Bitcoin Forum

(Oops) Trump has done it again and this time I can’t stop laughing ;D, because of his declaration of war against water saving toilets. This bizzare declaration of war came during a meeting with the business leaders where Trump claims people need to flush up to 15 times to clean their toilets, which is not true unless there are different toilets in the White House.

Normally I would have expected him to declare war on Iran, but this was an completely unexpected declaration of war and the Internet has rightfully turned it into a meme fest.

As I have travelled to US multiple times I have never experienced any such issues with their toilets, but if anyone who lives there or has any such experience do share it here because it’ll be interesting to see if Trump actually has a legit claim about the flushes.

Source:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30157122/trump-toilets-flush-water-deregulation/

Lmao, probably his poop is too sticky that it needs splash and many splashes of water to get rid from his ass hairs lmao :D it happens, when you eat all those kfc without working out and thinking about how great the body is, poop becomes something which is ignored and hence the blame goes on to the toilet ;)

Why would there be regulations on toilets?
He's using it as an excuse to deregulate and free the market.
Love it.

Yep - if he needs to flush 15 times,he needs to change his diet or his plumber.

If he really wants to be environmentally friendly, he could go in the garden/

IIRC regulations on toilets and water heaters were the work of Al Gore when he was VP to Clinton.

The results of those regulations are mixed. A fair number of the new "low Flo" toilets did not work properly.

Some are worthless, other designs seem excellent.

Why would the goverment need to regulate toilets?

the fat big americans that eat a lot might indeed shit much more than the average human, for those those 10 gallon flush toilets might do much more sense, than the water efficient products from europe and east asia.

It's typical of progressive liberalism they want to get their ideas into your life. They want to control the individual, every aspect of his life.

As for toilets, the scheme was if government forced reduction in water use from six gallons per flush to one, that would be a big savings in water used and hence governments would not have to build new water treatment plants. Same for low flow showers an faucets. Government mandated.

I would prefer these regulations be eliminated.

(Oops) Trump has done it again and this time I can’t stop laughing Grin, because of his declaration of war against water saving toilets. This bizzare declaration of war came during a meeting with the business leaders where Trump claims people need to flush up to 15 times to clean their toilets

Trump is 100% correct.

Yeah this is about low flush toilets. Just to start off, here's the definition from Wikipedia on what a low flush toilet is and does.



Though if you are to go to the wikipedia page regarding low flush toilets you'd find this being a problem


May be some truth to this statement. Though I do want to see what the EPA says regarding this whole thing.

I think the relevant point here, is there is nothing here to make fun of Trump about, rather you could make fun of the ridiculous crap devices forced on the American public by Al Gore, and the legislation that he pushed.

At the same time,  not all the commodes were poor quality. Or over time, they have improved a great deal.

Just take a look at this? 1.28 gallons per flush and it will down 20 golf balls...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD0x34e-V9U

Except that he said Americans have to flush the toilet 10-15 times a day.

Create/maintain more tax leaching gov't jobs..

Imagine a whole department dedicated to regulating your toilet standards..
$1,000,000 a year for some paper pushers to say your toilet can't flush more than 1.7 GPF or it can't be sold at major retailers..

I don't understand the name calling of the president by people at all. He made a comment and I believe that it can be countered without resorting to insults and name calling without even attacking the comment itself. Yes there might be some exaggeration on the part of the President but that does not mean there is no sense in what he said and even sometimes, when president make comments, people tend to attach unnecessary importance to it with the simple aim of ridicule. It might even come as a surprise that he might be joking about what people face with the toilet that seems to reduce the use of water which people use. A company like Unilever have reduce the material content of their detergent in other to ensure that less water is needed in other to rinse in a bid to find a way to keep more water in the world.

