Who is advocating for the decimation of Earth and its people?
Rare earth minerals
- Thread starter America 1st
- Start date
Who is advocating for the decimation of Earth and its people?
You want to pay $5k for your iPhone instead of $1k?
government policy isn’t why chips aren’t made in the US.
It’s odd you are a main contributor to this forum and want more US government involvement into our markets.
Would I rather pay more to have products that are manufactured in the US? Absolutely. However, decreased cost in this circumstance would be much more likely than any sort of increase considering prices are already sky high.
The race to the bottom and trading with countries that have dissimilar economic practices is a major problem in this country.
I'd take more US government involvement in my products instead communist government involvement which is exactly the trade off were making currently.
Furthermore, these subsidies could be in the form of tax breaks for companies to produce those products here. "Government involvement" isn't the Boogeyman yore making it out to be in every circumstance.
Lack of policy can be much more destructive than reasonable / moderate policy as we're experiencing currently.
Last edited:
the original post from disclose.tv is just misinformation. Created to do what has just happened in this thread. Which is to create fear.
Rare earth metals are not rare. China already has the worlds largest rare earth mines. USA has the second largest rare earth metal mining. It’s a distant second. The issue with rare earth metals is the processing method. It creates serious chemical waste. So all of the rare earth metals mined in USA are exported to China to be processed. China don’t care about pollution or poisoning their water. We then buy the processed metals back from China.
But the original premise of the disclose.tv post about Afghanistan is false. Afghanistan does not have much rare earth Metals. See world map of rare earth metals below.
https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/deposits.html
Rare earth metals are not rare. China already has the worlds largest rare earth mines. USA has the second largest rare earth metal mining. It’s a distant second. The issue with rare earth metals is the processing method. It creates serious chemical waste. So all of the rare earth metals mined in USA are exported to China to be processed. China don’t care about pollution or poisoning their water. We then buy the processed metals back from China.
But the original premise of the disclose.tv post about Afghanistan is false. Afghanistan does not have much rare earth Metals. See world map of rare earth metals below.
https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/deposits.html
Well put.
This process could, and should, take place here in the US. Fear of the process or the cost simply aren't viable excuses.
It's the same thing we see with the whole switching to electric everything, including in the military, nonsense from the left in spite of the fact that it creates a clear disadvantages.
I don’t think it’s odd, but he definitely seems to be a bigger proponent of a strong central government as opposed to delegating power to the states like a lot of traditional republicans do.
nothing wrong with that, just making an observation
Trump was going to leave and we wanted him to leave and get us out of these endless wars.
Let China go in there and deal with those animals, it won’t be all peaches and cream I assure you.
I do feel like Trump would have jaw-boned China and possibly held them off for a while, but honestly let China have that hell hole and all is problems.
russia tried in the 80’s, we tried in the 2000’s, now let China go ahead and waste vast resources for a while.
I'm pragmatic and view everything through a common sense lense. I'm not boxed in by typical "republican" ideology. I'm much more of a classical liberal, like The Founders, than a Reagan style conservative.
National populist could be one way to describe it. Jacksonian in some regards (Manifest Destiny / expanding presidential power). America 1st is my preference.
I fear corporations more than I fear government, just as many of The Founders did, and that seems to be where "conservative" / "Republicans" , especially the Reagan brand, are generally really hung up. Protected trade is another major area where I typically break from Reagan style "conservatives".
What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Corporations
Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds...
Last edited:
This Trump wouldn't have gotten pushed around from every angle.
He would have left and the Chinese wouldn't have said a damn word or even thought about claiming resources in the region because BDD would have dropped the hammer on them.
I don't think Trump was hardline enough with China, since he still allowed trade with them, but he certainly didn't get jerked around by the balls like Puddin does now.
This is true.
Do you think firearm bans in liberal cities are legal despite "shall not be infringed"?Maybe in your opinion but for now they're legal, constitutional, and happening so
You have to point out that most of the US and Canada mining is banned or restricted to the point that it is cheaper to mine elsewhere and ship here. It's like lumber. Canada is shipping lumber here because liberals don't want trees cut. Trees are still being cut but not the ones that liberals look at so they are good. Same way with xl pipeline shutting down but Russia getting their pipeline up and running.... we don't have to know about it.
Of course a conspiracy theorist would say this is planned to weaken us and strengthen our enemies... but that would be crazy talk....
Yes they are legal even though I don't agree with them as a matter of policy.
"Shall not be infringed" just means "shall not being violated" so as long as people are allowed firearms the 2A is intact.
I think you meant, as long as people are allowed firearms, and allowed to carry them...bare them, if you will...the 2A is intact.
I'd argue that most of the laws restricting ownership are not Constitutional, but that aside, it is surely not Constitutional the way so many places make it difficult or impossible to carry a gun outside your home.
I very much agree with you.
I'd say the bigger tragedy today is bare portion not the limits on types of firearms.
At least in many states, more than not, the carry laws are getting LESS restrictive. Constitutional carry is on the rise, as well as "shall issue" replacing "may issue" carry permits.
30+ years ago, most places were not even "shall issue". So if you didn't have what the government considered a good reason for it, you could not get their permission to excersize your Right to carry.
Similar threads
