America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

Why?

Why do you feel the need that you have to even think about respecting his opinion? Why can't he just have his own? Why does it have to be in line with 'commonly accepted principles'? Why is there a need for everything to be scrutinized? Why can the opinion of the girl not be scrutinized? Is there no flaws whatsoever in even her own opinion?

Greta's opinions and actions can absolutely be scrutinised, but there's something unpleasant about when one person bullies another. It becomes more unpleasant when there's a power disparity, like when one is President of the US and the other is a rich girl with a big mouth. Trump is punching a long way down to reach Greta.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Lindsey Graham's opening statement in the DOJ IG report hearing.

These are more facts about the DOJ spying on the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency. The DOJ IG was limited in scope to what went on in the Justice Department. The IG can not indict people for crimes, but he can refer people to the DOJ if he believes crimes were committed, and several referrals were made.



There is another investigation that is still ongoing. It has a grand jury, and has already announced that it has turned into a criminal investigation. That report should be out in late spring, or the summer.

 

[Groundfish]

. So you're argument is: The people of California deserve to be punished by the federal government for the policies that they have adopted within their own state - even if they themselves don't agree with California's policies

No. Response below.

an Francisco is a beautiful city and actually pretty clean outside of a few pockets (Tenderloin, Civic Center, parts of the Mission

Plenty of drugs and crime to go around. The sunset district is far less secure than it used to be.
My main point was pretty much if SF and it’s people is so great how can there be such a huge homeless issue to the point of needing a poop patrol to clean human feces off the street?
Representatives from this city get to high places nationally and are reputed to have fantastic human rights records?
Well, if they are the tip of the spear so to speak but fail to keep human feces and used needles off their own streets well, I don’t know what to say.

mean here it is. You recognize and seem to condone the President of the United States realizing a vendetta against his own people. Do you understand how monumentally vile this is? It's the stuff of African dictators.

Monumentally vile and African dictators aside, look at this...You are at work and your boss tells you to do a certain thing that is NOT illegal. (Feds are boss you are state) you flip him the bird and tell him you will do what you want instead. So he looks at your KPI numbers or what have you, essentially your performance records looking to criticize.
Or you punch your boss for no reason and he punches back...Reality.
Why would EPA investigating local authorities be any big deal at all unless they are negligent? Further what would that have to do with the citizens? It’s govt against govt not govt against citizens in the examples you presented, so I personally don’t see your rebuttal as being valid in this case. everyone knows Walter Peck right? Not a scary guy...

PG&E transmission lines travel though utility easements. Tree cutting is entirely their responsibility in these zones.

My point was simply that Ca has an entire branch of govt that is responsible for ensuring things are done right at these companies.
The WSJ article was titled where were the regulators? I’d guess playing golf or enjoying nice amenities somewhere because they could not keep half the state from going down in flames.
That’s called negligence.
Kinda funny in that article I posted how the officials switch from the utility to the regulatory commission back and forth and that the utility is a big contributor to politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Something is not kosher there is all I am sayin.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Wait a minute how is pointing out a fact trolling?

I'm not trying to say you are trolling, I'm claiming that Trump's actions are.

I actually really like the city for many reasons. You claimed I was ignorant but in fact I wasn’t.
Above you mentioned the utility is a large private company but failed to address the large bureaucracy whose job it is to regulate it.
Further regarding the water quality issue, I personally have an interest in the water quality and it’s my and my children’s health.
You would be surprised what old illegal connections there are in these big cities which go into waters my friends and family swim in. That’s reality a lot of these pipes were not put in yesterday up to code with proper engineering. That’s unarguable fact.

I would be surprised, maybe, if I saw evidence. I don't think San Francisco is uniquely bad in terms of infrastructure...certainly not worth singling out by the EPA (of all things). This is where I see deliberate trolling on the part of the Trump administration. (I don't want to drag this too far into the weeds specifically about San Francisco, as it's not relevant to many people, but it's not a city I see as particularly corrupt - if/where infrastructure is lacking, it's because its old and in inaccessible areas, not because of shady dealings)

Imo governance is not a pr contest is all I’m saying, there’s real work to be done on systems and infrastructure that is often ignored.

No objections there, as long as that governance is done in good faith.

