America - The Official Thread

[Eh Team]

invasive species

Yeah that's a pretty massive problem right now, the asian carp are eating everything in their path. We really need to find out if it's edible or not and fish it the hell out of there like we did to cod on the east coast. Granted that was native but that level of over fishing needs to happen to these things. Hopefully something native decides to munch on them soon too.

 

[another_jakhole]

There's an argument being made that the blame is shared. Let's say that it's equally shared. Let's say Canada spends $300 million USD to maintain the Great Lakes just like America spends $300 million. How would it make sense for Canada to add $290 million to cover the costs of the equally shared mess the American government will be bailing out of funding?

How did this get to being another, "Nobody's innocent," argument? Trump has taught you well. Excuse me. Putin has taught Trump to teach you well. The issue isn't, "We're not the only ones polluting the largest source of fresh water in the world." We have a greater responsibility as leaders on any front and should hold ourselves to a standard that keeps us at the top in the eyes of other countries, and especially, in the eyes of the future generations of Americans. The U.S. is the second highest polluting country in the world and per capita the U.S. is the worst, greatest, highest polluting country in the world.

We, the U.S., waste a **** ton on military projects to flex our muscles and we think protecting our planet at all costs is a waste? Let's just keep on building our nuclear arsenal and own our smug attitudes. Let the rest of the world worry about our problems. But let's continue to spend money on camping military bases where it sure as hell isn't wanted.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The GLRI in particular didn't, but similar programs did, notably the Great Lakes Legacy Act signed by President Bush in 2002, which included more than $300 million in funding.

Your insinuation that the lakes were left alone, and were fine, until Obama came along pushing some radical and unnecessary agenda is just blatantly false.

It appears that that program is still in progress.

Great Lakes Legacy Act
The Great Lakes Legacy Act provides federal funding to accelerate contaminated sediment remediation in Areas of Concern. The Legacy Act has been a tremendous success. EPA has invested over $338 million to address contaminated sediment, leveraging an additional $227 million from nonfederal sponsors.

source, the EPA website. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-legacy-act

More redundancy?

The US has to stop spending more than it can afford. Period.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Even the creator of "House of Cards" thinks Trump has gone too far:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-06/can-twitter-dump-trump/8328146

The US has to stop spending more than it can afford.

Trump wants to commit an extra $54 million dollars to defence spending, further building up one of the world's largest and most advanced military forces.

I can think of $54 million dollars in excess spending that could easily be cut ...

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Even the creator of "House of Cards" thinks Trump has gone too far:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-06/can-twitter-dump-trump/8328146

Wow, we agree on something! I would love to see Trump's twitter account shut down.

Also, I think you meant $54 billion in added military spending. I think we spend too much on the military. Who's ass can't we easily kick if we need too?

 

[Biggles]

Wow, we agree on something! I would love to see Trump's twitter account shut down.

Also, I think you meant $54 billion in added military spending. I think we spend too much on the military. Who's ass can't we easily kick if we need too?

Well it would be helpful to agree where possible.

The US could destroy everything on the planet, but using the military to achieve something more constructive doesn't seem to be easy at all.

 

[Imari]

How does climate change affect aeronautics? Planes fly when it is hot, and planes fly when it is cold. Maybe if the air froze solid...

Seriously? Come on, man. You're smarter than this.

While I'm against increased military funding, I think it needs to be pointed out the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, and a few other countries I can't think of are just as guilty with the JSF program.

Not exactly. Australia has bought 72, with a plan to buy a further 28. The US intends to buy 2443. That's kind of a big difference.

Had the US not been propping the program up, it would probably have fallen apart long ago. None of the minor partners bring enough to justify a program of that magnitude.

The US has to stop spending more than it can afford. Period.

Sure. So start with the military. The environment seems like an important thing to have around. Unless the plan is just to cede the Great Lakes to Canada and make it their problem.