Eh....he kind of deserves it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump).


https://i.gyazo.com/002539598a85af6f09dc4b7bb92b4f3d.png
https://i.gyazo.com/8e93f56781c82ba21382c847fec7fec5.png
https://i.gyazo.com/3ea17beeb4a2dcd78b4cf13383713d7f.png
https://i.gyazo.com/850dfa79ff877b121e43090b1ca7605c.png
https://i.gyazo.com/d81b0e5f28037b2b1802c9812fbd86eb.png
https://i.gyazo.com/d81b0e5f28037b2b1802c9812fbd86eb.png
https://i.gyazo.com/15890f9cc40463d5f8b24a3f3bbfb11c.png
https://i.gyazo.com/0e016592b4ecb12fc20394fc0f7771e8.png

god damn twitchy seal.  i almost spit my coffee out.

I don't know how many of those low-flow toilets are actually efficient but I think he's highlighting the ridiculous levels of reach the previous government had using the environment as an excuse. Maybe they can put them all to the test again and phase out the models that are wasteful.


Didn't dry toilets became a fad for some time among the eco nuts? I can't see Trump using any of these though.


Damn that shade made me run straight to the toilet.

Except that that is factually true, with the fraction of toilets installed that really don't work on the low flow standard.

Please consider that a guy running huge hotel chain would actually know stuff like this.

Really?

It's factually True because Trump said it or because there is some sort of statistical evidence?

All the data I can find says the number is 4-8 times a day.

This article (http://leansixsigmaenvironment.org/index.php/how-many-times-do-you-flush-the-toilet-per-day-you-might-be-surprised/) cited 5 different sources, and there are lots of others. 


https://i.gyazo.com/f9e92e4d65785f31cd472b5db10e2d6c.png

https://i.gyazo.com/4ea3e2d058408f698be93b1565071ab2.png

Don't be ridiculous. Those rules passed by Al Gore were essentially pushing beta testing of low flow devices on the American people. A lot of junk was sold and had to be replaced, and a lot of it is still out there.

The law was simply a restriction in water flow per flush. There was NO requirement the devices had to work to a standard of quality.

Yeah I don't even think Trump is upset when people call him names like this, the guy is literally the king of nicknames and making them stick. I think most people who were involved/keeping track of politics during the 2016 Republican primary will NEVER forget Lyin Ted, Little Macro, and Crooked Hillary.

Top tier nicknames. Some would even say marketing genius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0&t

Epic times, historical times, the great meme war..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKHasVckAyk
"Foolish guac bowl merchant"=Jeb
" Do you honestly think you can stump the trump? You are nothing to donald but just another shill to make fun of.. He will stump you with precision, the likes of which never before seen on this earth..
If only you have known the kind of retribution attempting to stump the Trump would bring down upon you, maybe you would have thought twice..  .... "

He is surely a master of destroying anyone who crosses him, best live because his impromptu performance is a large part of this strength..

I just don't think 'I heard people have to flush the toilets 10-15 times a day', or anything else he said about it is really relevant.  

A decision like that should be based on data and the opinions of environmental scientists.  What are the pros, what are the cons. These aren't the kind of things you can just figure out on your own.  I did a little research and this doesn't really seem to have been an issue until recently.  A lot of contractor and plumbing blogs praising the latest version.  Definitely didn't see any trend of outrage over having to flush the toilet a lot, as long as I filtered out the past few days.



The low flow toilet regulations are from The Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Bush was president, and it had bipartisan support in both house and Senate.
Passed the House on May 27, 1992 (381-37)
Passed the Senate on July 30, 1992 (93-3 )

I think 'being green' didn't used to be nearly as partisan as it is today.

NO, OF COURSE THaT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT TO A  THReAD ENTITLED...

Re: Trump has declared war on water saving toilets and it’s hilarious (15 times) :)

Sounds like a fake story. But there's some truth to it. In an effort to save sometimes people ended up wasting not just more water, but time and stress. I say get a jug.

Jugs are better in pairs.

Relevant to the thread.
Not relevant when considering federal regulations.  I just think water conservation is a pretty complicated subject - the kind of thing society should turn to data, collected by environmental scientists, when making a decision like this.

Has your opinion on anything changed at all after realizing it was Bush and nearly every member of Congress that signed the 92 EPA Energy act (with the toilet regulations), and not some liberal assault on our rights by Gore and Clinton?  

