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.
You have speculated about the worst possible outcome without denoting that you are joking. This has angered the commissar LL. You will limit your discussion of the motherland to purely factual, proven information or clearly note it as not true humor.
Now back to talking about the amazing feat of not lighting the podium on fire during the speech. Trump has really changed.
On March 02 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote: Getting a little too conspiratorial there matey.
That's the response that scares me. Where there's smoke etc. And in this case it's billowing from Russia to Ukraine to Cyprus to the USA. Treating the mere possibility of collusion or blackmail as total bullshit is dangerous.
If you think Trump has bad ties to Russia go ahead.
Trying to imply that lots of different events that have no reason to be assumed to be connected is pretty much textbook conspiracizing.
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote: IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
I am honestly more troubled by the fact that our news media is fawning over a mediocre speech instead of using every available resource tp track down the Trump>Russia truth before all the potential sources are killed. Excuse me, I meant before they have "heart attacks" or fall off buildings. Been an awful lot of mysterious deaths and disappearances lately.
And let's not forget about the connections on this side of the world!
Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Rex Tillerson, Michael Cohen, Richard Burt, Howard Lorber, Wilbur Ross, Roger Stone and Jack Kingston.
But yeah, let's get all teary eyed about that Seal widow and yammer on about Obamacare lol.
I mean it was the State the Union speech and a significant departure from past speeches and not ramblings of a Russia truther alleging it's all connected. Maybe a good Nicolas Cage movie pitch for you though. While boring people are talking about the legislative fight of the decade.
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote: IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
I am honestly more troubled by the fact that our news media is fawning over a mediocre speech instead of using every available resource tp track down the Trump>Russia truth before all the potential sources are killed. Excuse me, I meant before they have "heart attacks" or fall off buildings. Been an awful lot of mysterious deaths and disappearances lately.
And let's not forget about the connections on this side of the world!
Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Rex Tillerson, Michael Cohen, Richard Burt, Howard Lorber, Wilbur Ross, Roger Stone and Jack Kingston.
But yeah, let's get all teary eyed about that Seal widow and yammer on about Obamacare lol.
I mean it was the State the Union speech and a significant departure from past speeches and not ramblings of a Russia truther alleging it's all connected. Maybe a good Nicolas Cage movie pitch for you though. While boring people are talking about the legislative fight of the decade.
Lol. It's okay, it will get out sooner or later. My bet is on the former. I would encourage anyone who doesn't dismiss the possibility out of hand to call their local representative and pressure for an investigation. And for those who don't, you were on Trump's side from day one, so i wouldn't expect a change now. Frankly, it doesn't bother me. In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that having opposing viewpoints here on TL, however few there seem to be, is a great thing.
On March 01 2017 14:57 Nyxisto wrote: isn't exactly working out for Corbyn is it. The base can love you to death but you don't win an election by winning over your base. There's no need to over adjust really. Dems lost by 70k votes in three states this time, if < 0.1% of the population would have changed their minds you wouldn't have that discussion. Not to mention that three consecutive party wins in the US are very rare.
I think people are a little quick to see relations where none are, not everything is a policy issue.
They didn't just barely lose, they barely lost to Donald Trump. I don't really think you're dishonest when you say stuff like this but really how do you not see that "barely losing" isn't the same thing when you lose to a decent candidate or when you lose to someone who has perhaps the most blatantly shitty program I've ever seen (down to "I'm going to fight against income inequality by taxing the rich less"), is already hated by a significant number of his own population and ridiculed by an even more significant number, and can barely put coherent sentences together?
We can also pretend that this election is the only thing that happened and that the democrats haven't lost a zillion seats with their strategy since 2009 but that's not really productive either now is it.
Also are we really going to go to Corbyn every time now just because Dershowitz mentioned him in the middle of his propaganda piece?
