Trump is putting coal workers out of work

[martybegan]

Good luck getting an artificial lake approved, or expansion of an existing lake approved with the current Environmental impact processes you guys put in place to prevent projects you didn't like.

Oh no. A new lake. Better go blow up a mountain instead.

Wow, how fucking ignorant. By making a LARGE new lake, you have to excavate, you have to displace people, wildlife, fauna, flora and all sorts of other things. you may mess with migratory paths, you can mess with spawning/breeding areas, you can change the hydrology of an area.

Plus, one of the lakes has to be at a higher elevation, a significantly higher elevation, so now you may HAVE to blow up part of a mountain to create the upper reservoir.

You just got served, bitch.

 

[KoalaCorp]

At least Hillary promised to $$ to help retrain them.
Coal Miners got ZIP from Trump!

 

[JoeB131]

It declined at a slower rate than if "regulators" got their way.

Then let the market figure it out. When cars took over horses, horses weren't banned or regulated out of existence. The cars simply out competed them. Any horse regulations came well after the car became dominant.

Actually, horses were regulated.

Is it legal to ride a horse in the city?

Answer (1 of 11): Could you narrow this down to at least continent or country if not actual city?

www.quora.com

With few exceptions, most cities will not allow you to ride horses on most streets because of personal safety issues, animal safety issues, vehicle safety issues and the fact that horses require cleanup if they trot through an area. The larger the city and the more urban the area, the less likely that you will be able to ride a horse or use a horse-drawn cart for transportation or commerce.

I would suggest looking up the city's municipal code online and checking for yourself.

Chicago recently banned horse carriages downtown.

Chicago to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages Starting in 2021

The Chicago City Council voted on Friday to ban horse-drawn carriage rides starting in January 2021. Under the ordinance passed Friday, operators will not be able to renew their licenses, and the city will stop issuing new ones, the Chicago Sun Times reported. The city’s 10 existing carriage...

www.nbcchicago.com

The market didn't put these fools out of business, government did. We are all better off for it.

 

[martybegan]

It declined at a slower rate than if "regulators" got their way.

Then let the market figure it out. When cars took over horses, horses weren't banned or regulated out of existence. The cars simply out competed them. Any horse regulations came well after the car became dominant.

Actually, horses were regulated.

Is it legal to ride a horse in the city?

Answer (1 of 11): Could you narrow this down to at least continent or country if not actual city?

www.quora.com

With few exceptions, most cities will not allow you to ride horses on most streets because of personal safety issues, animal safety issues, vehicle safety issues and the fact that horses require cleanup if they trot through an area. The larger the city and the more urban the area, the less likely that you will be able to ride a horse or use a horse-drawn cart for transportation or commerce.

I would suggest looking up the city's municipal code online and checking for yourself.

Chicago recently banned horse carriages downtown.

Chicago to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages Starting in 2021

The Chicago City Council voted on Friday to ban horse-drawn carriage rides starting in January 2021. Under the ordinance passed Friday, operators will not be able to renew their licenses, and the city will stop issuing new ones, the Chicago Sun Times reported. The city’s 10 existing carriage...

www.nbcchicago.com

The market didn't put these fools out of business, government did. We are all better off for it.

Dude, I'm talking about when cars were overtaking horses as the primary means of transport. Read the bolded part of my statement.

100+ years ago, Are you fucking retarded or just not actually reading my entire post?

 

[JoeB131]

Keep in mind these dumb ass tree huggers don't have an alternative energy source that's inexpensive. When the idiots yap about natural gas ignore them because banning that is next on their list after oil.

We have a whole series of cleaner energy.

Nuclear
Hydro-electric
Natural Gas
Solar
Wind
Biomass

This is the problem with the right wing. They are so conditioned they'll let the rich LITERALLY poison them on the altar of prosperity.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, I'm talking about when cars were overtaking horses as the primary means of transport. Read the bolded part of my statement.

I did read your entire post, and my point stands. When cars overtook horses, horses were banned in major cities.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, I'm talking about when cars were overtaking horses as the primary means of transport. Read the bolded part of my statement.

