roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2017 12:55 am
@Builder,
I take your word for that. We still have homes with lead paint and asbestos insulation.
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2017 01:28 am
@roger,
Last I heard, 72% of all govt buildings here contain some asbestos lining or cladding.

I do bathroom renovations for govt contractors, and every job gets tested for asbestos before we can begin the demolition or upgrades.

As for mumma's loo pipe being lead, I was doing an upgrade on her laundry, which is directly below the bathroom and toilet upstairs. Noticed how soft the large loo pipe was, while trimming around it to frame up a ceiling.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2017 09:17 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix's source:
Quote:
The United States will not make an exception for American companies, including oil major Exxon Mobil Corp, seeking to drill in areas prohibited by U.S. sanctions on Russia, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Friday.

The unusually direct statement served to clarify that the United States would maintain a tough stance on sanctions against Moscow.

Yet. To allow Exxon to drill in Russia would essentially dismantle the sanctions in place against Russia right in front to the whole world. Trump has been in office less than 100 days, to dismantle the sanctions against Russia for annexing the Crimea from Ukraine would be a little obvious, don't you think?

Give it a little while. Trump will make some sort of deal in foreign policy with Putin, congratulate himself on Twitter and in campaign speeches for his negotiating prowess, and the right wing noise machine will play up what a great deal we got out of it. Meanwhile, Putin-and Exxon-get what they want.

You've been following politics how long, and you think Trump's going to get rid of the sanctions without seeming to get something for them?
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2017 09:52 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
See, I look at things like this differently.

I see Tillerson, as CEO of Exxon, doing what is best for that company. He was a hard worker and did anything necessary to see Exxon prosper. You know, like what a CEO is supposed to do.
[/color]
So Trump just takes the guy who went in front of the Russian parliament just two years ago mocking the US sanctions on Russia and receiving happy nods of approval from Putin's buddy for annexing the Crimea from Ukraine and chooses him as Secretary of State? Of all people. Tillerson the Sellout was so close to Putin that Putin gave him a Russian award that never goes to foreigners. Except Tillerson. This is the man who is going to help Trump contain Russian expansionism.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Now, Tillerson is SoS. He is doing what is best for the US and is working hard to do anything necessary to see the US prosper. You know, like what a Secretary of State is supposed to do.

Tillerson didn't make the decision, he probably had to recuse himself. Nonetheless, Trump's only been in office three months. Watch what happens to the sanctions in a little while-they'll be bargained away with Trump taking all the credit for making a great deal.

Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
He is a hard working dude, dedicated to his job.

For the past several years he seems to be dedicated to getting tight with Putin and reaping the rewards that brings him. That's our Secretary of State.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2017 10:15 pm
@Blickers,
Your issue is that there is nothing Trump can, will or has done that you will approve of and that leaves very little to have a discussion with you about.

I wish you good day, sir.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 02:08 am
Go figure, eh?

Quote:
Susan Rice won't testify before Senate on Russia hacking, 'unmasking'

Susan Rice, Barack Obama's longtime national security adviser, declined Wednesday to testify before a Senate subcommittee about Russian activities during the 2016 election campaign.

Had she appeared, Rice would have likely faced questions about the so-called "unmasking" of American citizens caught up in conversations with foreign targets of surveillance by the intelligence community. The most prominent figure to be "unmasked" was retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who resigned as Trump's national security adviser in February.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he was "deeply disappointed" at Rice's refusal and added, "[This] makes it appear as though she’s hiding something. No investigation will be complete until her role is understood."


Lyin Susie knows it's best not to lie under oath, eh?

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2017 08:15 am
@layman,
As all the Liberals said; "What does she have to hide?"
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2017 01:01 am
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Your issue is that there is nothing Trump can, will or has done that you will approve of and that leaves very little to have a discussion with you about.

The issue is that I have never seen a president until Trump fill his campaign and cabinet with Kremlin stooges or guys who are just off Putin's payroll. I have never seen a president who refused to show his tax returns because he was afraid that they will show where he's getting his money from. Trump can't bring himself to say a bad thing about his buddy Putin, and his "national defense advisor", Mike Flynn, is here in this picture sitting with Putin in Moscow celebrating Russia's propaganda TV network, (RT), tenth anniversary. Sitting at the same happy table celebrating Putin's propaganda machine, in the forefront, is Green party candidate Jill Stein. Gotta hand it to Putin, for a guy whose country is poor and broke, he sure worked his way into our election by a variety of angles. Apparently doing it for France, too.

http://i67.tinypic.com/259k5cj.jpg
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2017 06:16 am
@Blickers,
Honestly, the astonishment and defensiveness on the part of Republicans for the criticism directed at Trump is rather amusing. Guys, no one like Trump has ever been elected before. No one has ever been elected with as little experience in public service — i.e. none. No one has ever been elected with so much assumed wealth and so little transparency. No one has ever been elected with such a high unpopularity rating before taking office. You can support Trump as much as you wish but don't try to pass his presidency off as "business as usual".
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2017 06:23 pm
Even Clapper, the proven liar and established partisan hack who worked to suppress foreign intelligence which did not comport with the Obama narrative, has to admit it, eh?