I wonder how long until countries start doing that? Declaring that they don't own lands because they're too awful. What happens if nobody wants to call the Great Lakes their own because they're six foot deep in sludge, popsicle sticks and three eyed fish?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Well it would be helpful to agree where possible.

The US could destroy everything on the planet, but using the military to achieve something more constructive doesn't seem to be easy at all.

Peace through strength is a policy started by Ronald Reagan toward the Soviets. It ended the cold war. Trump adheres to that policy today. While I don't think it is quite as necessary today as it was in the 80's, there is not much else I disagree with Trump about.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

How does climate change affect aeronautics? Planes fly when it is hot, and planes fly when it is cold. Maybe if the air froze solid...

Seriously? Come on, man. You're smarter than this.

Tell me how? How does climate change affect aeronautics?

NASA was created for advancement of aeronautics and space travel. Maybe you should look up the definition of aeronautics.

Like I said, we have a government agency for climate change, NOAA.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Tell me how? How does climate change affect aeronautics?

What if you were to learn that planet science and astronomy could be the same thing?

Mind how you go now.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What if you were to learn that planet science and astronomy could be the same thing?

Mind how you go now.

Thank you for the second grade primer on climate change and NASA. It is NOAA's job to study the atmosphere.

The American government has to be slashed and hacked down to an affordable size . I expect those affected to squeal. I would too. I would hate to loose my cushy job if I worked for the government.

But it has to be done. We simply can not afford it.

 

[UKMikey]

It's not just NOAA's job to study the atmosphere.

According to this link NASA got into earth sciences when Congress slashed the NOAA's budget in the seventies and revised the Space Act (twice) to authorise NASA to monitor the earth because they thought the agency should attend to "national needs" more.

Inflation was high in the US and with Reagan threatening to cut funding for planetary exploration altogether, it looks like they wanted the agency to concentrate on its network of earth observing satellites which presumably the NOAA isn't geared up to run.

https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/history/

 

[Imari]

Tell me how? How does climate change affect aeronautics?

NASA was created for advancement of aeronautics and space travel. Maybe you should look up the definition of aeronautics.

Like I said, we have a government agency for climate change, NOAA.

Fair enough, I take it back.

NASA is an aeronautics and space agency. It mounts both long and short term missions. The weather in the short term is obviously critical to any air flight, but what is possibly not so obvious is that on missions spanning longer timeframes or distances prediction and understanding of how weather changes (which is what we call climate) is very important. Likewise, as they fly in the upper atmosphere which is much less well monitored it becomes imperative to be able to understand and predict conditions from small amounts of data, which necessitates a good understanding of the overall climactic systems.

You'll notice that while NOAA and NASA have some overlap in climate interests, they're not identical. NASA's interests are largely either to facilitate it's other endeavours or to make use of assets that only they have access to, like their many satellites. NOAA's interests are largely to favour public knowledge and interests, like forecasting and environmental protection.

You could assign study of the climate to NOAA only if you wanted, but then they'd have to allow NASA access to all their data and given NASA some say in what research was done, because there's information that NASA needs researched. It seems much easier to let each do what they do best, rather than create a single mega-bureaucracy that needs to be petitioned for information.

And really, I can't think of much in the way of research and environmentalism that I'd cut before starting on the ~$500 billion military budget. Trump wants to scrap the $2 billion earth science budget that NASA has? F-35s are ~$120 million each. Buy 16 less of them. I doubt it will make much difference only having 2427 instead of 2443 of the things. As a bonus, they'll also save the huge amount of money that would be spent on the upkeep of those 16, which will fund several more years of research.

I can agree with you that things need to be cut, but I find it hard to agree with pretty much any suggestion that doesn't address the massive elephant in the room that is US military spending first. You can argue that the military money is better placed where it is, but you have to be able to actually make that argument rather than just assume that the money is unavailable.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Go back into your hole with this little snipe comment before you get embarrassed again.

