|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A year ago, Flint, Mich., Mayor Karen Weaver declared a state of emergency because of lead-contaminated drinking water, attracting national outrage and sympathy, and millions of gallons of donated water.
But a year later donations have slowed to a trickle, and little has changed — unfiltered water here is still unsafe to drink.
With frigid temperatures and flurries swirling around outside, the crowd inside Flint's downtown transit station ebbs and flows as buses come and go.
At the end of one bus terminal, 10 large pallets of bottled water stand about 4 feet tall. Keith Hill fills two bags with about 20 pounds of water bottles before making the long trek home.
He hates doing this.
"Yeah, it's pretty much bad, because we can't do nothing about it, and they ain't doing nothing about it," Hill says. "City of Flint going down — that's making it worse."
Many residents say that Flint's decades old economic struggles only have been worsened by this crisis, and that despite all the attention, there has been little progress.
Flint Mayor Karen Weaver also is frustrated.
"We're in year three, actually, of not being able to drink water, and that still makes no sense to me," Weaver says. "And it shouldn't make sense to anybody else."
Flint's drinking water issues date back to 2014, when the city's water source was switched to the Flint River. Mistakes in treating the corrosive river water damaged pipes, which continue to leach lead. Despite tests showing lead levels declining, many people don't believe their tap water ever will be safe to drink again.
The state has spent more than $200 million in Flint distributing more than 3 million cases of bottled water and 145,000 water filters. State officials are trying to convince residents to use the filters, but many just don't trust them.
Source
|
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-households-now-owe-over-135933332.html
Usa is bankrupt,the rich have taken all the money lol. (yes I am over stating here)
Just to remind you,the American citizens and their taxes/ability to work are the collateral for the usa debt. But that collateral does not seem to be worth much these days.
While household income has grown by 28 percent in the past 13 years, it lags the the cost of living, which increased 30 percent during the period. So that's a net loss of living standard for the average citizen since 2003. Such a long time without any improvement.
|
On December 14 2016 16:19 a_flayer wrote:
Maybe if the leader of the free world invites Trump over to his vacation home in Siberia, he can convince Trump that climate change is indeed real, as even he has turned around on the subject.
Here's the deal with Russia: global warming hurts Russia the same as everyone else and it's a problem for them. But on the other hand it's helpful in that it makes the cold northern regions more hospitable. Russia has put a lot of work into changing its climate to make more cities that aren't frozen over. And while global warming / climate change is still a net loss, it's somewhat bad for Russia while being very bad for everyone else, so in an adversarial scenario it's not much of a hurry for Russia to resolve the issue. The result has been that Russia has cooperated with global efforts to prevent climate change, but they haven't really been among the passionate supporters of moving forward with great haste. They just move along at a very standard pace.
Though it's kind of moot since Russia isn't all that high up there by emissions. Russia has 5% of global emissions while China is 30%, US is 15%, and EU is 10%. So Russia isn't really at the center of the climate change issue, more like a side player.
|
Yeah the raging wildfires that are the sizes of some US states and would only get larger if the tundra releases more frozen methane is of major concern to Russia.
|
It's still a net loss, no doubt about that. But the thing is that it's a huge net loss for others, and a somewhat moderate one for Russia.
|
Global warming doesn't hurt rusia much,they all above sea level and warming up might make Siberia (and its oil) more accessible. Rusia also heavily depends on the oil and gas industry,which are in the end the cause for global warming.
Rusia might not emit that much themselves but the oil they produce and sell does.
|
So I just read this old story from July on why the Tim Kaine pick was a smart choice. Quoted with highlights below.
Tim Kaine is the right pick for VP: Our view
Low-key senator with high experience doesn't sound bad after months of Clinton's emails and Trump's bombast.
Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is not Mr. Excitement, as he'd be the first to say, but he is the smartest vice presidential pick Hillary Clinton could have made.
Kaine is not going to fire up the Bernie-or-bust crowd and he is, there’s no way to avoid noticing, a middle-age white guy (58, to be exact). But he does have the virtue of checking every other box on Clinton's wish list — starting with the confidence that, as she put it in an interview with PBS' Charlie Rose, her running mate “could literally get up one day and be the president of the United States.”
She called that her top priority. It is ours as well.
If résumé is destiny, Kaine was inevitable. He is a former city council member, mayor, lieutenant governor and governor of Virginia who has become a student of war and foreign policy in the Senate. As governor, he even had to prove himself in the tragic role presidents must play all too often, as consoler in chief after a mass shooting (the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre that left 32 people dead).
