Carborendum

Biden Corruption Emails

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

If you care about the environment, here is a super simple 5 minute video.

The first minute is good.  The part about Communists countries being terrible to the environment is true.  So is the part about other countries failing to live up to their commitments.  So is the part about natural gas and gracking producing less CO2 than coal.  

Most of the rest is pure garbage.  The parts about not infringing on freedom is rediculous.  Right to pollute should take precedence over rights to be free from putting up with someone elses pollution.

Also, it addresses nothing about wilderness areas, roadless areas, etc.  Just as the video says, it was the republicans that used to support the National Parks and the EPA.  Other than the recent funding package for the NPS conservatives haven't supported the NPS (unless it makes them a lot of money in recent years) nor have they supported protected wilderness areas in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

Other than the recent funding package for the NPS conservatives haven't supported the NPS (unless it makes them a lot of money in recent years) nor have they supported protected wilderness areas in recent years.

Did Biden secure permanent funding for the National Parks Service when he was office? Um, nope he did not.
Trump did.
He passed the Great American Outdoors Act to restore our national parks.
Directly off the National Parks Service website:

Quote

Earlier this year, President Trump called on Congress to send him a bill that would fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and restore our national parks. On August 4, 2020, President Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act into law, accomplishing those exact objectives.

To some, Trump is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - there is always something even further to complain about because when it comes down to it - it really isn't the issues they have a problem with.  Leads me to believe that little to no real thinking or digging is taking place outside of what the MSM is feeding people.

People can assert Trump/conservatives snub their noses at the EPA or NPS, however, their own websites refute those claims.
 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most important thing to me in political elections is who is going to support property rights, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Once freedom is gone you very likely won't get it back without a war and a lot of killing sadly.  There are forces at work in our country presently trying to destroy property rights and citizen's individual liberties.

Biden is not the candidate to pick if you value property rights and 2nd Amendment liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Did Biden secure permanent funding for the National Parks Service when he was office? Um, nope he did not.
Trump did.
He passed the Great American Outdoors Act to restore our national parks.

It was a bipartisan passing of the bill, not just Trump.  Also Obama did propose a big funding increase for the NPS several times,  including up to the 2017 Fiscal Year.   The budgets were always gutted to get them passed.

The Great American Outdoors Act came at a high cost to conservation, but overall I'll give credit to those passing it, including Trump.

It was Cory Gardner of Colorado who introduced the bill.   Cory Gardner is a Republican and did it as a political move since a majority of Coloradans support the green side.

The price of the bill is that the funding is permanent only as long as the fossil fuel industry is leasing the public lands.   All of the funding is based off revenue from fossil fuel leases on public land.  It's an overall good bill, but a sneaky one in a lot of ways, most important if Biden really is successful (and I don't think he would be) when it comes to keeping leases off public lands, the funding does go away.  I'm still happy that the money is going to the NPS though.  

Overall, I approve of the bill and give Trump (and the Republicans) credit where credit it due.

I am also pleased with the fact that Trump hasn't started any new wars.   Kudos to him for that.  A lot of people, including myself were worried about that.    But he hasn't and deserves credit.   Then again, even though he hasn't started any new wars, military spending is still out of control, especially if we do plan on getting less involved in foreign wars.

Those are the two things I am pleased with Trump about.

As I said before I consider Biden to be the lesser of two evils.   Lesser does not mean that Biden is somehow good and Trump is all bad.  I would imagine that a lot of Democrats or independent Biden voters don't like Biden.   I certainly don't.    Then again, if Biden were elected I am predicting that he would be a one term president, which gives us time to find someone better.
 

Quote

People can assert Trump/conservatives snub their noses at the EPA or NPS, however, their own websites refute those claims.

I already provided a link of what the Trump administration has gutted.  I read and watched your links.  Did you read mine?

Other than the bill mentioned above, their actions speak otherwise.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Most important thing to me in political elections is who is going to support property rights, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Which property rights is Biden trying to gut?

As far as rights go, Trump has vowed many times to support the coal industry and the biggest polluters.    Hundreds of thousands of Americans die from pollution ever year.

I can't think of a worse way to take away someone's rights than taking their life and health away.  Why should an industry or industry be allowed to murder hundreds of thousands of people when it could be prevented?

Some pollution is dropping in spite of Trump, not because of him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

 Hundreds of thousands of Americans die from pollution ever year.
 

Source? Studies I have read about that kind of thing are widely panned for their evidence being insufficient and conflicting, and for their conclusions being inflated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Source? Studies I have read about that kind of thing are widely panned for their evidence being insufficient and conflicting, and for their conclusions being inflated.

You are right that studies give different numbers. 

Here's one source:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/200000-americans-die-every-year-air-pollution-that-meets-epa-standard-1473187%3famp=1

For the sake of arguement, let's just say that tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Americans die from pollution every year.

Although numbers do vary widely, at a very minimum is is tens of thousands of people every single year.  There are no studies that say the numbers aren't at least into the tens of thousands.

To me that's not OK.  Other than greed, I don't understand why anyone would be OK with it.  Zero pollution is unreasonable, but we can do better.

I'll tell you what.  Find the study with the lowest projected number of deaths and explain to me why you consider it to be OK (unless you don't think is OK of course).

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

The Great American Outdoors Act came at a high cost to conservation, but overall I'll give credit to those passing it, including Trump.

It got passed, that has to be a plus👍

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I am also pleased with the fact that Trump hasn't started any new wars.   Kudos to him for that. 

Not only no wars, peace deal between Israel, UAE, Sudan, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I already provided a link of what the Trump administration has gutted.  I read and watched your links.  Did you read mine?

Actually, I did click the link to read the NYtimes article earlier but then it wanted me to have a subscription or sign up for an account so I left. I'm never opposed to other views but I do shy away from creating accounts to read something.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

You are right that studies give different numbers. 

Here's one source:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/200000-americans-die-every-year-air-pollution-that-meets-epa-standard-1473187%3famp=1

For the sake of arguement, let's just say that tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Americans die from pollution every year.

Although numbers do vary widely, at a very minimum is is tens of thousands of people every single year.  There are no studies that say the numbers aren't at least into the tens of thousands.

To me that's not OK.  Other than greed, I don't understand why anyone would be OK with it.  Zero pollution is unreasonable, but we can do better.

I'll tell you what.  Find the study with the lowest projected number of deaths and explain to me why you consider it to be OK (unless you don't think is OK of course).

Cool your jets space cadet. Never said it was okay. Never implied it was okay. I have zero interest in debating anything. Just asked for your source. Have a nice evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now