• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Hink said:
I find it funny that we as a country care what the founding father's think about anything today. There are lots of discussions that start with that line. The idea that men 200+ years ago would be able to envision a country in 200 years is stupid. They couldn't, and they didn't. The documents they signed are not infallible, nor is our constitution or any other document. The courts have made whatever the founding father's thought pointless anyways, they have just interpreted those documents for today's time.

I think we go back to the Founding Father's because we seem to remember them as respectable and wise. Instead, we should be forcing our currently elected officials to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today. I get we have legal documents that force us to follow certain rules and laws. But we also have chambers of government that are elected to change those rules and laws, and where necessary amend our constitution to cover the current world we live in. Instead we take these old documents and these old men and try and pretend that they knew about the internet and 3D printed guns and would have had thoughts on them....
Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree with you on this. In terms of holding our elected officials accountable to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today is so very right, yet never done. Which gets back to my point of the founding fathers. They were not perfect and all had their own flaws. However there are multiple examples of each of them doing the right thing instead of doing the easy thing or the thing that would preserve their wealth, power, status, and their life.

But what are those 'wise and respectable choices' that you talk about today? I think as a culture, it be come more difficult to understand what those are based on a persons foundation beliefs on what the role of the government is and what it isn't. Is the government in place to protect us from ourselves and be our babysitter, or is it the watch dog that protects us from outside forces that desire to do us harm. As you know, I will side closer to the 10th Amendment on this one. And while their is not a definitive consensus today, it was the same 200 years ago and there were many things within the Constitution that are based on compromise. They were willing to forego party politics to create documents that would get ratified by the colonies.

I think that in some areas we are wiser today then citizens 200 years ago, but all too often we get wrapped up in heavy handed approaches to real issues that need to be solved instead of elegant ones that would preserve the intent of these founding documents, protecting the rights of the many, while addressing the issues at hand. Trump's wall is a great example of this. Instead of focusing on ways to improve the immigration process and allow for people to come to the US in a legal and orderly way, he wants to build a wall to keep everyone out. Some gun bills are the same way. The intent is well meaning but the result does nothing to solve the issue and prevent further violence.

Call me stupid if you will, because I believe that many of the founding fathers attempted to envision foundation and fundamental rights that would extend well over 200 years into the future, and I say this because there is evidence that they, especially Franklin and Jefferson, looked as far back as 3,000 years to establish something that had the potential to stand the test of time and that would be adaptable to changing needs. I also think that they did envision potential future issues and even provided an instruction manual in the event that things with the Government got too far out of hand. The Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Furthermore, Article 5 of the Constitution outlined how to get amendments approved.

Finally, you mentioned the internet and 3D printed guns. You are correct, they did not take these into consideration, nor do I think they needed to. I think that many places have laws against the production of a firearm that is not detectable by xray or metal detector. We don't need a constitutional amendment for that... we just need a way to enforce it.
 
Despite Trump administration denials, new evidence suggests census citizenship question was crafted to benefit white Republicans

The evidence was found in the files of the prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller after his death in August. It reveals that Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ ” and that Trump administration officials purposely obscured Hofeller’s role in court proceedings, lawyers for plaintiffs challenging the question wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Click to expand...
 
The whole USS John S. McCain things is disgusting: first, that Trump would be offended by the name of the ship/its presence in Yokosuka; second, that the White House would instruct (order?) covering the name of a US naval vessel; third, that the Navy (and perhaps as high as the acting SecDef) would comply; and, last, that there appears to be some CYA going on about it in that a barge was/was not moved to obstruct the vessel name and acting SecDef did/did not know about it.

I guess it really is still the same Navy that court martialed exactly one (1) skipper for losing his ship during WWII, and had the temerity to have the (former) enemy combatant's skipper testify against that commander. This nation is going to hell in a handbasket.
 