If I wanted to make a "little snipe comment", as you put it, I would simply post something along the lines of "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Trump" and leave it at that. But no, I instead tried to change tack in the face of the criticism that I have received, and this is the response that I get:

Go back into your hole with this little snipe comment before you get embarrassed again.

All that this does is reveal your hypocrisy - it doesn't matter what I post, you'll find a way to criticise it. So who has the most cause for embarrassment here? I might hold a fringe opinion, but at least I'm consistent.

 

[dylansan]

"Kids, our budget is tight this year. We're going to have to get rid of the refridgerator, shower, and air conditioner. And we won't be able to take you to the doctor or even to get a haircut. And we've decided not to do a college fund."

"Now help me pile all that stuff into our six Humvees so we can take it to the dump."

 

[Northstar]

Then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up again?

I'm just using his own "debating" style against him.

There's an argument being made that the blame is shared. Let's say that it's equally shared. Let's say Canada spends $300 million USD to maintain the Great Lakes just like America spends $300 million. How would it make sense for Canada to add $290 million to cover the costs of the equally shared mess the American government will be bailing out of funding?

How did this get to being another, "Nobody's innocent," argument? Trump has taught you well. Excuse me. Putin has taught Trump to teach you well. The issue isn't, "We're not the only ones polluting the largest source of fresh water in the world." We have a greater responsibility as leaders on any front and should hold ourselves to a standard that keeps us at the top in the eyes of other countries, and especially, in the eyes of the future generations of Americans. The U.S. is the second highest polluting country in the world and per capita the U.S. is the worst, greatest, highest polluting country in the world.

We, the U.S., waste a **** ton on military projects to flex our muscles and we think protecting our planet at all costs is a waste? Let's just keep on building our nuclear arsenal and own our smug attitudes. Let the rest of the world worry about our problems. But let's continue to spend money on camping military bases where it sure as hell isn't wanted.

Did you actually read anything me and @Joey D wrote? Because we've both said we want less spent on military and more on our water supply.

But hey, keep it up with the borderline personal attacks, it's a great way to get your self a vacation.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But it has to be done. We simply can not afford it.

While the idea of sustainable government spending is a nice one, the act of bringing expenditure to sustainability must in itself be sustainable. Change too much too quickly, and you risk widespread economic upheaval with the potential for disaster to rival continued unsustainable government expenditure. There's a very real possibility that all you would successfully achieve is to substitute one economic evil for another.

 

[McLaren]

If I wanted to make a "little snipe comment", as you put it, I would simply post something along the lines of "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Trump" and leave it at that. But no, I instead tried to change tack in the face of the criticism that I have received, and this is the response that I get:

If your idea of "change" is commenting about others' posts instead of actually addressing them, then feel free to revert back to your old ways.

All that this does is reveal your hypocrisy - it doesn't matter what I post, you'll find a way to criticise it.

Hypocrisy is on your end, Mr. "I have to find issue with everything Trump does".

Lewis Hamilton must be relieved somewhere you've gotten off his ass for the time being.

So who has the most cause for embarrassment here? I might hold a fringe opinion, but at least I'm consistent.

You're about as consistent as Michael J Fox's signature.

Claim: Clinton & Pence investigated for private e-mails.
You: Sessions should be held to the same accountability!

Claim: Trump & Germany accuse Obama of wire tapping.
You: They're not the same!

 

[killerjimbag]

Uhh ships do come into Canadian harbors using the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes and they bring in invasive species. I mean you do know Sault Ste Marie is a place right, as well as Windsor, Sarnia, Toronto, Montreal, and Port Stanely? According to this source, 32% of the Canadian population lives on the Great Lakes compared to 8% of the US population. To think Canada doesn't pollute the Great Lakes is ignorant.

I also never said the US doesn't pollute the Great Lakes, if you read my first post on the subject you'd see I blamed Michigan and their governor for not doing anything about it.

I'm also still waiting on proof the Great Lakes lie more in Canada than in the US, because looking at the boarder lines that doesn't really seem like it's the case.

