And where can they source cheaper, worker-friendly cobalt? It's pretty much just DRC and Zambia and I don't know if the latter is any better.
I don't think Musk have enough clout to directly affect change in DRC. Maybe they can offer to pay a bit more to their mining partner in exchange for them only hiring adults and maybe other mining operators might follow suit? I don't see that happening though.
Even if, it'll be like the mica situation in India, those kids would just end up probably doing even more dangerous jobs if their source of income dry up.
Realistically, the best thing that could have happened to the DRC is the tripling in cobalt prices that have tripled the country's income from these operations. That gives mine operators far more flexibility to deal with labor issues, even though that may be through international pressures. On the other hand, just finding an alternative to cobalt is ignoring the problem of the child labor... |
|
|
|
The Morning Briefing: Trump Is Bobby Fischer Playing 3-D Chess as Impeachment Dems Play CheckersTyler covers the media misinformation campaign about the Sondland testimony here. It is, if possible, even worse than any of the other coverage leading up to it.
The Sondland testimony was the same as all of the others: if you’re a Democrat, you think it drove a stake through the heart of the Trump presidency. If you’re a Republican, you think -- yet again -- that everything the Democrats thought about it was contradicted.
Both can’t be true.
The only thing that has been crystal clear is that the Democrats aren’t getting what they want. The thing about the 2019 Dems is that they’re blissfully unaware of, well, most things. Thanks to the self-affirming noise their media mouthpieces can make for them, harsh realities don’t often reach them.
There was a snippet in yesterday’s Briefing mentioning that polls show that the hearings aren’t moving the needle of public opinion too much.
That’s not entirely true.
The left-leaning Gallup organization just released a poll showing President Trump’s approval rating ticking upward in the midst of all of this negative publicity.
Even better, the president’s polling is up in Wisconsin versus the leading Democratic candidates, all of whom he was trailing prior to Schiff’s kangaroo inquiry.
When it became clear on election night last year that the Democrats were retaking the House, I said on the live blog we were doing that night that it may be the best thing to happen to Trump’s re-election efforts. I firmly believed that he would benefit greatly from the Democrats talking nonstop about impeachment.
Perhaps it’s not just that the Democrats are fumbling the ball that’s swaying some of the public opinion. President Trump’s allegedly inartful way of handling his own publicity is -- to those of us who are fans of it -- his way of picking up the fumble and returning it for a touchdown.
The reason Democrats are angry 24/7 now is that the man that they keep telling themselves is a bumbling moron has been besting them in so many ways for three years.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-morning-briefing-trump-is-bobby-fischer-playing-3-d-chess-as-impeachment-dems-play-checkers/
|
|
|
|
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas. Trump will likely be impeached at the worst possible time for the Dems running for president who currently are in the Senate, as the trial will interfere with their ability to campaign, possible, for over a month. Possibly? The Republicans could drag it out as long as they wanted. The only way left for sane Democrats (if there are any left) is for them to vote to impeach and NOT REACH A MAJORITY. |
|
|
|
Lets be real for a second. Both parties get money from people who benefit from Marijuana being illegal. I'll even go through a list of people relating to this.....
You left out Lawyers, who have the single largest cash grab from marijuana being illegal, and who are > 90% Democrat. |
|
|
|
^^^ But Bernie started paying his people $15 per hour! What does the Bernie leech have to say about that? The good socialist is all about giving, and taking. Talking about giving to you if you give him power, and then using that power to take from you after the election. |
|
|
|
Ivanka isn't qualified, or she's another criminal?
Yes. Read the article. Shut down for charity fraud. Kinda crazy she can't even run a legit non-profit yet people think she can run a country.... Hmm... that's not quite what the article says... But just to put this in focus, I'm very biased and suspicious of "charities," period. So don't look for me to praise this one. |
|
|
|
....
The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.
Are you sure about that? |
|
|
|
Can that be a circular top Democrat firing squad? We'd like live rounds in all the rifles of course.
Ahahaha, you're funny. I bet you don't even know who "top democrats" are honestly. Tbh, I doubt top republicans could even figure out how to fire a gun. They'd probably just point it at each other. .... Generally speaking, I suspect you are correct. RE "top democrats", no I can't say I have really took the time to figure who the serious power brokers behind the scenes are, on either side. Usually they are not the ones up in front of the cameras babbling. Granted, the Trump has modified the Repub power structure, and very obviously the collapse of the Clinton power structure has left an ideological and power vacuum. |
|
|
|
I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.
Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?
Ahahaha, It's funny because you people attacked Clinton for years. Literally years. But yeah, it's really funny you support another criminal for president. Ivanka isn't even qualified to run a charity, let alone a country. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/trump-foundation-agrees-to-dissolve-under-judicial-supervision-.htmlBut yeah, keep electing criminals into office, good move  Ivanka isn't qualified, or she's another criminal? |
|
|
|
Firing squad
Added as an option. Normally only 1 person shoots, the rest uses blanks fyi. Can that be a circular top Democrat firing squad? We'd like live rounds in all the rifles of course. |
|
|
|
.....
Trump will hang for his crimes in the near-future.
Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective. |
|
|
|
According to this article, that is fake news. If it had been true, this would have been very damaging to the Democrats. Thw counter source calling the Zerohedge article as fake does not look too great either. But a day or two and I'm sure the facts, if any, will emerge. If Zerohedge got it wrong, I'm sure we'll see a correction. |
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet. Do it. Please, just do it. Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there... However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done. And that's "good." Interesting point of view. I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance. Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate? Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars. I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism. It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route. |
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet. Do it. Please, just do it. Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there... However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done. And that's "good." Interesting point of view. I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance. Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate? |
|
|
|
Bank of America Merrill Lynch just published another study predicting that AI can eliminate 800 millions of jobs on the next 15 years:////
Let me know when Bank of America Merrill Lynch is replaced by AI, and when that AI does a study on jobs to be lost by AI. |
|
|
|
Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.
i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change' Really, any one babbling about global warming is exactly a Climate Change Denier. Hello, Styca! |
|
|
|
I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.
The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower. The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though. Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses. Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction. Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes. I would not use the term “not allowed” with regards to naming the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. A more accurate term might be “was allowed to not” name the person he spoke to about the phone call. The identity of the person who filed the complaint could lead to evidence of political motivations in reporting the call and of other testimony given by others. This is exactly why Democrats don’t want his identity disclosed. It was also determined that the complaint didn’t meet the threshold to be disclosed to congress, but it leaked anyway, which raises other issues. It's rather fascinating that no one can mention the name of the whistleblower BUT EVERYONE KNOWS HIS NAME. That is a charade with strong legal implications in a kangaroo court. |
|
|
|
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas. You mean, so the Senate can run it's version of "Trumpo Peachy" through the election run up? Man that is the dumbest timing on the part of the dumbest Democrats Schiff to hit the fan. |
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I am glad you think impeachment is the kind of act that is on the level of a cop putting his thumb on the scale as he weighs out a couple joints for his report. The reason obstruction is a favorite charge .... I think that normal Democrats were all taken over by an Impeach Leech, which wormed it's way out of flying saucers and attached itself with suckers to each Democrat's back, drilling through to the spinal column to effect full control on the spineless. Some of these alien creatures early on attempted to attach to and control Repubs but found their blood repugnant. Some of the Leeches have become very fat and happy, for example the one on Bernie Sanders. |
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.
It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election. Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached? They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet. Do it. Please, just do it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