Also re feds vs local when CA repeatedly ignores federal mandates to me it’s utter disrespect for the rule of law.
Just like some of the illegal immigrants being moved out via Oakland airport as a slap in the face to the mayor there.
Yes these things happen it doesn’t mean we like it it’s just reality.

What are the federal mandates CA ignores? I'm not familiar with your Oakland airport example.

I think as individuals we really don’t have very different aims in life, but often differing ideology makes it hard to communicate. I hope that doesn’t happen here and tbh I am in the field right now or I would respond better.

Edit maybe you don’t kite surf or sailboard or swim or fish or crab in those waters but others do and it’s a concern.

I'd be curious to know how much drainage into the bay is purely runoff from the streets vs what is directly fed through these non-filtered storm drains. What I'm getting at is the storm drains cannot possibly be a significant issue in the grand scheme of a city of 800,000 people with impervious paving throughout and with bodies of water on 3 sides. I'm no civil engineer, but I gather that un-filtered runoff is going to happen regardless of whats happening with the storm drains, unless you had some sort of mega-engineering project - I'm sure that would not be cheap. Also, I know multiple people that swim or surf in the bay/ocean every day (I don't personally) and haven't never heard a concern (other than how damn cold it is...and sharks). I'm pretty certain the Bay is cleaner than it has any right to be, all things considered. Humans are damned dirty.

I just want to say this generally. I'm a resident of California and a voter. I have my fair share of complaints, and due to the strangehold of power, those complaints are directed at one party. I'm professionally entangled in it, even, as I deal work in the building industry and have to wrestle with absurd amounts of bureaucratic nonsense which is probably worse in SF than perhaps any place in the world. But using the office of the Presidency to wage retribution on a city that has resisted your policies is bad leadership and is beneath the office. I responded to your original post where you were criticizing the discourse offered by the left. I think we should consider that the buck has to stop at the president's desk. What if from day 1 of his Presidency, he actually had tried to be President for all of America and not just his voters?

 

[Imari]

Lindsey Graham's opening statement in the DOJ IG report hearing.

These are more facts about the DOJ spying on the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency. The DOJ IG was limited in scope to what went on in the Justice Department. The IG can not indict people for crimes, but he can refer people to the DOJ if he believes crimes were committed, and several referrals were made.



There is another investigation that is still ongoing. It has a grand jury, and has already announced that it has turned into a criminal investigation. That report should be out in late spring, or the summer.

Sweet, I think the entire American government could use some more transparency. And I say this without regard to who is in power, I think the transparency should continue into the next time there's a Democratic President and would have been welcome when Obama was President. Entirely too much has become insular and hidden since 9/11, for reasons that in retrospect don't appear to be particularly good.

While there are some governmental activities that should not be privy to oversight from every Tom, Dick and Harold, those should very much be the exception rather than the norm.

 

[PocketZeven]

Lindsey Graham's opening statement in the DOJ IG report hearing.

These are more facts about the DOJ spying on the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency. The DOJ IG was limited in scope to what went on in the Justice Department. The IG can not indict people for crimes, but he can refer people to the DOJ if he believes crimes were committed, and several referrals were made.



There is another investigation that is still ongoing. It has a grand jury, and has already announced that it has turned into a criminal investigation. That report should be out in late spring, or the summer.

Interesting how the conclusions of 2 thorough reports are being flatout rejected by the republicans. Even though the IG report was started by the republicans. I am curious what the second report on the origins will conclude and if the republicans will reject that one too.

 

[Groundfish]

on't think San Francisco is uniquely bad in terms of infrastructure...certainly not worth singling out by the EPA (of all things). This is where I see deliberate trolling on the part of the Trump administration

Right but prior to that many cities in CA Refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. I feel that’s throwing the first punch. Ignoring the nations border laws completely.
Plus re the sewage bit, in the NE combined sewer systems near the Great Lakes have tons of issues, so one could see how it would make sense or be an easy thing to convince someone to look into. In summer in Ca beaches get high water quality, in winter with runoff is when there would be trouble if the combined system discharges or the storm drains when there is contamination on the streets themselves. Re the bay, lookup Cyanobacterial algae bloom.
Toxic algae blooms have been happening more and more everywhere in North America. That stuff is very nasty and scary and there are efforts underway to monitor it and study it.
I’m glad since we are located in the same state we can have a discussion that’s not a flame war .