My second favorite was Low Energy Jeb. It really painted a picture that would not be very attractive to the voters. And Crazy Joe.

You are referring to the 1375 page bill that was passed by a democrat congress and a democrat senate, into which one of those liberals inserted the toilet regulation bill?

You left those facts out didn't you? Why? All it does is show the extent you will bend the facts to make a point.

I'd take the opinion of someone owning hotel chains and tens of thousands of toilets over some ivory tower "environmental scientists" any day of the week about how well toilets work.

But don't worry, your esteemed environmental scientists can always get jobs cleaning commodes.

Trumps word over a scientist.  Because he owns lots of toilets.

And I don't think you're trolling.

jesus

Scientists do not create, test and manufacture things, like commodes. Engineers do. Engineers then look at issues like equipment performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.

Businessmen and consumers operate equipment. But you'd ignore their opinions? That's ignoring reality. I can't imagine why anyone would complain about someone saying that a government mandated rule was bad. Why attempt to ridicule Trump on this? A person would only look foolish as the facts came out. How about some facts from Wikipedia?

The early low-flush toilets in the U.S. often had a poor design that required more than one flush to rid the bowl of solid waste, resulting in more water used than a single flush of a standard toilet.....

In 2011, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that, while low-flush toilets are estimated to have saved the city of San Francisco 20 million gallons of water per year, the reduction in water volume caused waste sludge to back up in the city sewer pipes, designed expecting a higher ratio of water to solids. The city was attempting to solve this by adding chlorine bleach to the pipes, a proposal that raised environmental objections.[3] In house drain system design, smaller-diameter drain pipes are being used to improve flow by forcing waste to run higher in the pipe and therefore have less tendency to settle along the pipe.
....
The first generation of low-flush toilets were designed like traditional toilets. A valve would open and the water would passively flow into the bowl. The resulting water pressure was often inadequate to carry away waste. ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-flush_toilet

How about some economic facts? From the wikipedia entry, "low-flush toilets are estimated to have saved the city of San Francisco 20 million gallons of water per year." That's at current water rates about $200,000 per year savings.  Assuming 300,000 households in SF and an average cost of $500 to install these commodes, you are advocating a 150M investment that returns 200K per year. That's a rate of return of 0.1% per year BEFORE THE EXTRA EXPENSES bolded above. So clearly you've created a new economic negative for your supposed climate positives. In short, you don't know what you are talking about. You, and your friend Al Gore, bungled it up, using pseudo science and a know-it-all, social controller attitude to force ignorance and stupid ideas on the public. Actually that's typical for climate advocates, though.

A similar example was the compact fluorescent bulb. That was claimed by governments and environmentalists to be the thing that was going to save the world. But they really, seriously underperformed. Did the control freaks such as you advocate stop pushing the CFL? Nope. The rules take on a life of their own. Meanwhile private industry (and scientists!) developed the white LED, then brought it to commercial viability, then the CREE LED. Now the world of lighting really is a different place. No thanks to your authoritarian controllers.

Seems like you neither. You're assuming a 500$ cost to install this yeah sure. And the only benefits is the saved water?

So you're considering that the main purpose of the installation (flushing) isn't worth anything? Or you believe that only brand new toilets were replaced?

I mean you can't say "this toilets cost 500$ and they only save 1$ of water". No, these toilets cost 500$, their first purpose is to flush your poop away AND they save 1$ of water.

Now of course if those cost 500$ MORE than not low flush toilets your argument would make sense. But that's not what you're saying here.

I'm assuming $500 parts and labor, which is likely really low. I'm also assuming 300,000 new low flow commodes put in since 1994, which would be about one in each home or business. That may be inaccurate.

But you have to consider that ALL OF THEM that didn't work properly, which was a lot, were then again replaced. All at cost to the public. Regarding your argument that the "Main Purpose" has to be considered, that is fair for those ones (1) that did work properly (2) that were not on purchase more expensive than the old style.