The republicans lost much harder to the same person. The fact is that for all of Trump's blatantly obvious flaws, we have to accept that he also has some (less obvious) qualities that resonate strongly with a significant amount of Americans. I mean, I definitely want democrats to push harder leftward, I definitely agree that Trump is a disaster, but I don't think he's as easy of an opponent to defeat as some people like to pretend. The whole, never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience holds some truth, and in a presidential campaign, you have no choice but to argue with him. Hillary being the democrat choice made the case of bringing her down much easier because a couple decades of smearing makes stuff stick, but I think no matter the candidate chosen, the person opposing Trump would have seen their favorability numbers tank during the election period - media fragmentation was a thing before the election as well.
It's not a huge surprise to me that Donald Trump would beat the other republicans, given that on republican subjects he's basically saying the same general things with less filters (bonus, because "political correctness" is baaaad -_-) and when he departs it's on things that they appreciate more than what the other republicans have to say. Republicans should certainly fear someone like that because they're not in a very honest business in the first place so a better salesman is a real threat. The other side actually has sane policies on their side. An advantage in facts coupled with an advantage in fighting a ridiculous manchild with hateful rhetoric, that's not material for a close race, and we're doing a disservice to America when we pretend it should have been expected to be one just because they did happen to lose it.
This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer.
Will you take part of the responsibility for simply assuming that because I believe the republican platform is wrong and/or dishonest, a lot, on a lot of subjects, it must be because I think I'm better than them, and not simply because I've studied it and come to that conclusion naturally?
Yep, and I'll further state that it's a fair assumption given your post. Hell, let's really have fun: I'll double down and state that I doubt you understand the republican platform half as well as you think you do. Europeans generally struggle with their understanding of American conservative politics. And your writing off of the politics of a solid 40% or so of the country as being "not sane" and "dishonest" is patently ridiculous.
And lest anyone think that I'm being unfair to our European brethren, I have the same criticisms of many American democrats as should be clear from my previous posts on the subject. Because of the liberal dominance of major media and academia, the average democrat has been instilled with a misplaced sense of inherent superiority in his/her politics. It's this sense of inherent superiority that gives rise to the arrogance and dismissiveness that we see from our friends on the left, which leaves them with some rather large blind spots to their own political vulnerabilities and to understanding the opposition.
At the same time, you have a whole party that has claimed for 30 years that drastically cutting taxes on the richest of the richest will benefit the average Joe despite repeated evidence of the contrary, that denies climate science and who counts an alarming number of leaders who claim that the world is 6000 years old. Oh and who chose Donald fucking Trump as a president, a man who looks and behaves like a grotesque superhero comic books vilain. It makes it very fucking hard to take you guys seriously.
There might be some great subtlelty in american conservatism that us european are not smart enough to get, but yeah, from the outside, the GOP looks like a bunch of hypocrites and lunatics. I'm still waiting for evidences that it's not the case. There is John Mc Cain, who seems like a decent human being, that's the best I've found.
i'm inclining more towards all (most/many) politicians tend towards hypocrites and lunatics, mostly hypocrites serving some side or another. It's just far more obvious some times than others. It's much harder to tell for the ones that are closer to you ideologically, whether they're actually good, or just happened to pick correctly by chance/coincidence.
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote: IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
I am honestly more troubled by the fact that our news media is fawning over a mediocre speech instead of using every available resource tp track down the Trump>Russia truth before all the potential sources are killed. Excuse me, I meant before they have "heart attacks" or fall off buildings. Been an awful lot of mysterious deaths and disappearances lately.
And let's not forget about the connections on this side of the world!
Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Rex Tillerson, Michael Cohen, Richard Burt, Howard Lorber, Wilbur Ross, Roger Stone and Jack Kingston.
But yeah, let's get all teary eyed about that Seal widow and yammer on about Obamacare lol.
I mean it was the State the Union speech and a significant departure from past speeches and not ramblings of a Russia truther alleging it's all connected. Maybe a good Nicolas Cage movie pitch for you though. While boring people are talking about the legislative fight of the decade.
