Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[George Erdner]

Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.

Yet often the electric power plants usually have higher efficiency than does the internal combustion engine automobile.  To make an accurate comparison between an electric car and internal combustion car one would have to take into account any difference in manufacturing and the energy consumption in manufacturing as well as the relative efficiency of the two in turning fossil fuel into miles driven.

Well, if you want to get really nitpicky, throw in the costs of disposing of used electrical storage batteries. And throw in the dangers of an accident in a vehicle full of storage batteries that are (1) full of high amperage electricity, and (2) toxic materials.

Granted, some hydrocarbon burning power plants are less polluting than others. But every time any hydrocarbon is burned, the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form hydrogen hydroxide, and the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. The goal of any "clean burning" process that involved combustion is to limit the output to only water vapor and CO2. So, even a totally "pure", clean burning facility is still emitting tons of CO2. Personally, I see CO2 as what plants need to breathe, but then I'm not prone to jump on any of the latest pseudo-scientific fad bandwagons.

[Dave Benke]

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

Super information, helpful on many levels!

Dave Benke

[LutherMan]

Trump leads Cruz by 11 in IA...

[LutherMan]

Trump's 'USA Freedom Kids' sing at rally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2oAYGkB3c

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate.  Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden. 

[Randy Bosch]

I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate. Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden.

The Nov 2016 Ballot will have a lot more contested elections on it than that for President(Vice-President), and depending upon your home precinct may include the equivalent of bond measures, propositions, state constitution amendments, etc., etc., all the way to school and special district boards.  Don't stay away even if you decide that you cannot vote for any of the President(Vice-President) choices on the ballot.  In the short and long runs, the rest of the ballot may be even more critical to good governance, however you choose to select.

[bookpastor/Erma Wolf]

I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate.  Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden.

Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them. 

[Mike in Pennsylvania]

Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them. 

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."

[Keith Falk]

I'll second the "still vote!"


I know it's true in Oklahoma, and likely true in every state: you can leave a category blank on your ballot and your ballot will still count and is valid.

[bookpastor/Erma Wolf]

Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them. 

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."

Well, I don't think either Trump or Sanders would give us the government we need, either.

I don't wish either man ill. (In fact, I have recently begun praying for Donald Trump, for his soul. Seriously.) And there are things I like about Bernie Sanders. But I don't want to see either man taking the oath of office for the presidency of the United States.

But even then, even if that becomes our choice in November, I will still go to the polls. I will vote for someone. And whoever gets elected, I will then pray for them, for the sake of the office.

But I really hope our choices are between two other candidates.

[LutherMan]

I think the nominee will be settled by the time our primaries in May roll around...

[James_Gale]

Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them. 

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."

Well, I don't think either Trump or Sanders would give us the government we need, either.

I don't wish either man ill. (In fact, I have recently begun praying for Donald Trump, for his soul. Seriously.) And there are things I like about Bernie Sanders. But I don't want to see either man taking the oath of office for the presidency of the United States.

But even then, even if that becomes our choice in November, I will still go to the polls. I will vote for someone. And whoever gets elected, I will then pray for them, for the sake of the office.

But I really hope our choices are between two other candidates.

I'd still go to the polls.  And I'd still vote for someone.  That "someone" would not be either Trump or Sanders.  Maybe I'd write in "Erma Wolf."  She may not be the most qualified person for the presidency.  But she'd be eager to admit this and would govern accordingly.  That alone puts her above Trump and Sanders in my book.  (I'd consider voting for Keith.  But his religion (Buckeyeism) is a problem.)

[LutherMan]

Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/

[bookpastor/Erma Wolf]

Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/

I'll see your Time, and raise you a National Review.   

  http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

[Brian Stoffregen]

A rule I've heard that applies: If you didn't vote for a president, you can't complain about the one who was elected.