Joey I'm sure you can do math.Canada has 35 million people,so roughly 11 million live in the Great Lakes basin the US has 318 million so about 29 million live in the US Great Lakes basin. So who do you think is causing more pollution?

 

[Imari]

Joey I'm sure you can do math.Canada has 35 million people,so roughly 11 million live in the Great Lakes basin the US has 318 million so about 29 million live in the US Great Lakes basin. So who do you think is causing more pollution?

It doesn't exactly work like that, not on a large scale. Major polluters aren't really tied to major population centres.

 

[McLaren]

I thought that was an accusation of tapping embassies/foreign citizens? Completely different accusation... and using a Russian state-funded news channel maybe isn't the best source. The Daily Mail could be more reliable.

First off, the video is from 2013. The fact it's a Russian-based media report doesn't discredit it just because now-a-days, anything Russia puts out is questionable.

Secondly, since you want another source.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its "customer" departments, such as the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their "Rolodexes" so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems.

The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately "tasked" for monitoring by the NSA.

The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.

France had made an accusation as well that prompted Obama at the time, to respond.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/us-french-surveillance-legitimate-questions

Earlier on Monday, the French government summoned the US ambassador in Paris, Charles Rivkin. A French official said Rivkin was met by the foreign ministry's chief of staff, who reminded the US "that these types of practices between partners are totally unacceptable, and we must be assured that they are no longer happening". The French demanded that Washington provide a full explanation "and a tangible response to our concerns as soon as possible".

The French prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said he was shocked, and demanded the US provide "clear answers, justifying the reasons these practices were used, and above all creating the conditions of transparency so these practices can be put to an end".

The accusations are not that different; Trump & European leaders have both accused Obama's Administration of illegally tapping into their phone conversations. The issue is Snowden's leak of a memo was the source of the evidence for the European leaders. Trump has nothing right now, and likely won't without some ground-breaking reveal.

However, responses like this, don't do the opposing side any good either to discredit Trump after the aforementioned NSA leak by Snowden that got Obama in a bit of hot water.

Josh Earnest, who was Obama's press secretary, said presidents do not have authority to unilaterally order the wiretapping of American citizens, as Trump has alleged was done to him. FBI investigators and Justice Department officials must seek a federal judge's approval for such a step.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...head-reportedly-asks-doj-to-reject-claim.html

Essentially, for an Administration that was caught wiretapping European leaders & its own citizens, it is not suddenly out of the realm of possibility that same Administration could have done the same to Trump. The problem is Trump is presenting, per usual, no proof & it's once again opened him up warranted scrutiny.

The post by Gray was that Trump should be sued for "slandering" Obama for an allegation. My post was not intended as proof of Trump's claim, merely that it was not the first time Obama has been accused of doing such things, contrary to how 1 member purposely wants to convey it as such.

 

[TenEightyOne]

First off, the video is from 2013. The fact it's a Russian-based media report doesn't discredit it just because now-a-days, anything Russia puts out is questionable.

Quite. It's the number of warnings that RT has had in various countries for issuing completely fictitious stories that discredits them. Russian-based doesn't mean it's biased or poor in any way - that's you saying that, not me. RT is a particular case that I addressed particularly.

Secondly, since you want another source.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

France had made an accusation as well that prompted Obama at the time, to respond.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/us-french-surveillance-legitimate-questions

None of those are American citizens, surely? You implication was that the case was the same.

The accusations are not that different

But different nonetheless. The NSA did something a bit like what Trump says so they must have done what Trump says. Gotcha.

Essentially, for an Administration that was caught wiretapping European leaders & its own citizens

Its own citizens? Got a source?

it is not suddenly out of the realm of possibility that same Administration could have done the same to Trump. The problem is Trump is presenting, per usual, no proof & it's once again opened him up warranted scrutiny.

