US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4142

Concerns about dangerous lead in drinking water have reached Congress – quite literally. It’s been discovered that a key congressional office building has high lead levels in its water supply, with workers being provided with bottled water to consume instead.

A recent routine test found the elevated lead levels in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington DC, according to an email sent out by William Weidemeyer, the House office buildings superintendent.

According to Politico, Weidemeyer’s memo to lawmakers and their staff states that the lead levels are “slightly above the EPA standard”.

“Although the cause of the increase remains under investigation, in an abundance of caution all drinking water sources and office-provided water filtration units in the building will be turned off beginning at 10pm Tuesday, June 28, 2016,” the email reads.

The five-story Cannon House Office Building has provided office space for members of Congress since 1908. The building, which is connected to the Capitol via a tunnel, is undergoing a $750m renovation, which started in January last year.

Washington DC has had previous brushes with lead-in-water problems, with the city exposed as having lax testing practices 10 years ago. Subsequent reporting, including by the Guardian, has shown that lead levels in dozens of US cities have been downplayed by testing that can obscure the true amount of contamination.

Congress still hasn’t finalized an aid package for Flint, Michigan, which has been gripped by a toxic water crisis for the past two years. Around 8,000 children in Flint may experience developmental and behavioral problems due to the lead exposure, which occurred when drinking water from the Flint river wasn’t treated properly in a cost-cutting drive.

Nigel Farage has backed Donald Trump to be president of the United States, saying he would be "better for the UK" than Barack Obama.

The UK Independence Party leader also lambasted Hillary Clinton, saying she represented the "political elite" and "nothing on Earth" could ever compel him to support her.

In a televised interview Mr Farage said: "I think, for the United Kingdom, Trump will be better for us than Barack Obama’s been, of that there’s no doubt."

Mr Farage said Mrs Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, appeared to think she was entitled to the job of president.

He said: "There’s nothing on Earth that could persuade me to ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents the political elite. It’s almost as if she feels she has a divine right to have that job."

On June 30 2016 04:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Unsurprising that Farage would be the one to break decorum.

On June 30 2016 04:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


So it's breaking decorum when he shares his opinions you disagree with but when David Cameron has something to say about the election that aligns with your opinions it isn't?

On June 30 2016 03:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


Farage effectively endorses Trump over Clinton.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nigel-farage-says-donald-trump-would-be-better-for-britain-than/#

On June 30 2016 04:39 Sent. wrote:
He didn't endorse Trump, he just said Trump presidency would be better for the UK which isn't the same thing.

On June 30 2016 04:39 Sent. wrote:
He didn't endorse Trump, he just said Trump presidency would be better for the UK which isn't the same thing.

"There’s nothing on Earth that could persuade me to ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents the political elite. It’s almost as if she feels she has a divine right to have that job."

On June 30 2016 06:49 Plansix wrote:
Apparently Ted Cruz held a hearing about using the words "radical Islam" and its really bad that the Obama administration doesn't use it. And then the FBI, CIA and every expert witness with any credibility testified that saying "No, using it is bad. Don't do it. Its a charged phrase. The Obama administration is following our direction by not using it."

And then he has some conspiracy theorist as a witness. I am still catching up on this, but it sounds amazing.

On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.

He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general.

On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.

He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general.

On June 30 2016 09:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:
He doesn't say radical muslim for the same reason he does not call majority of shootings in the US radical christianism--because that's stupid.