Kaine’s political credentials are also unmatched. A former national party chairman and a former Catholic missionary to Honduras, he has never lost an election and has a solid approval rating in his state. He may not be Hispanic, but he speaks fluent Spanish, as he demonstrated Saturday at his first official event, a rally with Clinton in Miami. He comes from an important swing state with 13 electoral votes — more than twice as many as Iowa (home of another finalist, former governor and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack). And, key to Democratic dreams of a Senate majority, Kaine’s successor will be named by a Democrat — Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.
Low-maintenance and low-key, a Southern politician married to the daughter of a former Republican governor, Kaine always seemed a mismatch for the job that his friend Barack Obama gave him in 2009 as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He isn’t a partisan pit bull on the order of, say, Dick Cheney. But Clinton will have plenty of willing and ferocious attackers, from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to a highly articulate and enraged cadre of #NeverTrump conservatives.
Those on the populist left would have much preferred a progressive firebrand such as Sanders or Warren on the ticket with Clinton. Instead, they’re stuck with Kaine, who is opposed to abortion and enthusiastic about trade. Though Kaine is perceived as wobbly on abortion rights, he says these are “moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves.” His record in the Senate — 100% scores from Planned Parenthood and NARAL — suggests he means what he says and should quiet liberal concerns.
A key sticking point is Kaine’s openness to international trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Republican National Committee began driving that wedge weeks ago, calling Kaine a nightmare for Sanders backers. The party dug up 2007 quotes in which Kaine said he is “passionate” about trade and called protectionism a “loser's mentality.” In a perhaps Freudian spelling slip, the GOP even described a pro-TPP Kaine vote as “yay” instead of “yea.”
Kaine's abrupt post-selection transformation into a TPP foe is unconvincing. But the reality of Donald Trump may help drive up turnout among Bernie holdouts, even if the Democratic ticket is all they never wanted.
Kaine’s other potential looming liability is his acceptance of $160,000 in legal gifts when he held state office. His aides say most of the money was for work-related travel, there has been no question of any quid pro quo, and he went well beyond requirements for both disclosure and reimbursement. Trump, though he is a badly compromised messenger, was already launching broadsides to capitalize on widespread mistrust of Clinton. He immediately expanded them to include Kaine.
Like Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, his Republican counterpart, Kaine brings a steady temperament and unpretentious personality to the campaign. Voters might welcome that as a pleasant contrast to the high-flying Clintons and to Trump, who is obsessed with money, winning and “10s.” Kaine is no matinee-idol "10" and doesn’t mind saying so. Sitting in the back seat of a car with a reporter once during a long-ago campaign, he made so many jokes about his looks that his press aide finally sighed and asked him to stop.
Self-deprecation in a candidate is an attractive quality, one that Pence displayed Wednesday night in his Cleveland convention speech. But as close as they are to the perfect VPs, neither Kaine nor Pence can solve the real problem plaguing both their parties: a flawed, unpopular nominee at the top of the ticket.
Source
Four major flaws that are obvious in hindsight there:
1. The idea that Bernie Sanders folk will fall in line to prevent Trump despite being ignored.
2. The idea that the Hispanics are going to be the key swing vote, when it turned out that the white working class was.
3. The idea that trade is an issue that only progressives are passionate about, when it turned out to be what clinched the election here.
4. The idea that people were looking for experience, rather than change (i.e. populism).
IMO an interesting insight into the policy side of where the Clinton camp went wrong on their campaign.
|
Donald's going to drive Bernie turnout and massive Hispanic turnout. Oh how wrong they were. Gave a bunch of Republicans big goofy smiles election night when Florida wasn't called quickly from that Hispanic wave and all the rest.
Now how about some honest post game analysis (less Comey and fake news) and a second moveon.org?
|
Interesting, they relied on intent to decide whether to charge...
A secret U.S. military investigation in 2010 determined that Michael T. Flynn, the retired Army general tapped to serve as national security adviser in the Trump White House, “inappropriately shared” classified information with foreign military officers in Afghanistan, newly released documents show.
Although Flynn lacked authorization to share the classified material, he was not disciplined or reprimanded after the investigation concluded that he did not act “knowingly” and that “there was no actual or potential damage to national security as a result,” according to Army records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.
Washington Post
|
Former CIA director Leon Panetta said on Wednesday that President-elect Donald Trump risked being blamed after any potential attack on the United States if he refused to receive more regular intelligence briefings.
U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump is receiving an average of one presidential intelligence briefing a week - far fewer than most of his recent predecessors - but that his deputy Mike Pence gets briefings around six days a week.