Nobody has said it's out of the realms of possibility, at least not that I've read here. Of course the scrutiny is warranted - it's a serious claim. Again, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

The post by Gray was that Trump should be sued for "slandering" Obama for an allegation. My post was not intended as proof of Trump's claim, merely that it was not the first time Obama has been accused of doing such things, contrary to how 1 member purposely wants to convey it as such.

If "such" thing means monitoring foreign citizens then you go waaaaay back before Obama for well-established precedents for such actions. If you mean monitoring US citizens that's a fundamentally different matter despite your continued attempts to paint them as two sides of the same egg. They isn't.

Slander? That would be a tough case to prove and it would be far more beneficial to simply establish some actual facts. The current administration (and politics in general) isn't big on facts.

 

[mister dog]

 

[McLaren]

Quite. It's the number of warnings that RT has had in various countries for issuing completely fictitious stories that discredits them. Russian-based doesn't mean it's biased or poor in any way - that's you saying that, not me. RT is a particular case that I addressed particularly.

You heavily imply it by claiming the Daily Mail is more reliable.

None of those are American citizens, surely? You implication was that the case was the same.

Nope. I see you and PM are 2 peas in a pod. My implication is that Obama's Administration has been accused of wiretapping before. Who they wiretapped is irrelevant.

But different nonetheless. The NSA did something a bit like what Trump says so they must have done what Trump says. Gotcha.

Again, acting like PM by selectively readying what you will & editing posts to fit your argument even though I addressed the difference.

The issue is Snowden's leak of a memo was the source of the evidence for the European leaders. Trump has nothing right now, and likely won't without some ground-breaking reveal.

Its own citizens? Got a source?

By own citizens, I mean the US' although European leaders believed their citizens were tapped to.

If "such" thing means monitoring foreign citizens then you go waaaaay back before Obama for well-established precedents for such actions. If you mean monitoring US citizens that's a fundamentally different matter despite your continued attempts to paint them as two sides of the same egg. They isn't.

Illegally monitoring citizens is the same thing, regardless of nationality. It was just as much a issue for European leaders to discover as it was for the US public to discover and criticize Obama over it.

Slander? That would be a tough case to prove and it would be far more beneficial to simply establish some actual facts. The current administration (and politics in general) isn't big on facts.

That was Gray's choice of wording, not mine.

Can someone sue POTUS for slander or defamation?
Would be interesting to see.

 

[Biggles]

Peace through strength is a policy started by Ronald Reagan toward the Soviets. It ended the cold war. Trump adheres to that policy today. While I don't think it is quite as necessary today as it was in the 80's, there is not much else I disagree with Trump about.

"Peace through Strength" - would that be a bit like MAB - Mutual Assured Bankruptcy? The Soviet Union may have collapsed for for a variety of reasons, one of which was the unsustainability of a system that devoted so much of its (inefficient) output on the military, but the US also placed itself on a path to insolvency.

 

[Danoff]

Tell me how? How does climate change affect aeronautics?

NASA was created for advancement of aeronautics and space travel. Maybe you should look up the definition of aeronautics.

Like I said, we have a government agency for climate change, NOAA.

Here's the problem, in order to properly study the Earth's atmosphere, you need a spacecraft. So.... NASA then. NOAA, of course, can partner with NASA to achieve their goals... and they have.

But let's take it back a step. NASA is the agency for studying planetary body and solar system formation. What NASA does, when it's doing actual science instead of stunts, is atmospheric science around places like Titan, Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, etc.

The Earth, it turns out, is an important planet to understand when trying to understand the formation of our solar system, particularly if you're interested in what created the conditions that made it possible for life to form... since it's the only planet we know of so far where life has formed. So what you're advocating here, is a position where NASA is to study the atmospheric conditions, and drivers throughout the history of the various planets and moons in hopes of understanding the potential for the formation of life... but not on Earth.... stay away from Earth. That's a different agency.

@Imari

 

[huskeR32]

It appears that that program is still in progress.

source, the EPA website. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-legacy-act

More redundancy?