Quote:
James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence during the Obama administration, stood by past assertions that he had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Clapper admitted he also was not initially aware of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. But he said if there was any evidence of collusion, it “didn’t reach the evidentiary bar” needed for an intelligence assessment issued earlier this year.

Clapper, further, reiterated that his team could not corroborate the contents of an infamous anti-Trump dossier that was shared with officials earlier this year.

More broadly, Clapper stood by intelligence community findings that the Russian government “pursued a multi-faceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election” and sought to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2017 06:31 pm
Yates claimed she had a "fair amount of detail" about Flynn and the Russians which quickly ended up being published in the newspapers, eh? I wonder who else was in the "secure facility" when she met with McGahn.

Quote:
Yates told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that she first notified White House Counsel Don McGahn in late January about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, at a time when he apparently was relaying information to the contrary to Vice President Pence.

She said they met in a secure facility, and she informed McGahn about Flynn’s contacts in a “fair amount of detail.” She said that conduct was “problematic” – in part because the Russians knew about those contacts, and knew he had misled Pence about them.

Clapper and Yates both answered affirmatively when asked if they ever reviewed classified documents where Trump, his associates, or congressional lawmakers were unmasked.

"Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council,” Trump wrote.

He was likely referring to the Jan. 26 exchange in which Yates told McGahn about Flynn’s contacts with Russia. That meeting quickly made its way into news accounts, fed to reporters by anonymous sources.

Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, declined an invitation to testify before the same panel Monday.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2017 08:48 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
No one has ever been elected with such a high unpopularity rating before taking office.


Which doesn't compute when you consider that he won the election.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 02:29 am
@Builder,
Well if Clinton (who got nearly three million more votes) had won, the honor would've been hers as she wasn't very popular either. Your error is believing that everyone votes or that when they do, it's only because they like a candidate. Neither of those conjectures is correct. Only 60% of eligible voters actually cast votes — but any of those people can respond to a survey. And many voters disliked both candidates, held their noses, and voted anyway.

Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 02:43 am
@hightor,
Quote:
And many voters disliked both candidates, held their noses, and voted anyway.


Which isn't democracy. Did you have a point to make here?

The popular vote doesn't count for anything, under the electoral system in place in the US of A. Never has, and likely never will.

hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 03:22 am
@Builder,
Quote:
Which isn't democracy.

I don't know what you're talking about — and I'm not sure you do either.

You denied that an unpopular candidate could win an election:
Quote:
Which doesn't compute when you consider that he won the election.

Trump's loss of the popular vote proves that it is possible.
Quote:
The popular vote doesn't count for anything, under the electoral system in place in the US of A.

Winning the popular vote means that more voters preferred that candidate. And while the electoral college determines who takes office, the popular vote isn't meaningless.
Quote:
Did you have a point to make here?

Did you?
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 03:49 am
@hightor,
This is the only sentence in your response worthy of a reply, hightor.

Quote:
Winning the popular vote means that more voters preferred that candidate. And while the electoral college determines who takes office, the popular vote isn't meaningless.


The voters of California gave HRC a stellar run in the popular vote. Not the people of the rest of the US of A.

And the electoral system does not rely upon popularity. Never has, and likely never will.

Weighted systems of voting, in a republican democracy. That's what has been in place for the longest time.

You either accept that, or you don't. It's no skin off anyone's nose but your own.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 04:16 am
@Builder,
You've basically undercut your entire "argument";
Builder wrote:
And the electoral system does not rely upon popularity.

So the fact that Trump won shows that it is possible for a candidate with a high unpopularity rating to win an election.
Builder wrote:
Which doesn't compute when you consider that he won the election.

It "computes" very easily. It happened.
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 05:27 am
@hightor,
Quote:
It "computes" very easily. It happened.


Oh it did indeed, but you're not accepting it.


Quote:
So the fact that Trump won shows that it is possible for a candidate with a high unpopularity rating to win an election.


I did mention that this doesn't represent democracy. It's a democratic republic. Do you live it? I'm not a citizen, myself.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 09:33 am
@Builder,
Quote Builder:
Quote:
I did mention that this doesn't represent democracy. It's a democratic republic. Do you live it?

More correctly, the USA is a Union of semi-autonomous republics whose Constitution gives the Federal government certain important powers, such as Defence of all states which ratified the Constitution, coining Money, making Foreign Treaties which apply to all the states, etc. Those powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved to the state governments-as long as the state laws or powers do not interfere with or prevent the execution of the Federal government carrying out its Constitutionally enumerated powers.

Also, assuming there was no vote tampering by electronic or other means, the process is democratic, in that the selection of the Electors in the Electoral College is carried out by democratic means. You might as well say the Senate renders the USA a non-democracy, since each state-whether populated by a half Million citizens or 30 Million citizens-gets two Senators, and no bill can become law without passing through the Senate first.

layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2017 09:50 am
@Blickers,
You finally make a post that is both sensible and accurate.

Good work, Blicky.

Quote:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” (Thomas Jefferson)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 04:55:24