I did read your entire post, and my point stands. When cars overtook horses, horses were banned in major cities.

Well after cars were already established as the overriding technology. They didn't ban horses to help cars take over, they banned horses because cars took over.

Your point is useless as a response to my analogy on government imposing technological change vs it happening via the choice of the people and the market.

God you are fucking dumb.

Let me spell this out to you so you can get it. I am comparing it to the government efforts to derail coal generation by government action, as opposed to the market just making coal non competitive on its own.

 

[colfax_m]

Good luck getting an artificial lake approved, or expansion of an existing lake approved with the current Environmental impact processes you guys put in place to prevent projects you didn't like.

Oh no. A new lake. Better go blow up a mountain instead.

Wow, how fucking ignorant. By making a LARGE new lake, you have to excavate, you have to displace people, wildlife, fauna, flora and all sorts of other things. you may mess with migratory paths, you can mess with spawning/breeding areas, you can change the hydrology of an area.

Plus, one of the lakes has to be at a higher elevation, a significantly higher elevation, so now you may HAVE to blow up part of a mountain to create the upper reservoir.

You just got served, bitch.

But once it’s done, it’s functional for lord knows how long.

Compared to coal mining that never ends its destruction, couldn’t be more preferable.

 

[martybegan]

Good luck getting an artificial lake approved, or expansion of an existing lake approved with the current Environmental impact processes you guys put in place to prevent projects you didn't like.

Oh no. A new lake. Better go blow up a mountain instead.

Wow, how fucking ignorant. By making a LARGE new lake, you have to excavate, you have to displace people, wildlife, fauna, flora and all sorts of other things. you may mess with migratory paths, you can mess with spawning/breeding areas, you can change the hydrology of an area.

Plus, one of the lakes has to be at a higher elevation, a significantly higher elevation, so now you may HAVE to blow up part of a mountain to create the upper reservoir.

You just got served, bitch.

But once it’s done, it’s functional for lord knows how long.

Compared to coal mining that never ends its destruction, couldn’t be more preferable.

Still, you now have impacts from land modification, You can't get something from nothing.

Coal mining stops modifying the land when the coal runs out.

 

[colfax_m]

Good luck getting an artificial lake approved, or expansion of an existing lake approved with the current Environmental impact processes you guys put in place to prevent projects you didn't like.

Oh no. A new lake. Better go blow up a mountain instead.

Wow, how fucking ignorant. By making a LARGE new lake, you have to excavate, you have to displace people, wildlife, fauna, flora and all sorts of other things. you may mess with migratory paths, you can mess with spawning/breeding areas, you can change the hydrology of an area.

Plus, one of the lakes has to be at a higher elevation, a significantly higher elevation, so now you may HAVE to blow up part of a mountain to create the upper reservoir.

You just got served, bitch.

But once it’s done, it’s functional for lord knows how long.

Compared to coal mining that never ends its destruction, couldn’t be more preferable.

Still, you now have impacts from land modification, You can't get something from nothing.

Coal mining stops modifying the land when the coal runs out.

I just find your assertion absurd. There are few things more environmentally damaging than coal mining. Asserting building lakes is going to be more damaging that that is absolutely absurd.

 

[BluesLegend]

Keep in mind these dumb ass tree huggers don't have an alternative energy source that's inexpensive. When the idiots yap about natural gas ignore them because banning that is next on their list after oil.

We have a whole series of cleaner energy.

Nuclear
Hydro-electric
Natural Gas
Solar
Wind
Biomass

This is the problem with the right wing. They are so conditioned they'll let the rich LITERALLY poison them on the altar of prosperity.

Tree huggers have sued to stop at least 4 of those on your list.

 

[martybegan]

Good luck getting an artificial lake approved, or expansion of an existing lake approved with the current Environmental impact processes you guys put in place to prevent projects you didn't like.

Oh no. A new lake. Better go blow up a mountain instead.

