America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,698 comments
  • 1,790,803 views
As it turns out, infrastructure exists in various states, which can each fund repairs. Not that federal funds need to be continually authorized over and over, if the program is put in place properly to begin with it includes maintenance. But congress needs to justify its existence and keep people paying attention to their silly team red/team blue arguments, so they make sure that things you want - like federal money being dumped on your state's infrastructure - hang in the balance.



Oh no!



It is a fundamental right that all children should have... just like food, clothing, basic medical care, shelter, and even attention. I don't want the federal government providing any of that.

It does exist in various states, but years of neglect and disrepair haven't helped either. Over 58,000 bridges in the US are in disrepair. Many of those are a part of the interstate highway system which is the federal government's responsibility to maintain not the States. I agree that the bickering and carrot dangling needs to stop to fund these projects, but I won't hold my breath, unfortunately I know how politics really work.

I already know how you feel about Federal guidance of education, I was just making the point that Trump called it the "Civil rights issue of our time" and made a campaign promise to clean up inner cities, a priority on education would help deliver on that promise.
 
This is why the tit-for-tat game needs to end and they all need to move on to doing more constructive things.

I'm not a Reagan fan, mainly due to his economic polices, but I yearn for the days of bipartisanship between the Democrats and Republicans that transcended beyond party lines during his administration. Reagan, much like Trump was crucified by the liberal left his first 100 days in office but he was able to overcome that and negoatiate a lot of deals with Democrats. I think Trump, Mr Let's-make-A-Deal, can do the same, but he needs to come more to the middle. Trump has done nothing to woo Democrats yet, and so far this has been very disappointing.

I would love to see Trump work with Democrats on an infrastructure bill, this is a good place to start the bipartisanship dealings. Trump said, "Education is the Civil Rights issue of our time", I would love to see him work directly with Bernie Sanders on an education bill. These are good places to start. I expect our Representatives and Senators to DO THEIR JOB, part of that job is crossing the aisle and compromising to cut bipartisan deals that benefit Americans. And if they don't, I say the people should FIRE THEM ALL. I'm so tired of this political Civil War.


As many pundits have commented, Reagan wouldn't stand a chance of being nominated as the GOP Presidential candidate in the present day - he would be perceived by the party base as being too "moderate". In spite of the questionable things done by the Reagan administration, Reagan himself had a great deal of personal charm & he was not a puffed-up narcissist like Trump.

It really is all a remarkable mess. Things seem to have become much more heavily polarized since the Reagan years. I think that the influence of the internet, with its focus on "fake news" & extreme views has shifted a good proportion of public opinion into opposing camps with people hearing completely different versions of reality. Under those conditions compromise becomes almost impossible & the country lurches from one side to another depending on small percentage differences from one election to another.

Trump might have acted as a agent to bring the two sides together, promoting infrastructure spending & education, but by bringing people like Steve Bannon into his inner circle of advisors he appears to have chosen to align himself with the extreme & militant right, rather than positioning himself as a "populist" centrist. I don't see anything good coming out of this ...
 
It does exist in various states, but years of neglect and disrepair haven't helped either. Over 58,000 bridges in the US are in disrepair. Many of those are a part of the interstate highway system which is the federal government's responsibility to maintain not the States.

...seems like not the greatest system at this point.
 
...seems like not the greatest system at this point.

The problem is not the system. The problem is those that are in charge of running the system are using infrastructure funding as leverage to get something else they want. The bigger picture is this problem exist everywhere in politics, not just on infrastructure. Nothing gets done in the Senate or the House without palms getting greased.

Honestly would it kill congress to write a bill with no pork or special strings attached in it just once?
 
The problem is not the system. The problem is those that are in charge of running the system are using infrastructure funding as leverage to get something else they want.

That's the system.

I'm fine with it. The longer this system is dysfunctional the more people will be willing to entertain the notion of doing something else.
 
The problem with infrastructure is even the states are terrible at it. Back in Michigan the roads and bridges were in such a disrepair that it was almost comical and we had a higher than average gas tax that was supposed to fix them. What really happened though was they often misappropriated funds or had roads built using methods that wouldn't survive repeated freezing and thawing. Utah isn't much better, although they keep the freeways in pretty decent shape and everything was essentially new in 2002 for the Olympics.