Don't forget the patch thing

Military personnel often wear unofficial unit patches, sometimes imbued with humorous images, as part of an effort to build unit cohesion and morale.
However, service members are prohibited from exhibiting political messages while in uniform.
Click to expand...

www.cnn.com

Navy reviewing 'Make Aircrew Great Again' patches worn by sailors during Trump visit | CNN Politics

The Navy is conducting a review to examine whether President Donald Trump-themed patches worn by sailors on their uniforms during the President's visit to the USS Wasp violated Navy rules.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

www.foxnews.com

Navy reviewing wearing of Trump patches aboard ship

The federal government is reportedly reviewing its Defense Department policy regulations on dress code after some service members wore a uniform patch with the words “Make Aircrew Great Again” during President Trump’s visit to their ship in Japan on Tuesday.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
Gedunker said:
I began reading the Mueller Report last night and it is pretty depressing. I'm some 60 pages in and so far I haven't seen any "total exoneration" whatsoever, not even hinted.

I'll keep y'all updated as I read more.:r:
Click to expand...

I’ve been listening to it on my drive to work. There are multiple audiobooks of it now. I’m only about 1/3 through it but it’s pretty clear to me that most people commenting publicly about it have either not read it or are willfully misrepresenting it.
 
imaplanner said:
I’ve been listening to it on my drive to work. There are multiple audiobooks of it now. I’m only about 1/3 through it but it’s pretty clear to me that most people commenting publicly about it have either not read it or are willfully misrepresenting it.
Click to expand...

I finished Volume I about two weeks ago but life has interrupted in the interim and I haven't begun Volume II yet. A college graduation and a week-long visit from out-of-town family has a way of eating into my reading time.

I believe you are correct that most people (in Congress and the media, especially, but also just plain citizens) have not read the Mueller Report or, like POTUS and the AG, have no compunction about willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting the findings.

That there has been no movement whatever by Congress (I'm looking squarely at you Mitch McConnell) to prevent a repeat of the Russian Army hacking, stealing and disseminating private information to the clear benefit of one candidate and the complete detriment of another candidate (and/or other nefarious actors doing something similar in coming elections) is an absolute dereliction of duty. I question whether social media companies have done enough to prevent foreign citizens from again willfully duping Americans about upcoming elections. And I hope that the next time a campaign is approached by a foreign agent offering dirt on their opponent, the response is to go straight to the FBI, rather than to reply "If it is what you say it is, I love it".

Frankly, I thought Mueller let campaign staff, including POTUS' son, off easy under the grounds that they were duped/ignorant. I was always taught that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I believe more than a slap on the wrist of Jr would have been indeed appropriate and a stern warning to future campaigners.

Finally, if you are considering reading the report but imagine it to be like reading the Congressional Record for fun and enjoyment, think again. Yes, the report is heavily footnoted and the footnotes can get into federal legalese. Yes, it is redacted, but the redactions do not dramatically impact the report's readability. You can read the main body and find it easy to follow and, dare I say, compelling reading. Here at Memorial Day, I would suggest you owe it to those servicemen that didn't come back so that we could maintain our Republic, and inform yourself about the mob currently in control in the WH.
 
DVD said:
Don't forget the patch thing



www.cnn.com

Navy reviewing 'Make Aircrew Great Again' patches worn by sailors during Trump visit | CNN Politics

The Navy is conducting a review to examine whether President Donald Trump-themed patches worn by sailors on their uniforms during the President's visit to the USS Wasp violated Navy rules.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

www.foxnews.com

Navy reviewing wearing of Trump patches aboard ship

The federal government is reportedly reviewing its Defense Department policy regulations on dress code after some service members wore a uniform patch with the words “Make Aircrew Great Again” during President Trump’s visit to their ship in Japan on Tuesday.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...


They were air crew. Nobody expects much out of them in terms of professionalism.
 
JNA said:
Embarked ground troops and ship company wouldn't do that ?
Click to expand...

Ground pounders and ships company don't stoop to wearing patches. :troll:

In the Marines, generally the only folks who wear any sort of patch are folks on the air side of operations. Even those not directly involved with flight operations will often wear flight suits or jump suits :r: and put a unit or personal patch on and they definitely catch flak for it. There's a reason we say that they "swing with the wing". When I was on a MEU I was in the Command Element and if our CO or SgtMaj caught some Marine winger with any sort of patch on their uniform, they'd rip it off immediately. IIRC, the Navy had a different policy and was more lenient. The only time a Marine was permitted to put a patch on was if we were part of a joint operation with foreign nations and might be required to put on an American flag patch, and even then we would resist.

Things have likely changed somewhat in the time since I got out, but a common saying used to be something along the lines of, "If you wanted to wear patches, join the Army or be a clown."