No, it's not more redundancy.

The Legacy Act has a relatively narrow focus - dredging contaminated sediment from Areas of Concern as defined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

The GLRI has a much broader focus, including fighting invasive species, reducing pollution from agricultural and industrial runoff, and restoring coastal wetlands and habitats, to name a few.

Seriously, this stuff is all easy to look up. You should do so before you continue making unfounded claims.

The US has to stop spending more than it can afford. Period.

I don't necessarily disagree, but let's not pick where to slash money by simply picking out the things that sound the most liberal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You heavily imply it by claiming the Daily Mail is more reliable.

I said could be more reliable and I specifically referred to RT. The reference to all Russian media was yours, not mine.

I see you and PM are 2 peas in a pod...acting like PM....

If you've got a problem with @prisonermonkeys then report him or continue to address his posts in the open forum. Leave me out of it, thanking you kindly.

My implication is that Obama's Administration has been accused of wiretapping before. Who they wiretapped is irrelevant.

Not quite. Monitoring foreign civilians is very different to the USA monitoring their own. That point seems clear to most people. There are indeed cases where the USA seems to have used Cisco-enabled backdoors to monitor US companies (and by dint of that some of their employees)... but that program (PRISM) began under Bush.

The monitoring of call metadata for private US citizens began in 2001, definitely not under Obama.

Nonetheless you seem to be pursuing an anti-Obama agenda rather than the (surely) more obvious pro-privacy agenda. You seem to continue to confuse a government spying on foreign countries (sadly that's fair game in a modern world) with a government spying on its own citizens. The final confusion you seem to have is what "wiretapping" actually produces. You certainly haven't produced a source that shows that the dialogue of telephone conversations was collated... that's what wiretapping means.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Claim: Clinton & Pence investigated for private e-mails.
You: Sessions should be held to the same accountability!

All I did there was get the name wrong. I said Sessions when I meant Pence.

Claim: Trump & Germany accuse Obama of wire tapping.
You: They're not the same!

I didn't say that at all. I said that Germany accusing Obama of wiretapping was not proof of Obama wiretapping Trump, and that it should not be treated as such. While there is a legal precedent whereby previous crimes are admissible as a prior bad act, they are considered circumstantial evidence at best. So even if Obama was proven to have wiretapped Germany, that alone would not be enough for Trump to bring a case against him.

 

[McLaren]

Not quite. Monitoring foreign civilians is very different to the USA monitoring their own. That point seems clear to most people. There are indeed cases where the USA seems to have used Cisco-enabled backdoors to monitor US companies (and by dint of that some of their employees)... but that program (PRISM) began under Bush.

The monitoring of call metadata for private US citizens began in 2001, definitely not under Obama.

Nonetheless you seem to be pursuing an anti-Obama agenda rather than the (surely) more obvious pro-privacy agenda. You seem to continue to confuse a government spying on foreign countries (sadly that's fair game in a modern world) with a government spying on its own citizens. The final confusion you seem to have is what "wiretapping" actually produces. You certainly haven't produced a source that shows that the dialogue of telephone conversations was collated... that's what wiretapping means.

You seem to be, along with PM, missing the original point of why I quoted Grey in the first place.

If Grey wants to sue Trump for "slandering/defaming" Obama for wiretapping allegations, he better bring some more people into that suit for accusing Obama of the same act. Whom his administration tapped is irrelevant b/c it ranges from European leaders/civilians & US civilians, the fact is he's been accused of illegally wiretapping before. That does not mean I'm condoning in any way that it is proof of Trump's claim, nor have I even supported Trump's notion in the first place; you'd get an idea of what I think of Trump's claim if you hadn't bothered to delete it so my sentence read differently.

I don't believe Obama tapped him just as I said before that I didn't believe Obama was behind the leaks/protestors Trump claimed either. Yeah, I'm really "pursing" an anti-Obama agenda here. You won't get any more from me on this.