Re Graham above, one striking thing that no one mentioned is that he commented in there about Trump will come and Trump will go or something to that effect implying that Congress is quite secure through differing presidential administrations.
Are we ok with that?
Imo term limits would be a great idea there. Weren’t Pelosi and Schumer blaming Reagan for everything when he was in office lol
Now they blame President Trump. I do like to point out things that bother me about the left. I deal with them everyday, and it stinks to have to go through mountains of red tape from a lot of people that are far more concerned about people’s feelings than on physical quantifiable real problems that are being ignored.
Stop trying to redefine words and GET TO WORK.
(directed towards politicians)

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Interesting how the conclusions of 2 thorough reports are being flatout rejected by the republicans. Even though the IG report was started by the republicans. I am curious what the second report on the origins will conclude and if the republicans will reject that one too.

It is pretty obvious that you either, did not watch the video, or did not understand the video.

Lindsey Graham is not disparaging the IG report, he is disparaging the FBI based on what is in the report. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation in order to spy on the Trump campaign. They lied to the FISA court to get a surveillance warrant against Carter Page. They withheld exculpatory evidence from the court so they could renew the surveillance warrant multiple times.

Lindsey Graham questions the IG in the same hearing.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is pretty obvious that you either, did not watch the video, or did not understand the video.

Lindsey Graham is not disparaging the IG report, he is disparaging the FBI based on what is in the report. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation in order to spy on the Trump campaign. They lied to the FISA court to get a surveillance warrant against Carter Page. They withheld exculpatory evidence from the court so they could renew the surveillance warrant multiple times.

Lindsey Graham questions the IG in the same hearing.

That is not an accurate description of the summary of the report. It is a narrative to discredit the report. It is exactly the same they did with the Mueller Report.

No, there was no bias, but yes there were mistakes made. But not serious enough to call them crimes. But in the end Mueller already proved there was russian influence in the election. Proving the legitamacy of the intelligence.

 

[Joey D]

I do like to point out things that bother me about the left. I deal with them everyday, and it stinks to have to go through mountains of red tape from a lot of people that are far more concerned about people’s feelings than on physical quantifiable real problems that are being ignored.
Stop trying to redefine words and GET TO WORK.
(directed towards politicians)

I live in Utah, a very red state that's ran almost exclusively by Republicans. I also work at a government-run institution so I directly deal with the politicians' policies. I've also worked for organizations that fall under the control of a Democrat government as well. You know what? Both are equally full of red tape. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the left does this or that, when in reality both sides are terrible.

Aa side note, Republicans tend to affect my personal life more in Utah though than the Democrats. As of last week, I'll be paying more in taxes thanks to Republicans feeling the need to steal more money from me. Also, we have some of the most antiquated drinking laws in the nations thanks to Republicans. Oh and the Republicans here love to illegal seize land through eminent domain and whatever else they call it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I live in Utah, a very red state that's ran almost exclusively by Republicans. I also work at a government-run institution so I directly deal with the politicians' policies. I've also worked for organizations that fall under the control of a Democrat government as well. You know what? Both are equally full of red tape. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the left does this or that, when in reality both sides are terrible.

Aa side note, Republicans tend to affect my personal life more in Utah though than the Democrats. As of last week, I'll be paying more in taxes thanks to Republicans feeling the need to steal more money from me. Also, we have some of the most antiquated drinking laws in the nations thanks to Republicans. Oh and the Republicans here love to illegal seize land through eminent domain and whatever else they call it.

I live in Europe and I get equally annoyed by leftist environmentalists and gendercrusadors as I get annoyed by rightwing anti-immigration protestors and anti-environmental protesting farmers.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

That is not an accurate description of the summary of the report. It is a narrative to discredit the report. It is exactly the same they did with the Mueller Report.

No, there was no bias, but yes there were mistakes made. But not serious enough to call them crimes. But in the end Mueller already proved there was russian influence in the election. Proving the legitamacy of the intelligence.

Yeah, like the one where an email from the CIA that said Carter Page was an intelligent asset was altered to say that he was not a source for the CIA.