Just like there is interservice rivalry between the various branches, there is also intra-service rivalry: In the Marines, all folks on the ground side think they are tougher than the wingers. Wingers think they are smarter than everybody. Combat arms/infantry think they are better than everybody including all the other ground combat element forces like arty, tanks, recon, LAR/AAV, etc. but those specialized GCE units think their sh!t don't stink. Everybody looks down on pogues and paper pushers but even they look down on each other because of course being randomly sent to a G-1 or a G-3 instead of an S-1 or an S-3 means you are somehow better than those people doing the same job as you at the battalion level.

Oh, and everybody hates PMO.
 
Last edited:
What is is about Trump that drives his supporters to slap his name up in tribute on their cars, houses, barns, sheds, and the like?

ir4ix6p.jpg


Back in the day, I never saw pickup trucks with REAGAN in big letters on the side, or BUSH painted on the side of some metal building that's home to Joe Bob's Machine Shop or Ray Bob's Small Engine Repair.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Ground pounders and ships company don't stoop to wearing patches. :troll:

In the Marines, generally the only folks who wear any sort of patch are folks on the air side of operations. Even those not directly involved with flight operations will often wear flight suits or jump suits :r: and put a unit or personal patch on and they definitely catch flak for it. There's a reason we say that they "swing with the wing". When I was on a MEU I was in the Command Element and if our CO or SgtMaj caught some Marine winger with any sort of patch on their uniform, they'd rip it off immediately. IIRC, the Navy had a different policy and was more lenient. The only time a Marine was permitted to put a patch on was if we were part of a joint operation with foreign nations and might be required to put on an American flag patch, and even then we would resist.

Things have likely changed somewhat in the time since I got out, but a common saying used to be something along the lines of, "If you wanted to wear patches, join the Army or be a clown."

Just like there is interservice rivalry between the various branches, there is also intra-service rivalry: In the Marines, all folks on the ground side think they are tougher than the wingers. Wingers think they are smarter than everybody. Combat arms/infantry think they are better than everybody including all the other ground combat element forces like arty, tanks, recon, LAR/AAV, etc. but those specialized GCE units think their sh!t don't stink. Everybody looks down on pogues and paper pushers but even they look down on each other because of course being randomly sent to a G-1 or a G-3 instead of an S-1 or an S-3 means you are somehow better than those people doing the same job as you at the battalion level.

Oh, and everybody hates PMO.
Click to expand...

Back in my day when people stayed off my lawn we didn't have these problems. The only unique patch you could wear as ship's company was the command rocker. Air crew had those velcro patches on their flight suits that they would slap on squadron patches. Air crew was different. Most of us just thought it was extra crap so why deal with it. The only extra stuff I wore was a decorative lanyard for my bosun's pipe, but that's specific to only bosuns and you had to make it yourself. It wasn't something that was sold. It was also only worn if you were the person doing the calls (the whistling noise when important people come around). I'm sure other ships did other things, but generally people on my ship would never want to deal with that crap. It would mean standing at attention for an hour while some politicians drones on about how important he is. I'd rather hide below deck and watch Jerry Springer. We also never would have consented to cover the name of our ship. Why would you go and disrespect the Admiral or whoever your ship was named for. Knowing my Captains they would have asked us to paint the name in neon colors and fly signal flags proclaiming the ships name. Because show me the rule that says I can't do that (there is one about the color of the name)
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Ground pounders and ships company don't stoop to wearing patches. :troll:

In the Marines, generally the only folks who wear any sort of patch are folks on the air side of operations. Even those not directly involved with flight operations will often wear flight suits or jump suits :r: and put a unit or personal patch on and they definitely catch flak for it. There's a reason we say that they "swing with the wing". When I was on a MEU I was in the Command Element and if our CO or SgtMaj caught some Marine winger with any sort of patch on their uniform, they'd rip it off immediately. IIRC, the Navy had a different policy and was more lenient. The only time a Marine was permitted to put a patch on was if we were part of a joint operation with foreign nations and might be required to put on an American flag patch, and even then we would resist.

Things have likely changed somewhat in the time since I got out, but a common saying used to be something along the lines of, "If you wanted to wear patches, join the Army or be a clown."

