no way that is the case in the Northeastern part of the country. What kills me is we are still flaring gas off in the USA. IMO all that should be used for electricity or as fuel. What pisses me off about natural gas is that you can by a $1000 conversion pact in Mexico and use natural gas to drive a vehicle but that same conversion is like $10,000 in the USA.
The stupidest fucking thing I have seen is gasoline vehicles in West Texas next to gas wells being flared. Why aren't they using that natural gas as fuel? Talk about unnecessary pollution. How fucking dumb is that?[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, you fail to even understand the point I was making and your 32 year old article, only serves to prove my point.
Again, allow me to reiterate, that the production, transmission, storage and consumption of fossil fuels, has the majority of it, being burnt off as waste heat, and is the very definition of INEFFICIENT and can't compete with ELECTRICITY. Take for example, something like 60-65% of an ICE vehicle's fuel, is burnt off, as waste heat and/or CO2 emissions, in the operation of the vehicle.
If you didn't understand, I was actually talking about the myriad of ways fossil fuel waste heat energy is lost, when getting fossil fuels from "the ground" at [b]point A,[/b] to "the consumption" use case end [b]point B.[/b] But I think, a thank you is in order, as your 32 year news piece, ONLY make mys point, w/r to just how inefficient the industry is...so "Thank You!" for that!
When natural gas is produced as a byproduct of oil drilling, [b]it is called associated gas.[/b] In the U.S., the percentage of natural gas that is associated gas, varies by region and over time, and is only estimated to be around 30-40% of total natural gas production.
Yes, flaring is a waste of energy resources and a major climate issue. So while not perfect and a VERY INEFFICIENT use of resources, it persists due to economic, technical, and regulatory challenges. The reducing of flaring, does however, require the oil companies to have better infrastructure and spend the capital (if they truly wanted to), in order to capture any or more associated gas for use, instead of flaring it.
Just don't rant and appeal to your illogical MAGA gullible sensibilities, and tell me flaring releases CO2, which is better than methane...[i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i]
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985772]So of all the immediate steps that can be taken to reduce pollution, natural gas pipelines to China and India would be #1 on my list. It is just the climate change weirdos are not going to go along with that when in reality the switch from coal to natural gas is pretty much the reason carbon emissions in the USA are down.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry about China, like Norway, their decarbonization efforts are are doing just fine, and I'll be sure to revisit that AQI challenge, in several years from now. Although, I think India has a long way to go, its the U.S. decarbonization efforts you should be concerned and worried about...under your American Fuhrer, it's a fucking DISASTER!
Check Charts BTC / Nividia / Tesla last 6 Month
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2986083]See chart below for the typical stock market decline today as Trump was stationed in front of a microphone talking, talking, talking, blathering and slobbering out one embarrassing lie after another, a colossal lie about how terrible the Biden and Obama economies were vs his "greatest economy in the history of the world", a shockingly stupid lie about who pays tariffs, an array of bewildering, incoherent lies about what is happening under Trump's current spectacular mishandling of the Envy of the World Economy he inherited from Biden-Harris and on and on..[/QUOTE]Check Charts BTC / Nividia / Tesla last 6 Month.
Maybe this is better than go to courts against this gangster! It will kill him and Musk if this MAGA Stocks ruin many of his followers.
The writing is still on the wall for U.S. legacy auto...
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985763]Then you have the gasoline tax for the roads but if you create your own electricity via say solar, you do not pay taxes. And you get this subsidy while buying an EV that you do not get when buying a ICE car. If we all buy EVs, we are going to have pay taxes elsewhere to maintain the roads.[/QUOTE]
Not true, as many states have EV owners, paying an additional extra registration fees to cover roads/infrastructure. I long as EV owners, are paying for things they use, I don't imagine they'll be a problem.
It becomes problematic, if for example, EV owners as non-smokers were to pay a cigarette health smoking tax, when they don't smoke.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2985722]Elvis, the reason you don't see them is because Biden slapped a 100% duty on Chinese electric vehicles, including this plug in hybrid. That's what the AI blurb in Google says anyway.
The Biden administration wants to encourage the use of electric vehicles and solar cells, so it slaps huge tariffs on the most competitive products out there. And then passes the Inflation Reduction Act, with over $1 Trillion in green subsidies (according to Goldman Sachs) instead. Democratic Party politicians think money grows on trees. They stick it to American taxpayers and consumers. Yes, as you say, how fucked up is that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985763]Well, you seem to want to blame Republicans but there is this which Tiny alluded to:
[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/14/joe-biden-tariff-chinese-made-electric-vehicles[/URL]
Biden announces 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles.