I think what people need to start doing is paying more attention to who they elect at the state level and start holding them more accountable for not doing what their supposed to do. Your state's government has way more of an impact on your life than the federal government (as it really should). Also when states rely on federal funding for things, there's more of a chance they'll misappropriate money because they can just "get more from the feds". In the end it's the taxpayer that's boned.
 
Crunch: get with the program. We've left Grey's Anatomy behind & moved on to Homeland. I'm thinking they are going to quietly cancel the next season of House of Cards - how can it possibly compete with this?
I am taking a wait and see attitude on the 'wire tapp' scandal. Hannity has been talking about this for weeks, but I consider him to be little more than a propagandist.

The story had been ignored by Drudge, up until yesterday. I was beginning to think Republicans were being punked. Now I'm not sure what to think about it.

Associative groups would keep prices low and solve the problem of pre existing conditions.
How?
I answered that here.
 
The problem with infrastructure is even the states are terrible at it. Back in Michigan the roads and bridges were in such a disrepair that it was almost comical and we had a higher than average gas tax that was supposed to fix them. What really happened though was they often misappropriated funds or had roads built using methods that wouldn't survive repeated freezing and thawing. Utah isn't much better, although they keep the freeways in pretty decent shape and everything was essentially new in 2002 for the Olympics.
It reminds me of the difference between the govt. agency, TxDot that maintains I-635, I-30, US-75, & the always under construction I-35, to NTTA, a closed organization, who maintains the GWB Turnpike, Sam Rayburn Tollway, & Dallas N. Tollway. The NTTA has recently been under scrutiny from raising toll prices (that are paying for the major expansions to accommodate the booming economy) and folks are demanding the NTTA drop the tolls and become a free expressway like the others.

It's bizarre as to why. I-35 has been under construction for years and years and years, rarely ever appearing to make progress. The Tollways on the other hand, are kept in such great shape that the crews seem to tinker with just because they have too much time/money. People don't realize the NTTA is a non-profit, so every toll collected goes back to maintaining it. They don't receive any outside funding, tmk.
 
@Sanji Himura mentioned our private communication in the post above. He had posted a video earlier, but it was removed. I asked him if the video below was the one he had posted before that was removed. It wasn't, but this is a further explanation of the video above about demonetization of YouTube videos.

YouTube can do what they want, but just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Warning Language


If you want YouTube reduced to just cat videos, or middle aged women laughing in Chewbacca masks, or Russian car crashes, or pregnant women in giraffe masks, or teens faking freakouts, or kids who just got there wisdom teeth pulled out, or Charlie biting people, or...
 
@Sanji Himura mentioned our private communication in the post above. He had posted a video earlier, but it was removed. I asked him if the video below was the one he had posted before that was removed. It wasn't, but this is a further explanation of the video above about demonetization of YouTube videos.

YouTube can do what they want, but just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Warning Language


If you want YouTube reduced to just cat videos, or middle aged women laughing in Chewbacca masks, or Russian car crashes, or pregnant women in giraffe masks, or teens faking freakouts, or kids who just got there wisdom teeth pulled out, or Charlie biting people, or...

The original video didn't get removed, the author himself made it private, the reason being that he seems to have made a rather fundamental mistake while accusing the WSJ of creating fake screen shots.

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/04/03/...-journal-top-youtubers-just-played-themselves
 
Matt Drudge is all over the 'wire tapp' story now. He didn't start following it until Monday. Before that it was just a Hannity thing. Yesterday Drudge only had two links, now there are five.

Drudge is very careful. But when he finds a story, he does like to build a narrative. Perhaps that is why he stared late and was slow to highlight this story.

To those who may not know. It was The Drudge Report that broke the Clinton/ Lewinsky story. Other network reporters knew the story but for one reason or another, they did not report it.

Clipboard02_zpsdic1b7gc.jpg
 
Last edited:
A rather sinister, cynical observation:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ralia-with-business-event-opportunity/8417932

Mr Trump's ban on laptops on some flights into the United States caught most by surprise and has raised questions as to its real motive.

The President says it is necessary to fight terrorism. Others, like Australian National University terrorism expert Clarke Jones, have a different view.

"It certainly doesn't seem to, from my reading, do anything towards counter-terrorism," he said.

United States airlines are not included in the laptop ban.

However, the rapidly expanding Gulf carriers — Emirates, Etihad and Qatar — are, and they will shoulder most of the burden in what can be seen as an attack on their lucrative business class market.