All I'm doing is quoting Wikipedia and commenting on it. What's the point? It's simple. If you have a social engineering scheme that you believe in, don't think you are smart to force it on the public without truly extensive testing. The scheme that works great in your head quite likely won't work in the real world.

This whole debate reminds me a lot of the myth that electric vehicles are better for the environment. It is all just marketing. Instead of burning gas you are burning coal at some far away plant, less efficiently than an internal combustion engine I might add. That is not to mention all of the rare Earth minerals that have to be mined to make the thing work and all of the pollution that creates. Facts are irrelevant though, because like low flow toilets, it is about virtue signalling and adding another layer of bureaucratic controls and taxes, not really about protecting the environment.

Okay ... can I respond to that from my Cybertruck?

I think you're right about the rare Earth minerals.  Many people overlook that.

But from what I've read electric cars are significantly more efficient than combustible cars.  What makes you think otherwise?


Also, coal is just one of the ways we generate electricity.  Tesla is building those solar charging 'gas' stations.  I could see that catching on.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml#end-notes

Internal combustion engines can be made far more efficient than what is currently on the market. Roll out of commercial efficiency improvements have been suppressed, especially when it comes to diesel technology. Also don't forget the batteries will reach end of life much faster than the car itself as well.

"A combustion engine's thermal efficiency is the heat of combustion of the fuel / work produced.

Contemporary automotive combustion engines have a peak thermal efficiency of around 38%. It can be as high as 40% with large volume EGR, direct injection, and a newer cam phase/lift adjustment system. EDIT: As of 2018, the newest engines are over 40%, with Mazda’s Skyactiv-X a tick higher at something like 44%. I think it’s possible we’ll see a near 50% peak efficiency gasoline engine before everything becomes electric.

Unfortunately typical efficiency on the freeway is only 30%, and goes down the lower your engine load is, down to near 0% at idle (where it's only generating a few hundred watts of electricity to run your car).

An electric motor's efficiency is measured by electrical power in / work produced.

It can also be as low as 0% when stalled, but when it gets moving this number is usually pretty high. Peak efficiency depends on a lot of things, but any cheap electric motor can achieve around 80% and the ones you find in electric cars have something like 92-95% peak efficiency, and typically run at over 85% efficiency.

However this isn't really a fair comparison. Before the electricity reaches the electric motor, it has to (in reverse order):

    Pass through the motor controller where it gets converted to AC and its voltage is adjusted, plus all the wiring which has some nontrivial voltage drop at higher current. (around 95% efficient on electric cars)
    Be released from the battery, by converting the chemical energy in the battery to electricity (~98% efficient on lithium ion batteries)
    Get stored in the battery in the form of chemical energy (depends on how fast you charge it, but ~98% efficient).
    Be transmitted from the power plant to wherever your car is charging (varies widely, but fairly efficient)
    Be generated at the power plant from thermal energy, or some renewable source (varies widely depending on heat source and type)

If we use a 40% efficient non-combined cycle coal power plant for example, the electric car actually has lower efficiency from coal to wheel vs. the gasoline car from tank to wheel. However gasoline is an expensive, high quality fuel which costs many times more per unit energy than natural gas, coal, nuclear power, etc. which is why an electric car is far cheaper to run as far as fuel goes. Part of the cost of gasoline is the energy and resources it takes to extract, refine, and transport the oil, and if those are included in the energy cost of gasoline then electricity usually wins, as evidenced by the lower cost per mile."

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines?share=1

So that guy is saying the ICE of a newer car, when it's running at peak efficiency, and not considering how the gas got into the car, will run more efficiently than an electric car that was charged by electricity generated at a coal plant (coal produces ~30% of electricity on the power grid in america, and dropping).

That's best case scenario for ICE cars and a bad one for Electric cars.

You're obviously right about electric cars not being truly 0 emissions, the work is just done at a power plant instead of under your hood.  But I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the general consensus that electric > gas when it comes to the environment because of that quora answer which didn't even prove your point.

The calculation also leaves out the energy required to mine all of those rare Earth minerals. I think you will find that if this energy expenditure is included, electric vehicles are distinctly ecologically the loser, even if it makes economic sense. Don't get me wrong, I think electric cars are great and are the future, but as they are now they are little more than a base concept with lots of slick marketing and subsidies.

Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse?

Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs  Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.

The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner.  I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.

https://www.best-emf-health.com/dangers-of-electromagnetic-radiation.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z32f4qt/revision/2

https://bodyecology.com/articles/little-known-dangers-of-emf-php/

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/extremely-low-frequency-radiation.html

https://www.saferemr.com/2014/07/shouldnt-hybrid-and-electric-cars-be-re.html

https://healthyliving.azcentral.com/health-risks-with-a-high-voltage-transformer-12280084.html

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/09/vickie-warren-on-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields.aspx

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm

8)

For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces.

If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse.

first ask the right question...

I meant how much is produced in total, from taking it out of the ground to when it make your wheels turn not just when it combusts.  There are a ton of factors to consider.

Overall though coal isn't even the biggest generator of electricity anymore.

Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal.
I don't think Renewable or Nuclear produce very much at all.

Total electricity produced in America:

Natural gas 35.2%
Coal 27.5%
Renewables 16.9%

Go back and look at my comment.

It says exactly this.

"If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car."

Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons.

You can now go and buy your fossil fueled car and feel good about it.

Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process?  Or just when it combusts in your engine.

It says exactly this.

"If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car."

Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons.

Now, regarding your concern about total life cycle carbon emissions versus usage carbon emissions for the electric versus gasoline vehicle.

I see your point. "Apply the Schiff Method."

There should be a thorough investigation of the total life cycle energy emissions problem for the gasoline car. Adequate investigations and careful selection of evidence, coupled with careful deletion of evidence, should enable reaching the desired conclusion, that the gasoline car is inferior to the electric car.

We appreciate your help in urging us to investigate very thoroughly, when the pre-ordained conclusion is not immediately reached, and stopping all investigation, when some promoted issue at first appearances indicates the pre-ordained conclusion is evident. If you need help, our trusted comrades will be happy to help. Although they may not be the brightest tools in the shed, they do have experience with the Adam Schiff method. Peter Struck himself, the grand master of bias in method, is looking for a job, and Linda Paige is also available.

Just think, "What conclusion do I want to shape?" for starters.

:)

Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something.

Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process?  Or just when it combusts in your engine.

That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem.

Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:

C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)

https://marcepinc.com/blog/coal-combustion-process-and-its-products

Gasoline is usually approximated as being made up of only octane, whose chemical formula is C8H18, hence ...

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

 some researchers suggest that a regional approach to clean vehicle standards makes more sense than national standards that effectively require electric cars across the board. Minnesota could go for hybrids and California could go for electric vehicles.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

But he gets it wrong. CA is clean only in CA's imagination. Consider the giant coal power plants in southern Nevada that were built primarily to supply power to CA...

So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine.

That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out.  I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car.  It's not simple.

Those energies are nicely summarized in a thing called "price."

https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/saving-fuel-and-vehicle-costs
https://i.gyazo.com/e279f40a794371823e7bab4cbd1aacc2.png

good find.  So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices.

I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc.

He is bouncing freely between co2 emissions, price, and actual energy efficiency. I find the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense and meaningless, but it takes many years for an electric vehicle to make up for the emissions created during the construction of the vehicle. The price (currently ) is in favor of EVs, but that could change any day as the market shifts. As far as energy efficiency he likes to point about the extraction and delivery cost of fossil fuels but also wants to ignore the immense amounts of energy required to mine the rare Earth elements required to build an EV, as well as the multitude of other disastrous environmental side effects of mining these types of minerals.

All very true, but the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful.

Where people once were taught the mechanisms of weather and climate, including the short, medium and long term oscillations and the reasons for them, now they are drilled with a mantra, a prescribed dogma, and questioning it is bad.

Where there might have been serious discussion about electric cars versus gasoline, now the "good green option" is pre-decreed, regardless of whether the electric car where sited must run off a downstream coal combustion process.