Trump did his tariffs too but that is not the core issue. Both parties are kissing the ass of car companies in the swing states in the Midwest. What has not happened has been real leadership.
Clinton did NAFTA and gave China most favored status despite getting shit from his own party. Elon Musk said he could compete with anyone with a level playing field, and Tesla is competitive in China. Maybe China can build the assembly factories here and preserve the blue collar jobs because it seems like the white collar cost savings are what really matter. And then can you limit the number of imports and increase it slowly year by year.
Thing is American companies have partnerships in China, and they are already competing there. They can have a slot of the number of cars imported as well. [/QUOTE]
Maybe I was intonating and hinting it was President Joe Biden. Well according to your earlier rants about the U.S. not being about to compete with China automotive manufacturing, due to wages being the single biggest issue, doesn't it now seem like it was the correct thing for Biden to do?
It remains to be seen, but the American Fuhrer's mere 25% tariff on EVs vs. Biden's 100% tariffs, may have a bigger and broader impact and implications, on not only on U.S. legacy auto manufacturers, but on the many auto adjacent industries as well. As 25% may not go far enough to protect MAGA's idea of "American Exceptionalism" and the flood of Chinese EVs.
FWIW, I still think, we should give China the opportunity, to come and employ Americans, compete with U.S. manufacturers, and build their vehicles in the states. Let's see if that MAGA "American exceptionalism" in auto manufacturing, can compete with Chinese auto manufacturers on home turf? At the very worst legacy auto may learn something!
You know, cause clearly, they haven't learnt much about building a good range of cheaper to quality EVs, from those partnerships in China!
W/R to the Fuhrer's 25% tariffs, I wouldn't put it past china, to flood the U.S. car market, even with a 25% tariff, by lowering the price of their cars, just so they can get market penetration. Which will be good for consumers, but what will U.S. legacy auto do?
So while some may scoff, at the IRA and the Great President Biden's masterful plan to make America competitive with China, it is still being herald and haled as a huge success.
Can't wait to see what mayhem, unfurls from the Fuhrer's 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs.
Oil-and-Gas tax breakes/loopholes, are all just "subsides" by a different name...
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2985763]The oil and gas subsidies at first glance look like the deductions any business takes. I rechecked that, and not only did I confirm that, but I am reminded of the windfall profits tax. Google and Microsoft can make money without a windfall profit but oil and gas cannot? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2985837]Yes, the oil and gas industry receives very little in direct subsidies. This is greenie / leftist propaganda.
Accelerated depreciation would be the industry's biggest tax break, and is available to other businesses. Oil companies can write off intangible drilling costs in the year incurred instead depreciating them. This affects the timing of when the companies pay tax, but not the amount paid over the long term. Companies with R&D expenses receive similar treatment in other industries. The only tax break unique to the oil and gas industry is percentage depletion, and only small oil and gas companies receive it. It should be done away with IMO.
...
Add it all up, and the industry as a whole receives minimal direct subsidies, and pays higher taxes than average. [/QUOTE]
I see they got you gullible MAGA cultists, totally fooled! [i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i] Which is not surprising, coming from the billionaire sympathizers, big oil and gas and big pharma billionaire apologists!
As if lower taxes, tax credits, Master Limited Partnerships [i]([b]MLPs,[/b] created specifically under the Internal Revenue Code Section 7704, for energy infrastructure, in the oil and gas sector)[/i] and other such tax loopholes, weren't made specifically for the oil-n-gas industry and are just really "subsides", by any other accounting another name. Call it what you want, it's all just lipstick on a pig!
[b]Oil companies line up for billions of dollars in subsidies under US climate law[/b]
[url]https://www.ft.com/content/28b3a8d9-9c5f-4578-a6c6-7b848b3fe700[/URL]
[b]Biden Cuts Fossil Subsidies, But Oil and Gas Still Lines Up for Billions[/b]
[url]https://www.theenergymix.com/biden-cuts-fossil-subsidies-but-oil-and-gas-still-lining-up-for-billions/[/url]
[b]Biden budget targets U.S. fossil fuel subsidies[/b]
[url]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-targets-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/[/url]
And my favorite:
[b]Fossil fuel subsidies are proving harder to end than first thought[/b]
[url]https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1064011237/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-proving-harder-to-end-than-first-thought[/url]
Those headlines say it all!
The day that will live in infamy.
Today, on 2. 28.2025, Trump has finally admitted being the asset of Vladimir Putin. There is no, I repeat, no other way to interpret this. The scene was staged, the Trump and Vance roles -- rehearsed, the insults, unheard of for any head of state -- slung, and the rest is history. My God, America!
I've never been more embarrassed by any US president even including this one.
