Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

Manhole Eunuchsbane

By Manhole Eunuchsbane,
in General Chatter

Recommended Posts

KingintheNorth4 Council Member

KingintheNorth4

Posted
Posted

Trump has spent the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey insulting Mexico, thinks Russia and Finland have gotten along for over a century, defended the pardon of Arpaio by stating that the people of Arizona love him (even though he was voted out), once again used the whataboutism fallacy when mentioning the people that Obama pardoned.

There's never a dull moment in this administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThinkerX Council Member

ThinkerX

Posted
Posted

Ok people, you have got to keep on top of this stuff - especially with this thread title.  Trump's reversed regulations to protect against flooding just days before Harvey:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-reversed-regulations-to-protect-infrastructure-against-flooding-just-days-before-hurricane-harvey/ar-AAqRKYZ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

 

Just 10 days before Hurricane Harvey descended upon Texas on Friday, wreaking havoc and submerging hundreds of miles of land under water, President Donald Trump signed an executive order revoking a set of regulations that would have made federally-funded infrastructure less vulnerable to flooding.

 

The Obama-era rules, which had not yet gone into effect, would have required the federal government to take into account the risk of flooding and sea-level rise as a result of climate change when constructing new infrastructure and rebuilding after disasters.

Experts are predicting Harvey — the most powerful storm to hit the US since 2004 — will cost Texas between $30 billion and $100 billion in damage.

And in the coming days, Congress will be called upon to send billions of federal dollars to help with the state's recovery and rebuilding efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shryke Council Member

Shryke

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

He still won't go after Russia:

Reporter- "Is Russia a security threat to US?"

Trump: "Many countires are a security threat."

Many countries, many sides....

It's how you know he's deep deep in bed with them. It's the absolute one thing he has never once wavered or postured on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DMC Council Member

DMC

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

ACLU Sues White House Over Transgender Military Ban

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/trump-administration-sued-by-aclu-over-transgender-soldiers-ban?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/See you in court!

Quote

The suits by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign, filed in federal courts in Baltimore and Seattle, claim Trump’s plan violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Hm, so from the quoted sentence it seems the ACLU filed in Baltimore and the HRC filed in Seattle - could be totally wrong just going off sentence structure.  The case could probably get out of the 9th forcing SCOTUS to take it up, but I'd be surprised if the 4th lets it get that far.  Regardless, SCOTUS will shut it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Anti-Targ Council Member

The Anti-Targ

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Hm, so from the quoted sentence it seems the ACLU filed in Baltimore and the HRC filed in Seattle - could be totally wrong just going off sentence structure.  The case could probably get out of the 9th forcing SCOTUS to take it up, but I'd be surprised if the 4th lets it get that far.  Regardless, SCOTUS will shut it down.

Can you clarify? Will SCOTUS shut down the EO, or will it shut down any legal challenge to the EO?

In the end, even if Trump doesn't get his way he's already won with his voters, because he signed so document that discriminates against transgender people and thus has relegated them to sub-human where his voter base believes they belong, if not outright extermination.

If the cowards in other branches of govt block it, it just reaffirms the importance of Trump being there and continuing to fight for the Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ser Scot A Ellison Council Member

Ser Scot A Ellison

Posted
Posted

This is what Al Letson, a radio host who protests with Antifa groups did when saw a right wing protester being beaten:

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/28/546831794/i-saw-his-humanity-reveal-host-on-protecting-right-wing-protester?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170829

 

From the linked article:

Quote

"When I glanced to my left I saw, you know, a mass of people just coming off the lawn towards this guy, and I don't know — I just, I thought they were going to kill him. And I just didn't want anybody to die," Letson says. "And I just put my body down on top of his, in the hopes that they would not hit me."

What came to me was that he was a human being, and I didn't want to see anybody die. And, you know, I've been thinking a lot about the events in Charlottesville, and I remember seeing the pictures of a young man being brutally beaten by these guys with poles, and when I saw that I thought, "why didn't anybody step in?"

And you know, in retrospect, it doesn't matter if he doesn't see my humanity, what matters to me is that I see his. What he thinks about me and all of that, like — my humanity is not dependent upon that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BloodRider Council Member

BloodRider

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Insane rhetoric like this goes a long way to explain why progressives are driving voters into the arms of Trump.  I'm not eligible for military service either, but it never occurred to me that this meant I had been relegated to subhuman status.  And your talk about "outright extermination" is complete insanity.

Yes, it is totally the progressive's fault.  Way to go!  You solved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Chatywin et al. Council Member

Mr. Chatywin et al.

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Shryke said:

It's how you know he's deep deep in bed with them. It's the absolute one thing he has never once wavered or postured on.