Lol. It's okay, it will get out sooner or later. My bet is on the former. I would encourage anyone who doesn't dismiss the possibility out of hand to call their local representative and pressure for an investigation. And for those who don't, you were on Trump's side from day one, so i wouldn't expect a change now. Frankly, it doesn't bother me. In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that having opposing viewpoints here on TL, however few there seem to be, is a great thing.
And by "on Trump's side" you mean denying a conspiracy to kill people that know what really happened with Trump and Russia. And so far, your "opposing viewpoints" is just you, on the internet, claiming the deaths are part of a grand conspiracy. I mean you got others here that believe as you do? I'm starting to think you're trolling to see how many gullible posters would believe your cockamamie truther story.
On March 02 2017 04:10 LightSpectra wrote: IMO the biggest problem is that today's Republicans (by this I mean Tea Partiers and Trumpites) get their news from FOX and The Blaze and Breitbart, who constantly lie off their asses to please their right-wing viewers. I don't know of any easy solution to this. Attempting to debunk them merits "fake news" accusations. I think maybe the best solution is widening libel/slander laws so that media outlets that report blatant partisan lies can get fined for dishonesty, but it's not a great solution, and I'm not even sure it would have any effect. Right-wingers would just cry about government persecution and censorship if they noticed that FOX was getting fined more often than other channels.
I don't have a terribly high opinion of right-wingers in most other countries like Canada and France, but to slightly paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: they're "wrong about absolutely everything, but [...] wrong within normal parameters."
I guess just educating people when you can is the only thing we can possibly do. That, or wait for some true catastrophe to come from the GOP, one that's so bad and blatant that even Trump supporters can't turn a blind eye.
I am honestly more troubled by the fact that our news media is fawning over a mediocre speech instead of using every available resource tp track down the Trump>Russia truth before all the potential sources are killed. Excuse me, I meant before they have "heart attacks" or fall off buildings. Been an awful lot of mysterious deaths and disappearances lately.
And let's not forget about the connections on this side of the world!
Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Rex Tillerson, Michael Cohen, Richard Burt, Howard Lorber, Wilbur Ross, Roger Stone and Jack Kingston.
But yeah, let's get all teary eyed about that Seal widow and yammer on about Obamacare lol.
I mean it was the State the Union speech and a significant departure from past speeches and not ramblings of a Russia truther alleging it's all connected. Maybe a good Nicolas Cage movie pitch for you though. While boring people are talking about the legislative fight of the decade.
Lol. It's okay, it will get out sooner or later. My bet is on the former. I would encourage anyone who doesn't dismiss the possibility out of hand to call their local representative and pressure for an investigation. And for those who don't, you were on Trump's side from day one, so i wouldn't expect a change now. Frankly, it doesn't bother me. In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that having opposing viewpoints here on TL, however few there seem to be, is a great thing.
And by "on Trump's side" you mean denying a conspiracy to kill people that know what really happened with Trump and Russia. And so far, your "opposing viewpoints" is just you, on the internet, claiming the deaths are part of a grand conspiracy. I mean you got others here that believe as you do? I'm starting to think you're trolling to see how many gullible posters would believe your cockamamie truther story.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant people who are very obviously pro-trump, people who can play devil's advocate for both sides, and the people who despise him. I have seen all on TL to varying degrees. I apologize for not wording that properly. I won't bother to engage on conspiracy, as there would be no productive discussion.
Spring is arriving ever earlier in the northern hemisphere. One sedge species in Greenland is springing to growth 26 days earlier than it did a decade ago. And in the US, spring arrived 22 days early this year in Washington DC.
The evidence comes from those silent witnesses, the natural things that respond to climate signals. The relatively new science of phenology – the calendar record of first bud, first flower, first nesting behaviour and first migrant arrivals – has over the last three decades repeatedly confirmed meteorological fears of global warming as a consequence of the combustion of fossil fuels.