Carriers in the US have been furiously lobbying the Whitehouse to put the brakes on the Gulf upstarts.

"It's mind boggling if it is that cynical. But once you eliminate all the other possibilities you just can't come to any other conclusion frankly," laments the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation's, Peter Harbison.

ANU's Dr Jones also makes the point that there have been no terrorism-related incidents involving laptops.

"We don't ban mobile telephones on planes but mobile telephones have been used [in terror attacks] — not only with airlines, certainly with attacks occurring overseas, and using phones to detonate devices," he said.
 


This is what the BBC stated on the matter..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39348615

I agree it seems a little cynical to asume its to put a kybosh on other airlines. The BBC are reporting the current know reason. However the ban spread to the UK too. As such I dont think the UK would do so unless either being mugged off by the US inteligence or are in on the act to gain from it with Airlines like BA.

Personally I think its a case of better safe than sorry.
 
Last edited:
This is what the BBC stated on the matter..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39348615

I agree it seems a little cynical to asume its to put a kybosh on other airlines. The BBC are reporting the current know reason. However the ban spread to the UK too. As such I dont think the UK would do so unless either being mugged off by the US inteligence or are in on the act to gain from it with Airlines like BA.

Personally I think its a case of better safe than sorry.

I agree, if those on here that do think it's a cynical attempt to help U.S. Airliners, by Trump and his admin, I find it quite hypocritical then. This is the same man that was made fun of for his "art of the deal" and other business tactics. Yet now all of a sudden he goes from being Mr. Burns to Lex Luthor...okay

It's far more plausible to see it as a yet again overreaching attempt at "national security"
 
Last edited:
I'm just not understanding the outrage about Rice here.

Do we want a national security adviser that doesn't keep tabs on attempts by foreign governments to get involved in American politics?
 
I'm just not understanding the outrage about Rice here.

Do we want a national security adviser that doesn't keep tabs on attempts by foreign governments to get involved in American politics?

I guess some people still haven't gotten used to the idea of being wiretapped without a warrant and having that information collected and used by your government against you. Comeon people, it's 2017, there's no such thing as due process.
 
I guess some people still haven't gotten used to the idea of being wiretapped without a warrant and having that information collected and used by your government against you.

That's the thing, though. There's still no evidence that any Americans were targeted in this case.

If they were watching/listening to the Russians, then naturally, in the process, they're going to find out who they are talking to. But if those people weren't targeted, if the "tapp" is on the other end so to speak, then how were their rights to due process violated?
 
That's the thing, though. There's still no evidence that any Americans were targeted in this case.

If they were watching/listening to the Russians, then naturally, in the process, they're going to find out who they are talking to. But if those people weren't targeted, if the "tapp" is on the other end so to speak, then how were their rights to due process violated?

The US citizens have constitutional rights. Talking to Russians doesn't remove that. You still need a warrant to spy on US citizens, even if the threshold for obtaining a warrant is lower when dealing with agents of foreign powers.
 
Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama's last seven months
in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.

Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans' identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January

The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.

Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases, names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.

The exact national security justifications for Rice accessing the reports isn’t clear and may require additional documentation that the House and Senate intelligence committees have requested from the NSA, America’s lead agency in spying on foreign powers.

How the information was disseminated beyond Rice will also be a potential focus of congressional oversight, since lawmakers may want to know if it was briefed to Obama or shared with members of her larger circle of advisers, like deputy Ben Rhodes.

Link to full article:

http://circa.com/politics/accountabi...ump-associates
 
Last edited:
The US citizens have constitutional rights.

The right to not be noticed talking to somebody in Russia who is under surveillance? How exactly is one supposed to un-notice who the legitimate targets of surveillance are speaking to?
 
The right to not be noticed talking to somebody in Russia who is under surveillance? How exactly is one supposed to un-notice who the legitimate targets of surveillance are speaking to?

They need a warrant, and the names of the US citizens are supposed to be redacted from the reports (this is reaching the edge of my knowledge of how this stuff works).
 
Watergate. Watergate was when President Nixon, facing impeachment by his own party, was forced to resign. He aides had bugged the DNC, and then came the coverup.

The Nixon administration had the audacity to spy on politicians instead of the general public.
 
Watergate. Watergate was when President Nixon, facing impeachment by his own party, was forced to resign. He aides had bugged the DNC, and then came the coverup.
I know what Watergate was, this bunch makes that group look like masterminds.
 
Back