More to that point, just look at everything we learned yesterday. (1) The Trump Organization was actively trying to open a Trump Tower in Moscow during the campaign while lying about having any business ties with Russia, (2) Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime political consultant was talking about working with Putin and how opening said Trump Tower would help him get elected, hence lying about colluding with Russia and (3) Ivanka sitting at Putin’s desk in 2007, implying there’s some type of relationship there that spans at least a decade. The Trumps are clearly deeply tied with Putin, and I can all but guarantee this is why he refused to release his tax returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mormont Council Member

mormont

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Insane rhetoric like this goes a long way to explain why progressives are driving voters into the arms of Trump.  I'm not eligible for military service either, but it never occurred to me that this meant I had been relegated to subhuman status.  And your talk about "outright extermination" is complete insanity.

There's a difference between 'not eligible' and 'banned for no good reason'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Chatywin et al. Council Member

Mr. Chatywin et al.

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

At this point I really would not be surprised to see another Republican contesting trump in 2020.

But what do we think the odds are that this Russian thing will see any real attempt at impeachment in the meantime? I mean, I have no doubt that every Democrat running for Congress next year will be doing so on an "Impeach Trump" platform, but what are the odds it actually happens? We've heard some noise from Republicans any time Trump says or does something stupid or offensive. But the really dangerous or criminal behavior? Dead silence.

2018 could easily be a wave election in the House for Democrats, and Trump could absolutely be impeached if they retake the majority. However, there’s still a good chance that Republicans make gains in the Senate, which means there’s little to no chance that they convict him and remove him from office. Trump is most likely going to be here till at least January of 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGimletEye Council Member

OldGimletEye

Posted
Posted

Today in conservative nonsense about fiscal deficits.

Quote

One of the weirdest things to come out of the financial crisis was the rise of the born-again fiscal hawks, as I called them in 2010. These are the folks who had never shown much interest in fiscal restraint before, but very suddenly became concerned about deficit reduction. Coincidentally, their awareness of the evils of deficits occurred sometime in late January 2009, once they were no longer in power in Washington.

Then their guy won the White House in November, and reducing deficits suddenly became a nonissue.

It seems to me that the people that went hysterical about a faux defecit problem back in 2009, don’t seem nearly as concerned about the rise of the alt right or Nazism.

That’s a problem.

and more conservative hypocrisy,

Quote

It’s hard to blame New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) for blasting Texas Republican as “hypocrites.” The Republican governor, reflecting on Texas GOP lawmakers’ opposition to relief aid after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, hasn’t forgotten how his state was treated.

“We were the disaster that was the longest, in waiting in terms of getting federal aid, and I hope that that’s not what happens to the folks in Texas with Harvey,” Christie said yesterday.

 

Also today in why conservatives deserve to get the Howard J. Turkstra “I thought I’d join the army before I got drafted” award.

Conservatives logic seems to be lets create a sovereign debt crises now, so we can avoid one later. It’s kind of like Turkstra’s logic for joining the army ie to avoid being drafted and then ending up in the army.

Anyway a good explainer:

Quote

Before proceeding, we need to distinguish two issues that tend to get conflated. These are: (1) the prospects for a government shutdown; and (2) the possibility of default on the U.S. Treasury’s outstanding debt. The first of these is bad, as it means suspending the pay of employees and not providing services for those relying on the government. But shutdowns have happened four times since 1990, most recently in 2013. They can be politically damaging, but the economic fallout has been both modest and temporary (see here.)

Default is a completely different story. It would mean that the government does not make at least some promised payments on time. Lacking precedent, it is hard to anticipate the exact consequences. Would Social Security recipients fail to receive their monthly payments? What about government employees’ wages, including members of the military? How about government suppliers? Then there are the holders of Treasury bonds. Will they receive their interest payments? Their principal?

What we do know is that people are getting very worried. According to a recent Wall Street Journal economists’ poll, there is a 17% chance that the government will soon default. Given the fiscal health of the United States, this probability should be zero. Put differently, a voluntary federal default would be dangerously self-destructive. Here are a few reasons.

...................................................................

Also, today in irrelevant and faux outrage from conservative clown man.

Quote

From George Leef at National Review:

Progressives need a steady stream of excuses for their manufactured outrage. The latest is statues and monuments that are supposedly harmful to “marginalized” people because they depict men who fought for the Confederacy (or were imperfect in other ways). Mute bits of metal and stone don’t actually do anything, don’t oppress anyone, don’t send any message. They could merely be ignored in favor of doing something constructive for the poor and supposedly “marginalized,” such as pushing for school choice or getting rid of harmful licensing laws. But that’s the last thing the Left wants.

Whatever one thinks of “school choice” or looking into licensing requirements, the point is that the Confederacy went to war exactly to defend slavery, so monuments dedicated to the confederacy are rightly interpreted as glorifying the defense of slavery. So can we like ditch lost cause theories and such? This isn’t hard conservative sorts of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...