Wow, how fucking ignorant. By making a LARGE new lake, you have to excavate, you have to displace people, wildlife, fauna, flora and all sorts of other things. you may mess with migratory paths, you can mess with spawning/breeding areas, you can change the hydrology of an area.

Plus, one of the lakes has to be at a higher elevation, a significantly higher elevation, so now you may HAVE to blow up part of a mountain to create the upper reservoir.

You just got served, bitch.

But once it’s done, it’s functional for lord knows how long.

Compared to coal mining that never ends its destruction, couldn’t be more preferable.

Still, you now have impacts from land modification, You can't get something from nothing.

Coal mining stops modifying the land when the coal runs out.

I just find your assertion absurd. There are few things more environmentally damaging than coal mining. Asserting building lakes is going to be more damaging that that is absolutely absurd.

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Look at what happens when a dam is built, the water covers previously dry land, people have to be relocated, animals lose their habitats, migration paths, and breeding areas.

You don't want to understand anything but "fuh fuh fuh, solar/wind works, fuh fuh fuh"

 

[JoeB131]

Well after cars were already established as the overriding technology. They didn't ban horses to help cars take over, they banned horses because cars took over.

No, dummy, they banned horses because they were impractical at that point. You just aren't very bright, are you.

They realized that horses, being animals, were too dangerous because they easily spooked and went on rampages.

Your point is useless as a response to my analogy on government imposing technological change vs it happening via the choice of the people and the market.

Naw, dummy, the problem was they eventually had to make a decision to have one or the other, but not both, for PRACTICAL reasons. Horses operating alongside cars is dangerous. Same thing with Coal. For PRACTICAL reasons, coal needs to be banned. It's killing the planet.

Let me spell this out to you so you can get it. I am comparing it to the government efforts to derail coal generation by government action, as opposed to the market just making coal non competitive on its own.

Except we couldn't wait for the Market to take out the "old Gray Mare". It had to be done by government fiat for those unwilling to change over.

Tree huggers have sued to stop at least 4 of those on your list.

As they should be, under certain circumstances. Yup, we should do enviromental impact studies on new dams, and we should make sure we have a place to put that expended nuclear fuel. Helllloooooo...

 

[martybegan]

Well after cars were already established as the overriding technology. They didn't ban horses to help cars take over, they banned horses because cars took over.

No, dummy, they banned horses because they were impractical at that point. You just aren't very bright, are you.

They realized that horses, being animals, were too dangerous because they easily spooked and went on rampages.

Your point is useless as a response to my analogy on government imposing technological change vs it happening via the choice of the people and the market.

Naw, dummy, the problem was they eventually had to make a decision to have one or the other, but not both, for PRACTICAL reasons. Horses operating alongside cars is dangerous. Same thing with Coal. For PRACTICAL reasons, coal needs to be banned. It's killing the planet.

Let me spell this out to you so you can get it. I am comparing it to the government efforts to derail coal generation by government action, as opposed to the market just making coal non competitive on its own.

Except we couldn't wait for the Market to take out the "old Gray Mare". It had to be done by government fiat for those unwilling to change over.

Tree huggers have sued to stop at least 4 of those on your list.

As they should be, under certain circumstances. Yup, we should do enviromental impact studies on new dams, and we should make sure we have a place to put that expended nuclear fuel. Helllloooooo...

Wow, you just can't admit you misunderstood me and now you make up bullshit.

You are seriously the worst poster on this board.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you just can't admit you misunderstood me and now you make up bullshit.

You are seriously the worst poster on this board.

Naw, man, I just pointed out, at a certain point, they stopped giving the horse riders a choice.

YOu made my point for me without even realizing it. The horse had to be banned, just like the coal plant has to be banned.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, you just can't admit you misunderstood me and now you make up bullshit.

You are seriously the worst poster on this board.

Naw, man, I just pointed out, at a certain point, they stopped giving the horse riders a choice.

YOu made my point for me without even realizing it. The horse had to be banned, just like the coal plant has to be banned.

No, I didn't. they didn't restrict (not ban) horses until AFTER the people and the market had already made their decision.

That is not the case with coal, the government has been trying to force it out before the market has decided.