...
"I've seen presidents who have asked questions about whether that intelligence is verifiable, what are the sources for that intelligence, but I have never seen a president who said, 'I don't want that stuff,'" Panetta said.
"If we endure another attack and the intelligence officials had indications or information regarding that attack and the president did not want to listen to that, for whatever reason, the responsibility for that attack would fall on the president."
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump said he found the intelligence briefings repetitive and that he already understood potential threats.
"You know, I'm a smart person. I don't have to be told the same things in the same words every single day for the next eight years," Trump said.
Yahoo
Sadly, if the media reported that Trump missed intelligence before an attack, his supporters would disbelieve that information because the media reported on it.
|
On December 15 2016 01:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Former CIA director Leon Panetta said on Wednesday that President-elect Donald Trump risked being blamed after any potential attack on the United States if he refused to receive more regular intelligence briefings.
U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump is receiving an average of one presidential intelligence briefing a week - far fewer than most of his recent predecessors - but that his deputy Mike Pence gets briefings around six days a week.
...
"I've seen presidents who have asked questions about whether that intelligence is verifiable, what are the sources for that intelligence, but I have never seen a president who said, 'I don't want that stuff,'" Panetta said.
"If we endure another attack and the intelligence officials had indications or information regarding that attack and the president did not want to listen to that, for whatever reason, the responsibility for that attack would fall on the president."
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump said he found the intelligence briefings repetitive and that he already understood potential threats.
"You know, I'm a smart person. I don't have to be told the same things in the same words every single day for the next eight years," Trump said. YahooSadly, if the media reported that Trump missed intelligence before an attack, his supporters would disbelieve that information because the media reported on it.
Panetta's argument is a pretty stupid one. Trump doesn't need to directly hear every briefing as long as he has empowered someone to hear the briefings and act as appropriate. This is basic delegation.
|
Indeed. A good leader knows what to delegate to other people. I don't see anything wrong with what Trump is doing.
|
On December 15 2016 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2016 01:42 Doodsmack wrote:Former CIA director Leon Panetta said on Wednesday that President-elect Donald Trump risked being blamed after any potential attack on the United States if he refused to receive more regular intelligence briefings.
U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump is receiving an average of one presidential intelligence briefing a week - far fewer than most of his recent predecessors - but that his deputy Mike Pence gets briefings around six days a week.
...
"I've seen presidents who have asked questions about whether that intelligence is verifiable, what are the sources for that intelligence, but I have never seen a president who said, 'I don't want that stuff,'" Panetta said.
"If we endure another attack and the intelligence officials had indications or information regarding that attack and the president did not want to listen to that, for whatever reason, the responsibility for that attack would fall on the president."
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump said he found the intelligence briefings repetitive and that he already understood potential threats.
"You know, I'm a smart person. I don't have to be told the same things in the same words every single day for the next eight years," Trump said. YahooSadly, if the media reported that Trump missed intelligence before an attack, his supporters would disbelieve that information because the media reported on it. Panetta's argument is a pretty stupid one. Trump doesn't need to directly hear every briefing as long as he has empowered someone to hear the briefings and act as appropriate. This is basic delegation.
Well "acting as appropriate" is an interesting question because Trump is at the top of the chain of command. In the court of public opinion, though, successes and failures during the president's time in power are caused by him. So this could be an especially bad blame game (and let's remember all the blaming Trump has done on terrorism) if the commander in chief is delegating like that.
|
So it's reasonable to have a president that's unfit to make any decisions about any policy that concerns the countries that the US collects intelligence about?
|
I hope that people are taking note of how politicized the CIA has become. And it's not just Panetta. This guy has also been needlessly stirring shit up for purely political reasons -- and he's the same guy who's responsible for fabricating the Benghazi/youtube intelligence.
|
On December 15 2016 01:54 RvB wrote:
Indeed. A good leader knows what to delegate to other people. I don't see anything wrong with what Trump is doing.
Well, essentially he is delegating away his power as Commander in Chief, which is one of the principal powers of the president. I guess we're fine with Commander in Chief Mike Pence? Or is Trump's gigantic ego going to get in the way and he'll want control, with his woefully incomplete information due to missing all the security briefings, when push comes to shove?
|
Maybe he reads the minutes of the briefings?
|
|
|
Still think being Trump's press secretary is the best job, xDaunt?
|
On December 15 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
Still think being Trump's press secretary is the best job, xDaunt?
I want Trump to appoint Milo as press secretary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
