The problem with this is that the Senate is willing to rubber stamp anything he does. They are also confirming his choice (well, really the think tank's choice) of judges that will determine laws that will affect everyone without any real oversight. It's this apathy that's the problem. It'd be different if Trump had the executive and Democrats had the legislative branches of government. At least then there'd be some real push back on nominees (why these don't go through the house and the senate is something to ponder) for important Lifetime Appointments.

I will call BULLSHIT on this to the highest level.

Everyone I know who calls themselves a "Libertarian" is trying to suck Trump's dick as quickly as they can because they believe they will get to keep their guns, rape women, and do what they want in the name of "personal freedom."

The majority of those I have known since High School claim to be Libertarian, yet they espouse the same ideologies Trump does along with the fact that they should be able to carry their gun and shoot someone for approaching their personal space, pay less in taxes (here's a hint, they paid more this year), and be given autonomy to do what they want when they want, the other parts of the populace be damned.

You're definition of "Libertarian" and the actual things I've seen are grossly different and it's a sad state of affairs if you think they could turn into the "3rd Party" that everyone wants.

that's bullshit and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't post as an AC.

the report proved there was russian interference, though because the trump admin wouldn't fully cooperate, muller couldn't prove there was collusion.

the muller report did conclude that there was likely a cause to bring the President up on charges of obstruction of justice (i.e. they wouldn't cooperate because they knew it would prove collusion with the russians), but couldn't recommend obstruction charges because the doj says that a sitting president can't be indicted.

I can guaran-god-damn-tee you that if Mitch McConnel wasn't being blackmailed by the President, articles of impeachment would already be drawn and we'd be watching the proceedings instead of arguing about it. the real reason we aren't seeing the "conservatives" (and I use that term very, very, very loosely) turn on trump is that he is giving them what they want in the name of judges in federal and the supreme court. if he wasn't doing that, then he would be out of there as quick as can be and they would be pressuring pence in his place, though that wouldn't be hard because pence believes that if you aren't a white, rich, affluent male, then you are the scum of the earth and your rights don't matter.

Should I show you my feed? It's full of nothing but right wing propaganda. In fact, it's one of the reasons I don't log in to Facebook any more. I'm tired of seeing the same old tropes that are either false (global warming), untrue (the Muller report exonerated the President... it didn't), or just blatant lies (the libs are taking your guns in WA).

If you think the right doesn't get their say on social media, then you really need to re-evaluate what you're looking at because I see a shit ton more stuff from the right than I do the left on most of my feeds, and I follow more liberals than I do conservatives. I'm more of a centrist, yet even I can't get away from the bullshit that makes me wish the end times were here because I'm tired of seeing it.

Here's your reasoning why conservatism has issues.

If all it takes is printing money, then the GDP can be whatever number the Trump admin wants it to be because they can have the Treasury just print more cash. So your logic is flawed. The "FAKE NEWS" you are talking about isn't even talking about how this is going on. There's a good article on Forbes that talks about how things play out when the country with debt prints money to pay said debt. The Problem with Modern Money theory is that it's true.

That wasn't the point, though. The point was over 15 years, you'll make more on the market than you will in energy savings, which is correct.

The only times stocks haven't doubled on average over 7 - 12 years was during the depression and during the recession. Typically, a good investment will actually double approximately every 7 - 12 years. It's not exact, of course, but you'd still be ahead after 7 years if you invested the same capital instead of using it for solar.

I don't think that's right, but it is what it is. I wish most municipalities would let you go 100% off the grid and power your own home, but they won't. You can get Solar + Batteries that will power your home 24 x 7 x 365 without ever being connected to the local power grid. However, you can't get a permit to build anything unless you are connected and they feed you at least X% of your power through a 30 day period (I believe the local PUD here is 22 or 25% according to the paperwork my parents went through when they installed their solar panels).

Sadly, the answer is yes. You'd think the panels would provide the necessary protection let them last several more years, but the 40-year roof on my parent's home will still need to be replaced in 40 years according to the roofer and the solar installer.

Not sure why that is, as the weather shouldn't affect them as much since they have that extra layer on top, but apparently that doesn't account for runoff, which is actually as bad as it is if the rain and elements hit the roof directly.

What's funny is that there are plenty of companies in the US that provide 50+ year roofs (Malarkey Roofing being one of them), so this is a non-starter. Yeah, you might have to re-roof before the panels are installed to get that, but still it would be better than not doing it at all.

The cells are made here, but assembled out of country because the labor is cheaper. They are then re-imported back to the US, causing the assembled units to be subject to tariffs that are still cheaper than having US labor produce the finished goods.

If Musk would put an assembly plant in a cheaper labor market in the US, it would still take several decades for the cost to become competitive compared to what it is to have them assembled elsewhere. Building the necessary plants isn't cheap unless you're a foreign company promising to bring "Billions" (e.g. Foxconn's failed attempts at opening in Wisconsin) to the US. If you're a US company wanting to get those tax breaks to open a new plant, you're SOL because the current administration thinks the only way to get new capital is to pull it in from the outside while placing tariffs on the countries that are most likely to invest in those ventures.

Honestly, you don't get much engagement on the weekends, so this really should be something that is exposed on the weekdays. Having it come out during the weekend just sucks, really.

Muni broadband fails in most areas because states have granted monopolies to the telco's and cable companies. The only reason the fiber behind my house isn't lit is because the telco for the area said they'd sue if it was. It doesn't matter that the Public Utilities District owns the lines, it's because it would provide the service that the state granted to the telco/cable company. There was a big deal when cable started allowing two-way communications over it's network in the late 90's because the telcos believed they were the only ones allowed to provide bi-directional services such as the internet.

Until the monopolies on telecommunications via any device are broken up, that's the story for anyone who doesn't live in a densely populated enough region. It's also why I seem to have higher taxes and service fees for the same internet my friends and family get, just because I live in a rural area and they live in a city.

What competition?

I can't use my cell phone for all the computers in my home to get online, so that's not competition. I have 2 choices where I live, slow DSL from the phone company or fast cable connectivity with a cap based on some arbitrary number. Neither is the best option, and fiber will likely never be available where I'm at due to it being a rural area without thousands of people to sign up to it.

Until ALL lines are available to ALL providers without lease requirements from the incumbents who can drop lessees, there is no real competition. If the cable company came out tomorrow and said all users in my zip code now have to pay 1000% more for internet, we'd have to just suck it up and pay.

The problem is, there's too much money going directly to the FCC and several congress people to make sure that doesn't happen.

Until corps aren't allowed to make the necessary donations that allow them to be treated like people, it won't change.

How is it naive to think that? Comcast punches into people's browsing all the time when they get close to their data cap. You get warning after warning, and then you're told that you've been charged. They already interfere with your HTTP or HTTPS streams to put that info there.

You make requests against their DNS servers, your header information still goes across their network, so they can see the entirety of the URL. How else do you think the whole 3-strikes copyright rule was supposed to work. They can see the necessary unencrypted data that requests the encrypted data to know what's going on.