Or like the one where they interviewed the source of the Steele dossier, and he told them that Steele had exaggerated and made up parts of the dossier, it was just rumor and bar talk. Then they go back to the FISA court and say the source seemed to be credible, but they don't even bother to report that the guy had said the dossier was crap, just that he was credible.

By the way there were multiple referrals for prosecution sent to the DOJ.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yeah, like the one where an email from the CIA that said Carter Page was an intelligent asset was altered to say that he was not a source for the CIA.

Or like the one where they interviewed the source of the Steele dossier, and he told them that Steele had exaggerated and made up parts of the dossier, it was just rumor and bar talk. Then they go back to the FISA court and say the source seemed to be credible, but they don't even bother to report that the guy had said the dossier was crap, just that he was credible.

By the way there were multiple referrals for prosecution sent to the DOJ.

The Steele was credible enough to warrant an investigation. Not to use as evidence for indictment or prosecution. None does suggest political bias. Neither republican or democrat. Before and during the election there were both democrats and republicans who were against Trump at the time. People seem to forget very quickly.

Which referrals?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Which referrals?

I'm done replying to you. You disregard everything I say or post.

From the video I posted 4 or 5 messages ago, which you obviously ignored:

watch for about 30 seconds

 

[Danoff]

I'm done replying to you. You disregard everything I say or post.

From the video I posted 4 or 5 messages ago, which you obviously ignored:

watch for about 30 seconds

I watched for about 30 seconds. It's fun the notion that the only people with credibility are the ones who love Trump. It's like saying the impeachment process is bogus unless the republicans agree to it.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I watched for about 30 seconds. It's fun the notion that the only people with credibility are the ones who love Trump. It's like saying the impeachment process is bogus unless the republicans agree to it.

That video had nothing to do with impeachment. The guy Graham is talking to is not a Trump lover, he is the Inspector General of the DOJ.

 

[Danoff]

That video had nothing to do with impeachment. The guy Graham is talking to is not a Trump lover, he is the Inspector General of the DOJ.

I love the notion that the only people with credibility are the ones who love Trump. It's this circular argument that seems to have infused itself with thin the Republican Party. If you don't love Trump, why should you have anything to do with government, be in any position of power, be considered credible, be listened to, or get the time of day.

 

[Swagger897]

I love the notion that the only people with credibility are the ones who love Trump. It's this circular argument that seems to have infused itself with thin the Republican Party. If you don't love Trump, why should you have anything to do with government, be in any position of power, be considered credible, be listened to, or get the time of day.

Is the inverse of that argument not true as well (assuming that all conservatives who voted for Trump is equal to that of all liberals who voted for HRC)? Is every dem. supposed to be 100% against Trump on all policies?

 

[Dotini]

Which referrals?

In general, the referrals relate to figures in the FBI, other agencies and private individuals. In breaking news, it is reported (NYT) that the CIA has been requested by the federal prosecutor (Durham) to provide communications records relating to John Brennan.

 

[Danoff]

Is the inverse of that argument not true as well (assuming that all conservatives who voted for Trump is equal to that of all liberals who voted for HRC)? Is every dem. supposed to be 100% against Trump on all policies?

I'm not so sure. I'd need to see, for example, criticism of Federal Employees getting paid parental leave. Seems like the house voted for it. I think it doesn't hold up for the "hate trump" version as well as for the "love trump" version.

How do we know it's true? Because the bible, I mean Trump, says so. What if he's wrong? He says he's not.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm done replying to you. You disregard everything I say or post.

From the video I posted 4 or 5 messages ago, which you obviously ignored:

watch for about 30 seconds

I did not ignore the post. Perhaps overlooked since it wasnt directed at me. I just dont understand what referrals you were referencing from the video after 30 seconds. Lets say the FISA warrants were illegally obtained. That still would not disprove the conclusion that russia influenced the 2016 election. It would also not disprove the conclusions of the Mueller Report. I have difficulty understanding the relevance. Isnt it good to investigate/spy every presidential candidate dem or republican if there is misconduct, as long there is some suspicion?

