[Rushy]

“The woman, she wants to watch television. And she says to her husband, ‘is the wind blowing? I’d love to watch a show tonight, darling. The wind hasn’t blown for three days. I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow.’ "

lmao did he really say this, that's amazing, holy shit. Trump 2020

Trump’s parable of a woman being unable to watch TV is, of course, not how wind turbines work. The turbines convert wind into electricity and feed it back into a power grid. The turbine would not have to actively spin to power a television.

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind. The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

[Lord Dave]

“The woman, she wants to watch television. And she says to her husband, ‘is the wind blowing? I’d love to watch a show tonight, darling. The wind hasn’t blown for three days. I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow.’ "

lmao did he really say this, that's amazing, holy shit. Trump 2020

Trump’s parable of a woman being unable to watch TV is, of course, not how wind turbines work. The turbines convert wind into electricity and feed it back into a power grid. The turbine would not have to actively spin to power a television.

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind. The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

This is mostly true.
High altitude wind turbines have been floated as an option.  Should be near constant then.  But solar?  Yeah no.  Would need alot of battery storage.

Or the salt based solar plant in ...New Mexico?

[honk]

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind.

A pretty safe assumption to make, given the size and scope of electrical grids in the United States.

The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

No, that isn't the core issue. You've substituted something tangentially related in place of Trump's retarded ramblings. He's not getting at some overall point about how silly Democrats are for prioritizing natural gas, he's indicating that he thinks wind turbines need to be actively spinning to power appliances. He's an idiot if he really thinks that, and he's a liar if he knows better.

[honk]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/06/trump-mueller-probe-1260078

I was hesitant to bring up simply because I don't want to rehash another unproductive tit-for-tat about who said what some months ago and all that, but it is genuinely concerning that Trump has reversed his position on releasing the Mueller report, and that the Republicans in Congress are now doing all they can to block the release. They can't just sit on this forever and expect the only public disclosure to be an extremely brief and controversial summary from a political appointee. We need to know the full story and see the whole report.

[Lord Dave]

See this is what's odd.  The report being a waste is wrong on pretty much all levels.  Its helped Trump out alot.

1. Its conclusion gave him and republicans a huge surge of "I told you so" to the democrats.

2. By saying any investigation which finds no evidence of wrong doing by the main person being investigated is a waste of time, that means every single court case which ends with "not guilty" is a waste of time.  Not to mention any science experiment that doesn't lean to a positive conclusion.

3. The investigation lead Trump to learn a few things about those closest to him: like his lawyer who recorded conversations.  Surely that was a good thing for Trump?

Trump is playing the "This was horrible and stupid" card even after he seems to have won the game.  Why?  What benefit does it serve him, if he has nothing damaging in the report?

[Rama Set]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

[totallackey]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

[Lord Dave]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Even if the parts stating how awesome Tump is are blacked out?

[Rama Set]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction. 

[totallackey]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Even if the parts stating how awesome Tump is are blacked out?

Yup, especially those parts.

[totallackey]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Because he is AG.

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction.

No, the law currently asserts that.

If the courts rule otherwise, so be it.

[Rama Set]

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Because he is AG.

I eagerly await an actual explanation but am pessimistic about that prospect.

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction.

No, the law currently asserts that.

If the courts rule otherwise, so be it.

The law provides guidelines under which redaction may be employed. They are generalized and not specific conditions and are susceptible to court challenge. Redactions were successfully revoked with the Watergate report. 

[WellRoundedIndividual]

The AG is not a spokesperson. The AG is the highest position of the Department of Justice. He doesn't do PR news shit like Sarah Sanders, who is a spokesperson. There are literal positions titled spokesperson in the US government. AG is not one of them. Go take your government class again and learn the frickin difference. Jesus... (was he a spokesperson for God?)

"The White House Press Secretary is a senior White House official whose primary responsibility is to act as spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States government administration, especially with regard to the President, senior executives, and policies."

"In the federal government of the United States, the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and, as head of the Department of Justice, is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. "

Jeremy Edwards, Deputy Spokesperson - https://www.justice.gov/opa/contact-office


There. Are you satisfied? Please be more ignorant. This is fun.

[Lord Dave]

He also makes statements on behalf of the justice department.  It may not be his primary job but its in the jib description.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

He also makes statements on behalf of the justice department.  It may not be his primary job but its in the jib description.

There are tons of people who make statements on behalf of other people or companies. It does not make them a spokesperson. It makes them a person who made a statement regarding something specific.

[juner]

There are tons of people who make statements on behalf of other people or companies.

Yes, they are called spokespeople by the very definition of the word.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

In the generic use of the word, yes. But in government terms of a job - no. There is an official position within each department of the government that is an actual spokesperson.

[honk]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wed7/trumps-campaign-manager-sees-left-wing-conspiracy-in-twitters-deletion-of-dark-knight-rises-video

Good. Also, haha you triggered, bro, you triggered? Fuck your feelings.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

That vice article also includes quotes from an official spokesperson. Hmm...

Hillary Clinton also has an official spokesperson. So, when she speaks on matters concerning herself, instead of her spokesperson, is she a spokesperson for herself?

A spokesperson speaks in response to something usually from the media. The AG in this case was not responding to a question or inquiry from the media. He was releasing an official statement, which is his jurisdiction and duty to do, concerning the fact that he is not going to open a case against the president. Therefore, he is speaking for himself. Therefore, he is not a spokesperson.  He is not speaking on anyone's behalf.

[honk]

I think you're the only person here who cares this much about who does or doesn't officially qualify as a spokesperson.