Researchers say the evidence from the plant world is consistent with the instrumental record: 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, and it was the third record-breaking year in succession. Sixteen of the hottest years ever recorded have happened in the 21st century.
The most dramatic changes are observed in the high Arctic, the fastest-warming place on the planet, according to a study in Biology Letters. As the polar sea ice retreats, the growing season gets ever longer and arrives earlier.
The pattern is not consistent: grey willow sticks to its original timetable, and dwarf birch growth has advanced about five days earlier for each decade. But the sedge, almost four weeks ahead of its timetable in a decade, holds the record, according to a study that observed one plot at a field site in west Greenland, 150 miles inland, for 12 years.
“When we started studying this, I never would have imagined we’d be talking about a 26-day per decade rate of advance,” says Eric Post, a polar ecologist at the University of California, Davis, department of wildlife, fish and conservation biology, who has been studying the Arctic for 27 years. “That’s almost an entire growing season. That’s an eye-opening rate of change.”
Caribou come to the study site during the calving season, to graze on the rich plant life of the brief Arctic summer. The caribou set their migration calendar by day-length. But some of the plants prefer to respond to temperature, which means that by the time the caribou arrive, the plants have flourished and the pickings are not as nutritious. So fewer calves are born and more die.
“That’s one example of the consequences of this for consumer species like caribou, who have a limited window to build up resources before going into the next winter,” Post says. “With the most recent study, we’re taking a step towards understanding how extensive and cryptic the effects of sea ice loss might be in the Arctic.”
Further south, spring keeps on springing, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS), which has just published a new set of maps based on phenological observations.
And, once again, an early spring doesn’t mean a sunnier, kinder world for everybody. Ticks and mosquitoes become more active, pollen seasons last longer. Crops could flourish or be at risk from a sudden late frost or summer drought.
Plants could bloom before the arrival of the birds, bees and butterflies that feed on and pollinate the flowers, with consequences for both the plant and the pollinator.
“While these earlier springs might not seem like a big deal – and who among us doesn’t appreciate a balmy day or a break in dreary winter weather – they pose significant challenges for planning and managing important issues that affect our economy and our society,” says one of the authors of the report, Dr Jake Weltzin, a USGS ecologist and national director of the USA National Phenology Network.
On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote: The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith.
I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work.
The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being.
Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want.
As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs.
Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses.
Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them.
I would argue that the conservatives are not making any inroads to convince democrats or liberals that they are right. As I said, I grew up in a dirt poor rural town. My parents owned a small business that employed 10 people. Every single one of those people loved talking down to the “city people” that don’t understand “real life”. These are people who got mad that you get paid $12 per hour in Boston for serving coffee, because they don’t get $12 hour for their job.
So how about that brilliant Trump plan to cut 1/3 of State Department employees? And now apparently 1/5 of the EPA. Guess it's good news for us government contractors, they pay more for us than the employees being slashed.
On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote: The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.
I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith.
I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work.
The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being.
Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want.
As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs.
Dems still don't get religion and set themselves up for antagonistic relationships. You repeat "significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought" often enough and people end up with the surprising idea that their vote isn't valuable to them. As long as your reinforce the binary "You're either in favor of mollycoddling religious idiot voters or you're part of the new rational thought ascendency," you're feeding into Trumpian us-or-them rhetoric. You want a competitive second choice not pick GOP again because fuck those entitled assholes that preach religion is the opiate for the masses.
Hide your contempt, people are less open to your argument when you make it clear you despise them.
I would argue that the conservatives are not making any inroads to convince democrats or liberals that they are right. As I said, I grew up in a dirt poor rural town. My parents owned a small business that employed 10 people. Every single one of those people loved talking down to the “city people” that don’t understand “real life”. These are people who got mad that you get paid $12 per hour in Boston for serving coffee, because they don’t get $12 hour for their job.