Just like there is interservice rivalry between the various branches, there is also intra-service rivalry: In the Marines, all folks on the ground side think they are tougher than the wingers. Wingers think they are smarter than everybody. Combat arms/infantry think they are better than everybody including all the other ground combat element forces like arty, tanks, recon, LAR/AAV, etc. but those specialized GCE units think their sh!t don't stink. Everybody looks down on pogues and paper pushers but even they look down on each other because of course being randomly sent to a G-1 or a G-3 instead of an S-1 or an S-3 means you are somehow better than those people doing the same job as you at the battalion level.

Oh, and everybody hates PMO.
Click to expand...
I understand everything you just said, but I would guess most read that as lots of jargon.
 
gtpeach said:
This may be a confusion regarding Ben Carson's recent flub while speaking to Congress where he got REO mixed up and said "oreo" versus using the word "oreo" as a derogatory term for a black person that "acts white."

I'm assuming Planit wanted to send Oreos based on the former, not the latter.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself if you'd do the same gymnastics to absolve a Republican for going all oreo on a black Democrat.
 
el Guapo said:
Ask yourself if you'd do the same gymnastics to absolve a Republican for going all oreo on a black Democrat.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because it was entirely in reference to the fact that Ben doesn't even know the basic elements of his job...REO is a standard real estate term and the for HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretary not to know this is very sad. He's the one that initially said Oreo in the hearing. It has no implied racist meaning in my post as you indicate or assume.
 
JNA said:
He rose to the occasion giving a good and extremely appropriate, reverent, honoring speech.
Click to expand...

Grandpa Bubba, 147th Engineer Combat Battalion, Dog White Sector, Omaha Beach. Didn't make it off the LST. RIP, dude.
 
Last edited:
Four of the eleventy billion Dem candidates for President are making appearances in Atlanta today. That's interesting in light of the chairman of the state Democratic party complaining a couple of weeks ago that none of the candidates had any sort of campaign infrastructure established in Georgia - I wonder if that's suddenly changed.
 
JNA said:
He rose to the occasion giving a good and extremely appropriate, reverent, honoring speech.
Click to expand...

I agree... and his speech writers and his handlers should be commended for that. I think he wanted to do a good job and this is one of the few occasions that he realized that it was not about him.
 
AIB FB posting -

Former White House Ethics Chief Proposes ‘Golf On Your Own Damn Dime Act’
www.huffpost.com

Former White House Ethics Chief Proposes 'Golf On Your Own Damn Dime Act'

Walter Shaub thinks Donald Trump's nearly $106 million golf tab is getting way out of hand.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

sarcastically proposing

The taxpayer tab for president’s pricey golf outings is now up to nearly $106 million, according to a HuffPost analysis. But what’s unique for a golfing president is that Trump owns the resorts he’s visiting, so the publicly funded trips also serve to finance and advertise his private businesses.
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
Four of the eleventy billion Dem candidates for President are making appearances in Atlanta today. That's interesting in light of the chairman of the state Democratic party complaining a couple of weeks ago that none of the candidates had any sort of campaign infrastructure established in Georgia - I wonder if that's suddenly changed.
Click to expand...

...and it's going to be a long two years, apparently.

www.yahoo.com

The Stacey Abrams Myth Becomes the Democratic Catechism

Stacey Abrams’s refusal to lose the Georgia gubernatorial election graciously was one of the low points of the 2018 midterms. But her insistence that Brian Kemp and the Republicans stole the election from her has now become an article of faith among Democrats.Democratic presidential contenders...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
The President says he's all ears if there are foreign governments offering to provide dirt on his opponents in an election and maybe wouldn't bother to even tell the FBI if approached by a foreign agent with such an offer.

You KNOW you're living in strange times when this sort of public pronouncement registers as scarcely more than background noise with either the shock factor or the media coverage it receives.
 
Me: Generally against war.

Also Me: Iran has lots of unavenged American service member's blood on its hands in addition to the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. I wouldn't shed a tear if I woke up to the news that a massive multinational campaign of decapitation strikes had started in the wee hours of the morning and was still ongoing.
 