All because morons like you are afraid of weather.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yup, we should do enviromental impact studies on new dams

I see, is it your opinion that Democrats are concerned about the environment? Why yes that is a loaded question and trap so be careful.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Donald Trump promised to revived the coal industry but instead he has been a nightmare for coworkers. Some big companies are even going bankrupt:

"Perhaps the most persuasive evidence of President’s Trump’s failure to revive the coal industry lies in the number of coal company bankruptcies and mine closings. As of Oct. 30, 2019, 11 companies, including the largest privately held operation, had declared bankruptcy since Trump’s inauguration. And according to the USEIA, more than half of all mines operating in 2008 had closed by the end of 2018. The consumption of renewable sources of energy surpassed coal consumption in 2019 for the first time in over 130 years, according to USEIA."

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article244088642.html

Coal miners are great people and I feel bad for them because they were conned into voting for Trump with the illusion that he would help them.
We heard a lot about Hillary being potentially really bad for coal workers but Donald Trump has been full of empty promises of greatness and resurgence.

Way to go, Alinsky. It’s not like you give a flying fuck about coal workers. Stand with Obama.

 

[Dana7360]

Donald Trump promised to revived the coal industry but instead he has been a nightmare for coworkers. Some big companies are even going bankrupt:

"Perhaps the most persuasive evidence of President’s Trump’s failure to revive the coal industry lies in the number of coal company bankruptcies and mine closings. As of Oct. 30, 2019, 11 companies, including the largest privately held operation, had declared bankruptcy since Trump’s inauguration. And according to the USEIA, more than half of all mines operating in 2008 had closed by the end of 2018. The consumption of renewable sources of energy surpassed coal consumption in 2019 for the first time in over 130 years, according to USEIA."

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article244088642.html

Coal miners are great people and I feel bad for them because they were conned into voting for Trump with the illusion that he would help them.
We heard a lot about Hillary being potentially really bad for coal workers but Donald Trump has been full of empty promises of greatness and resurgence.

They had a choice, Russian BS aside. So did the burbs in the Rust Belt, and they chose DJT. And now they are crying Covid-19 mismanagement from the WH and everything else from coal to no health benefits.

So you believe they would have done better under Hillary?

Hillary lost coal country because she stated she would put coal miners out of work. Under Trump we are simply working towards what she said she would do.

No she didn't say she would put coal miners out of work.

You just repeated a lie.

She told them that their jobs are going away and won't come back. Then she offered them reeducation so they wouldn't be totally screwed.

She told them the ugly truth. Coal is a dying industry. Much more cleaner and much more efficient sources of energy are being used and developed.

They chose to go with the liar who pandered to them with lies to get them to vote against their best interest. They chose the lazy way and they got totally screwed.

If people are too lazy to take responsibility for their own lives then I really can't have any sympathy for them.

They made the bad choice. Now they don't want to take responsibility for that bad choice.

They were warned. They ignored the truth and warnings. They made the lazy choice. They got what they voted for. I have no sympathy for them.

"Reeducation" for what?

Read her energy and coal proposal.

Reeducation in new energy industries, in computers, in medical field or any other field they want to work in.

She proposed 30 billion for them to be retrained.

They chose to not do the work to secure their own future. Which was a very bad choice. So now they are totally screwed. No job, no retraining and no hope for a future.

They made the very bad choice to take the lazy way. They chose trump the liar who now has abandoned the workers and they've been left high and dry on their own.

They were warned. They ignored the warnings. They got what they voted for. Now they're whining about it.

They should stop whining, go get new training and get their lives together.

I highly doubt they will do that. They have already shown they are too lazy to do the work for their own future.

The result will be more generational poverty in West Virginia.

They had a chance at a better life, they were too lazy to take it.

There are no alternative energy jobs (or at least not that many), computer or nursing jobs to be had. What good is it to offer people training in non existent jobs and how do they survive until these jobs happen to appear?

Empty rhetoric.

But yeah, go ahead and note how you have no sympathy for them. How Democrat of you.