Where an offshore adversary or an enemy within the US wants to weaken us, they need only agitate and spend a few million to destroy or stall the issues (not building new nuclear power, the pipeline from Canada, fracking, offshore drilling, shutting down existing nuclear power, wasting money on windmills and solar farms) that if cleverly manipulated, directly lead to the US being economically dependent on oil from the Middle East, with all the consequences of that.

You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency.  Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion.  Jeez.

As you are often fond of telling me, calm down. We are just having a discussion, you just don't like the direction it went. I am afraid you are just going to have to learn cope with that.

Half convo, half 'lets bash TwitchySeal' party lol

Was just pointing out my 'bouncing around' was just responding to you guys.

Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse or less efficient?

Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs  Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.

The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner.  I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.

Overall price is definitely an indicator.  But I guess we could argue Gas is too high or electric too low and it won't stay that way?

Seems likely electric cars are still coming down in price though.

You are projecting as usual. Don't accuse us of "bashing" you because you can't handle people being critical of your ideas. This is the behavior of some one who is looking to confirm their bias, not some one who is here to have a discussion.

Neither of us are qualified, but you still declare your conclusion, and want data which of course you will quickly dismiss because "we are not qualified" but of course your conclusion is the obvious conclusion isn't it? Your inability to find evidence you don't really care to find is evidence of nothing but your own bias.

There are lots of industries that stand to gain from the promotion of electric vehicles, much more than that of internal combustion cars. Of course you will find an abundance of materials promoting EVs and dismissing any criticism of them. Nine out of ten doctors agree after all that Marlboro cigarettes are a great way to sooth that chronic cough.

Price is an indicator, but of course that depends on all kinds of complex economical variables. Palm oil is cheap, but its cultivation results in deforestation. Corn syrup is cheap, but it is subsidized by the government and bad for your body. Even the dollar cost alone is not a reliable indicator because markets are continually shifting with supply, demand, as well as other subsidies and monetary base variables. The issue is not as much the initial price of the car but the price of fueling it that can change quickly.

This is also not to mention the strain that would be placed on the electrical grid if EVs were the norm and not the exception, not to mention how vulnerable that would make everyone to grid failures. There are a lot of other issues regarding EVs I won't go into here but there are many. Again, I wish we could all have solar powered jet packs and not pollute the environment, but we aren't there yet no matter how much you want to confirm your bias.

Well its better than declaring war in iran or any country, its pretty much hilarious. Seriously how did this guy got elected as the president of the united states but i hope he's just joking cause really water toilets are pretty much useful they're widely use in japan, but enough of the toilets why not focus in important things like growing problems of drugs and poverty, the increasing number of homeless people. Why dont he focus on that ?

My comments weren't specifically directed at you. But think of the ridiculousness, someone buys an EV to be True Green and then other True Greens cause his coal fired power utility's prices to skyrocket. Like Obama promised.

Germany shut down their coal fired power plants to be True Green, only to find themselves economically dependent on natural gas and a pipeline from Russia. And they shut down their nuclear plants, 8 already and the remaining 9 before long.

If the results look quite silly, they are. An eighth grader can look at politicians' claims they will get a country "completely renewable" and look at the current state of affairs, the progress per year and report they are totally untrue. That's why I meant exactly what I said, "the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful. "

Oh definitely. There's nothing more annoying than a spillage in the middle of the night because one jug was not enough and you noticed too late.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has declared war on the three separately...

• Ban water! Everyone has access to water, which makes it socialist, which makes it A Bad Thing.
• Ban saving! Everyone needs to spend to help the economy. It is un-American to save.
• Ban toilets! Studies have shown that toilets contain human fecal matter. Toilets are a health hazard. Toilets should be shot on sight. And then the contaminated toilet shards should be scraped up by trained professionals.

Would you be at all surprised if he actually said any of these things? No, of course you wouldn't. The man is a fool.

Trump is simply trying to show people that government people don't have any power.

All that people need to do is take any law or government person to court, jury-style, for anything, and laws can be reversed or created by the people.

8)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/tech/apple-microsoft-tesla-dell-congo-cobalt-mining/index.html