I don't understand why we continue to prop up Saudi Arabia. We act like Iran is the worst thing, and quite honestly Saudi Arabia is doing most of the same shit. Also, Saudi Arabia is the country with the talent for producing terrorists that have successfully accomplished acts on American soil. Yet Jared Kushner is doing is best bromance routine with the Saudis.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I don't understand why we continue to prop up Saudi Arabia. We act like Iran is the worst thing, and quite honestly Saudi Arabia is doing most of the same shit. Also, Saudi Arabia is the country with the talent for producing terrorists that have successfully accomplished acts on American soil. Yet Jared Kushner is doing is best bromance routine with the Saudis.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why we continue to prop up most of the places that we do... oh wait. It is because they have resources that help companies line the pockets of lobbyists on the tax payers dime. I would love for a new administration to come in, really clear house, and shift the focus to more of a local first mentality. We have uncontrollable environmental, social, and economic issues right here in our own country but we are too worried about what is going on half way around the world because to actually do anything about it here.
 
Reading today's news - So it seems pResident tRump is more concerned/pissed off about a soccer player not wanting to visit him than he is about migrant kids without basic needs getting sick & dying in his camps.

MAGA!
 
Planit said:
Reading today's news - So it seems pResident tRump is more concerned/pissed off about a soccer player not wanting to visit him than he is about migrant kids without basic needs getting sick & dying in his camps.

MAGA!
Click to expand...

He didn't even tweet his angry response to the right Megan Rapinoe. Also it appears he assumed she is a black athlete?
 
Watching the 1st Dem Debate and it is just talking points so far. Nothing has surprised me and there have been some serious softball questions and a couple hard targets (like NY Mayor). None of them have said Trump so far, to which I applaud. Let’s take him out of the picture for a while...

None of them have said anything to make me want to vote for them instead of the 3rd party...

Who do you think has the best chance to face off against Trump and who do you think will win 2020.

Edit... the Trump bashing has started...
 
michaelskis said:
Who do you think has the best chance to face off against Trump and who do you think will win 2020.
Click to expand...

IMO, they are all worthless candidates to take on Trump. None of them will beat him. As infuriating as he is, he still has a massive following. None of the Dem candidates have enough pull on both sides of the aisle to pull moderate Republicans to their side.
 
So many of them just have no name recognition so they just need to drop out. I would have to say Biden will be the Ds best bet. Warren isn't electable. The Rs would revolt if you put her up. Same with Bernie and his base is young and we all know the young don't vote. Plus he's a little to far left.
 
DVD said:
So many of them just have no name recognition so they just need to drop out. I would have to say Biden will be the Ds best bet. Warren isn't electable. The Rs would revolt if you put her up. Same with Bernie and his base is young and we all know the young don't vote. Plus he's a little to far left.
Click to expand...

Biden's connection with Obama is the problem. Even moderate Republicans are still on the "hate Obama" train, and despise everything he did or who was involved. Plus Biden is an old name, a deep Democrat. Hillary's big issue was that very same thing (among others). To most Republican's, Biden is basically the same as nominating Pelosi. Of course he will definitely be the nomination, but I don't suspect he will win it.

They needed someone somewhat well known, with good centralized policy points. AND that person needed to be somewhat respected on both sides. None of the current options really have that. Warren and Bernie are just too far left to get any middle of the road traction. The Dems cannot win this election with just democrat voters alone. They have to pull in the moderate Republicans who are on the Trump fence (and/or wall).
 
That's the thing. I kind of like Budawhatever. He's smart and I think he would govern well and maybe try to pull this country together a little plus no real history or deep roots and I could say the same about a few of the other minor candidates, but none of them have the name to get elected.
 
The Democrats are eating each other alive. If they don't get it together soon it will be another 4 years with Cheetolini and his ilk.
 
kjel said:
The Democrats are eating each other alive. If they don't get it together soon it will be another 4 years with Cheetolini and his ilk.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but I think that is the boat that we will be in. Based on what I have seen, it is unlikely that I will vote R or D in 2020.
 
michaelskis said:
I hate to break it to you, but I think that is the boat that we will be in. Based on what I have seen, it is unlikely that I will vote R or D in 2020.
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from, but your statement is very disheartening.

The Trump administration is not simply a political crisis for our democracy, it is a fundamental existential crisis. Another term of this administration would likely be 95% terrible for us and only compound and double down on the damage that will occur in the current term.

I know many people felt the same during and about the Obama Presidency, but it is fundamentally different now. The Trump administration cannot continue.