On March 02 2017 07:50 Doodsmack wrote: So how about that brilliant Trump plan to cut 1/3 of State Department employees? And now apparently 1/5 of the EPA. Guess it's good news for us government contractors, they pay more for us than the employees being slashed.
It sounds good until you realize that most of those people don't make a lot of money. But folks like Bannon love that shit. Clear out the civil servants, fill the ranks with your own people.
On March 02 2017 08:06 On_Slaught wrote: I love Trumps bullshit line "we will do more with less." No you fool; this isn't how reality works. You'll just do less.
The only way you do more with less is if the majority of what you do is wasteful and get rid of the waste in excess of your decrease in resources. No way in hell this government is doing that.
On March 02 2017 08:06 On_Slaught wrote: I love Trumps bullshit line "we will do more with less." No you fool; this isn't how reality works. You'll just do less.
The only way you do more with less is if the majority of what you do is wasteful and get rid of the waste in excess of your decrease in resources. No way in hell this government is doing that.
Well, some parts of the military probably are, but instead we're increasing their funding
On March 02 2017 08:06 On_Slaught wrote: I love Trumps bullshit line "we will do more with less." No you fool; this isn't how reality works. You'll just do less.
I'm pretty sure if American adopted a single player healthcare system and properly regulate it, it would be possible to do more with less.
Starting today, the people of Flint, Mich., will have to bear the full cost of the water flowing through their pipes.
It's a frustrating prospect for Flint residents, who have been struggling with a crisis over lead-laced water that started nearly three years ago.
"We have seniors that are already making decisions between buying medication or paying their water bill," as one Flint resident told Michigan Radio's Steve Carmody.
For about a year, Carmody says, the state paid about two-thirds of residents' water bills, spending more than $40 million "to pay for water that didn't meet federal quality standards dating back to 2014, when the city's drinking water source was switched to the Flint River."
Recent tests showed levels in the water to be within federal limits, prompting the state to end the subsidy on the last day of February.
The state's Department of Environmental Quality announced on Jan. 24 that Flint's water system is testing "at levels comparable to cities with similar size and age of infrastructure in Michigan and across the nation."
Michigan Radio reported that dozens of Flint residents protested last month at City Hall, chanting, "We don't pay for poison water." Nayyirah Shariff, the director of Flint Rising, told the member station that it's a "kick in the teeth to Flint residents."
The water problem began when Flint switched to a new water source in 2014 in order to save money, but failed to implement corrosion controls.
The governor's office formally notified the City of Flint that it would be ending water relief credits in a letter dated Feb. 7. State and city officials differ over whether Flint was given adequate notice.
Flint's mayor, Karen Weaver, has said the city was caught off guard. She said state officials promised the payments would continue through March 31. "This is a trust issue, that's what it is," she told reporters last month. "State officials say one thing, and then do another."
Michigan officials advise residents to continue filtering their water "due to the chance for disruption to pipes as the city replaces lead service lines."
Weaver wants to see state subsidies continue until the water is "tap drinkable" without a filter, as Carmody tells our Newscast Unit.
It's worth noting that the cost of water in Flint is "extremely high compared to other cities," according to Michigan Radio. Part of the reason that the state subsidized the water was to encourage residents to let it move through the corroded pipes, because an additive would help the pipes recover.
Michigan Radio points out additional concerns — an increase in delinquent accounts could lead to residential customers having their service cut off. It could also "crimp the city's ability to continue paying for water from Detroit."
On March 02 2017 08:06 On_Slaught wrote: I love Trumps bullshit line "we will do more with less." No you fool; this isn't how reality works. You'll just do less.
I'm pretty sure if American adopted a single player healthcare system and properly regulate it, it would be possible to do more with less.
Of course it is possible in specific and usually extreme circumstances. I was more talking about the state department and the EPA. If Trump gets his way those departments certainly will be doing a lot less.
EPT