There might not be in your area but my area has alternative energy jobs.

You might not need nurses or health care workers where you live but they are needed all over the nation.

You may not have many computer jobs where you live but there are tons of them all over the nation.

Those aren't the only jobs. People can go to school to learn anything they want. Not just what I listed.

Stop being so negative. You're just making excuses and enabling those workers to remain lazy and in poverty. Many other people in professions that died got retrained. The coal miners can do the same thing. When was the last time anyone needed a key punch operator?

Then there are the manufacturing jobs that went overseas. All those workers were offered retraining so they could have a career that would support them.

Stop advocating for people to be so lazy. Coal is a dying industry. They were told the truth. They were told they would get help to be retrained. All it took from them is the work to do it. They were too lazy to want to do the work so now they're screwed.

Your attitude only allows them to remain lazy and create more generational poverty.

Good going.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Donald Trump promised to revived the coal industry but instead he has been a nightmare for coworkers. Some big companies are even going bankrupt:

"Perhaps the most persuasive evidence of President’s Trump’s failure to revive the coal industry lies in the number of coal company bankruptcies and mine closings. As of Oct. 30, 2019, 11 companies, including the largest privately held operation, had declared bankruptcy since Trump’s inauguration. And according to the USEIA, more than half of all mines operating in 2008 had closed by the end of 2018. The consumption of renewable sources of energy surpassed coal consumption in 2019 for the first time in over 130 years, according to USEIA."

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article244088642.html

Coal miners are great people and I feel bad for them because they were conned into voting for Trump with the illusion that he would help them.
We heard a lot about Hillary being potentially really bad for coal workers but Donald Trump has been full of empty promises of greatness and resurgence.

And yet,

In coal country, Trump holds sway despite failing to revive industry


More than 600 feet underground in the Appalachian region of southwestern Pennsylvania, it’s almost like John Morecraft, a 45-year-old history teacher turned coal miner, is back in a classroom.

Several of his former high school students work in the mine, still calling him Mr. Morecraft, or coach. Some of the older men who never got much of an education look to him to explain current events.

And when it comes to presidential politics these days, in the words of another miner, “It’s pretty much Trump all the way.”

During the grinding impeachment process, Morecraft said, the miners were “watching it very closely. They’re passionate about it. And angry about what’s going on.”


On the surface, that’s no surprise. In 2016, Trump won a whopping 68% of the votes here in Greene County, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 28%.

But as recently as 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain split the vote evenly in the county, which has a total of four working coal mines and a population of about 36,000. And before that, the area was a dependable Democratic stronghold in the state.

What lies beneath the enormous shift over the last decade — and its endurance despite Trump’s mostly failed promises to bring back coal — contains a somber warning for Democrats, and not just in coal country.

Many voters here — and likely in many other areas across the country — see the Democrats as a party seemingly out of touch with their everyday interests and concerns.





While that indictment may not be entirely fair or representative of every miner, the overall impression here is of a party that cares about other people, not them, whether the issue is immigration, student debt or universal health coverage. Greene County’s population is 1% foreign-born, less than one-fifth have college degrees and just 6% don’t have medical insurance.

Then there’s the environmental issue. Some of the miners will concede that climate change may well be an enormous problem, and ending use of fossil fuels may be desirable, even necessary. But what happens to them and thousands of others whose jobs and livelihoods depend on it right now? they ask. What do the Democrats offer on that?

And it’s not just coal’s future that has people here anxious. A surge in fracking for natural gas in recent years has softened the blow to the region’s economy. But as Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate made clear, most candidates want to toughen requirements for fracking or even end it.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, asked specifically about the potential loss of thousands of jobs in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, defended his call for a ban on fracking as a moral imperative to save the planet. There was even less sympathy for coal, with Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who made his debate debut Wednesday, proudly noting that 304 out of 530 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. have been closed.

In coal country, Trump holds sway despite failing to revive industry

Despite Trump’s mostly failed promises to bring back coal, he's still popular among many miners.

www.latimes.com

So in coal country, Democrats continue to define themselves as enemies of the workers.