Now that doesn't mean we just kneejerk vote in opposition to the current administration, but if you fundamentally do not like Trump as our President, then you should not abdicate your responsibility to a losing third party or not vote.

I really want some respectable moderate Republican to challenge Trump.
 
kjel said:
The Democrats are eating each other alive. If they don't get it together soon it will be another 4 years with Cheetolini and his ilk.
Click to expand...

They stand zero chance at beating Trump. They needed to find a candidate that can unite the party, not a bunch of outliers. Unfortunately, the Dems are a faceless crowd of nobodies. Names you hear in passing, but faces you'd never recognize. Obama was able to come in with relatively little experience because he was a party uniter, and an incredible orator. He got people off their feet, and interested in what was going on (good or bad). I DGAF about Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren. They are not people I identify with or have any interest in. They do not get me off my feet or inspire any sort of hope in me.

That's how Trump won. He's certainly not the orator that Obama is, but I'll be damned if the man cannot get a crowd riled up about something. I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he's one of the rare politicians who is legitimately in it for the right reasons, but there's no way he can target that middle of the road voter because he's just too far left.
 
Jimmy Carter suggests Trump is an illegitimate president
www.cnn.com

Jimmy Carter suggests Trump is an illegitimate president

Former President Jimmy Carter suggested Friday that a full investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election would show that Donald Trump didn't win the presidency.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Jimmy Carter: Trump won election because of Russian help
www.ajc.com

Jimmy Carter says Trump won election because of Russian help

Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday that he believes Donald Trump would have lost the 2016 election without Russian help.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com
 
Several thoughts and questions...

Over the weekend, Trump met Kim Jong Un in the DMZ in a friendly interaction. What are your thoughts on this given none of the other Presidents (on either side) has been willing or able to do this? Do you think this is a bad or a good idea and do you think there is a hidden agenda? Do you think that NK will interfere in the 2020 election to keep Trump in power?

Last week, all of the democratic candidates indicated that they would want to give free health insurance to illegal aliens. (or undocumented persons if you rather). Do you support or reject this idea and why? What do you think the cost would be and do you think that this would be a benefit or problem for the US?

The G-20 was last week in Japan. Do you think that these meetings result in real change in regulations pertaining to the betterment of the globe or do you think they are social gatherings for world leaders?

Over the weekend I was reading an article on the impacts of environmental health on personal health and it got me thinking about things on a global scale and how China's pollution issues are far greater than those of the US. Do you think that we should stop trading with China until they pass strict regulations to prevent these environmental hazards from continuing. Additionally, what about other countries that while the volume of pollutants is not as great, the activities there would be prohibited by the EPA. What do you think would be the best solution on a global scale to improve environmental health?
 
The weekend of sightings in Japan and Korea were mainly a photo-op for a father-daughter outing for Big Daddy Don.
 
michaelskis said:
Several thoughts and questions...

Over the weekend, Trump met Kim Jong Un in the DMZ in a friendly interaction. What are your thoughts on this given none of the other Presidents (on either side) has been willing or able to do this? Do you think this is a bad or a good idea and do you think there is a hidden agenda? Do you think that NK will interfere in the 2020 election to keep Trump in power?

Last week, all of the democratic candidates indicated that they would want to give free health insurance to illegal aliens. (or undocumented persons if you rather). Do you support or reject this idea and why? What do you think the cost would be and do you think that this would be a benefit or problem for the US?

The G-20 was last week in Japan. Do you think that these meetings result in real change in regulations pertaining to the betterment of the globe or do you think they are social gatherings for world leaders?

Over the weekend I was reading an article on the impacts of environmental health on personal health and it got me thinking about things on a global scale and how China's pollution issues are far greater than those of the US. Do you think that we should stop trading with China until they pass strict regulations to prevent these environmental hazards from continuing. Additionally, what about other countries that while the volume of pollutants is not as great, the activities there would be prohibited by the EPA. What do you think would be the best solution on a global scale to improve environmental health?
Click to expand...

It was nothing more than a staged photo op and a distraction. North Korea isn't interested in negotiating squat with the US and they think Trump is dumb.

I support a system like Medicare for all with private insurance as a supplement. It is the only way that the health care system in this country can begin to be solved. If everyone pays in regardless of their immigration status, then yes they should be eligible. Remember, people without insurance still receive health care and we all pay for it through higher premiums, charges, and taxes.