In general, the referrals relate to figures in the FBI, other agencies and private individuals. In breaking news, it is reported (NYT) that the CIA has been requested by the federal prosecutor (Durham) to provide communications records relating to John Brennan.

Thank you that was the explanation I was looking for. If another investigation does report laws were broken, would that have consequences for the ones who were indicted, because of the Mueller investigation?

 

[Dotini]

Reportedly 34 people were shot this week in Chicago. The cause is attributed to milder than usual weather.

 

[Joey D]

Hey look, more nanny state: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-raises-legal-age-buy-tobacco-us/story?id=67853526

If you don't understand tobacco has health risks at 18, you won't know about them if you're 21 either. If you're legally an adult in the eyes of the US, then there so be no restrictions on tobacco or alcohol. This is what happens when you want the government to hold your hand.

Also this spending bill: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-gave-trump-government-spending-233323716.html

Christ on a cracker, $1.4 trillion in spending. Like what in god's name is the country doing with that money...oh wait, they're pumping it into the military because god knows we need to crank up our bombing on third world nations. I thought Trump was supposed to reduce spending? Guess that was a lie. There is absolutely zero reason spending should be anywhere near that high, like ever.

 

[Adamgp]

Reportedly 34 people were shot this week in Chicago. The cause is attributed to milder than usual weather.

Yep. Including 13 at a house party memorial for someone shot earlier this year.

Not really buying the warmer weather excuse though.

 

[Swagger897]

Hey look, more nanny state: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-raises-legal-age-buy-tobacco-us/story?id=67853526

If you don't understand tobacco has health risks at 18, you won't know about them if you're 21 either. If you're legally an adult in the eyes of the US, then there so be no restrictions on tobacco or alcohol. This is what happens when you want the government to hold your hand.

Rather a complete failure to actually identify what the last few month's previous vaping 'crisis' was actually being caused by.

Then again, nearly the rest of the world has age restrictions on alcoholic beverages too...

 

[Joey D]

Rather a complete failure to actually identify what the last few month's previous vaping 'crisis' was actually being caused by.

Then again, nearly the rest of the world has age restrictions on alcoholic beverages too...

It was being caused by e-liquid that contained sub-par ingredients and, potentially, THC.

Honestly, I don't think any restrictions should be in place. It should be up to the parents if they don't want their kid drinking or smoking before they become a legal adult.

 

[Shaun]

It was being caused by e-liquid that contained sub-par ingredients and, potentially, THC.

Honestly, I don't think any restrictions should be in place. It should be up to the parents if they don't want their kid drinking or smoking before they become a legal adult.

I get the libertarian stance and all and also agree that the responsibility ultimately falls on the parents.
However are you saying you would be fine with say a 12 year old walking home from school to legally stop by the liquor store, purchase a six pack of beer and sit in the park and drink it?

 

[Joey D]

I get the libertarian stance and all and also agree that the responsibility ultimately falls on the parents.
However are you saying you would be fine with say a 12 year old walking home from school to legally stop by the liquor store, purchase a six pack of beer and sit in the park and drink it?

In a park? I'm not so sure. At home? Absolutely. It's less to do about the age though and more of I'm not sure anyone should be consuming alcohol in public spaces like a park. Alcohol, drugs, and tobacco use should probably be confined to private property.

 

[ryzno]

In a park? I'm not so sure. At home? Absolutely. It's less to do about the age though and more of I'm not sure anyone should be consuming alcohol in public spaces like a park. Alcohol, drugs, and tobacco use should probably be confined to private property.

As an alcoholic, I just want to say, getting a 12 year old kid addicted to alcohol, tobacco, weed etc... Isn't good. In public, or in the privacy and control of their home. IMHO

 

[Shaun]

In a park? I'm not so sure. At home? Absolutely. It's less to do about the age though and more of I'm not sure anyone should be consuming alcohol in public spaces like a park. Alcohol, drugs, and tobacco use should probably be confined to private property.

Ok cool, that's what I thought you meant as in more along the lines of at home which I tend to agree with in most cases.
That's pretty much how it is here, if a minor is in the presence of their parents at home it's up to the parents discretion as to what they consume.

Just when you said this

I don't think any restrictions should be in place

I wanted to clear up exactly what you meant hence the bit more extreme version of the child alone and drinking in a public place.