G-20 is a mixed bag of tricks. Overall I think they are somewhat useful.

Currently, the United States should not be telling anyone else what to do with their environmental issues given the appointed people now in charge of environmental concerns.
 
kjel said:
It was nothing more than a staged photo op and a distraction. North Korea isn't interested in negotiating squat with the US and they think Trump is dumb.

I support a system like Medicare for all with private insurance as a supplement. It is the only way that the health care system in this country can begin to be solved. If everyone pays in regardless of their immigration status, then yes they should be eligible. Remember, people without insurance still receive health care and we all pay for it through higher premiums, charges, and taxes.

G-20 is a mixed bag of tricks. Overall I think they are somewhat useful.

Currently, the United States should not be telling anyone else what to do with their environmental issues given the appointed people now in charge of environmental concerns.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the “US” should tell other counties like China and 3rd world how to deal with environmental issues, and yes we need to deal with our own issues here, but I do think something from the UN, G20, or some other group should do something before it is too late. I also think that there is more we can be doing at a local level, but it can be a politically sensitive topic.
 
Oregon essentially passes 'no single family zoning district' law. I saw it on NPR and can't copy just this story's address, so here is an excerpt:

On Sunday, Oregon lawmakers took a historic step toward becoming the first state to eliminate single-family zoning. Democratic Governor Kate Brown is expected to sign a bill that will allow for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and “cottage clusters” on land currently reserved for single-family houses in cities with more than 25,000 people. Duplexes will be allowed in single-family zones in cities with at least 10,000 people. The move puts Oregon at the forefront of a nationwide surge in “upzoning” to make cities denser, greener, and more affordable in the face of housing shortages.

While the bill resembles similar efforts to curb single-family zoning in Minneapolis, Seattle, and California, Oregon’s take on this trend reflects the state’s longstanding agreement about tight land use. Since 1973, every city in the state has had an “urban growth boundary” designed to keep homes from sprawling into farms and forestlands, encouraging denser urban development.
 
michaelskis said:
I might be ignorant, but can someone explain to me how the Betsy Ross flag is offensive?
Click to expand...

I think people were upset that Nike, who endorses Colin Kaepernick, who in turn protested by kneeling during the national anthem, also put out a shoe with a flag on it. People claimed Nike, who supports a citizen's constitutional right to protest in a form they find unpatriotic because they don't agree with it. By the transitive property of internet outrage, Nike is therefore unpatriotic and cannot rate to put the flag on their product.

All this forgets about the U.S. Flag Code which prohibits putting the flag on disposable items like paper plates and napkins or clothing.
 
I don't think I have ever posted here as this thread has always intimidated me and I need a break sometimes from politics because it's so depressing out there right now

I am here to say, somewhat randomly, that I posted an article about the difference between the camps at the border and the camps from the Holocaust, that had been posted by my boomer-NY-Jewish friend (btw) whose parents had narrowly escaped these camps and I got slaughtered by this guy who basically said I was a Trump apologist, wtf - it's a private group so I can't share what was said exactly but it was bizarre - so I said hey whoa - this is what the GOP wants, is for the left to fight amongst themselves over these things and he told me to stop reading the NY Times and MSNBC because they aren't left enough

so yeah, after that, I don't have good feelings about the election - I think any of the Democrats running could do the job fine, but which one can unseat Trump? who knows!
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I think people were upset that Nike, who endorses Colin Kaepernick, who in turn protested by kneeling during the national anthem, also put out a shoe with a flag on it. People claimed Nike, who supports a citizen's constitutional right to protest in a form they find unpatriotic because they don't agree with it. By the transitive property of internet outrage, Nike is therefore unpatriotic and cannot rate to put the flag on their product.

All this forgets about the U.S. Flag Code which prohibits putting the flag on disposable items like paper plates and napkins or clothing.
Click to expand...

While I was at lunch a read a bit more regarding Kaepernick's complaint to Nike regarding the logo on the show and his concern is he says that it is a Symbol of Slavery and had nothing to do with the U.S. Flag Code.

What does everyone else in here think. Regardless if one should or should not put the logo on a shoe or let's say a Philadelphia 76'rs Jersey that is also produced by Nike, is the 1776 Betsy Ross flag a raciest symbol? What about the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, or the Constitution?
 
Back
Top