Carborendum

Biden Corruption Emails

Recommended Posts

Guest Scott
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
Guest Scott
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
Guest Scott
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
Guest Scott
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
23 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Taxation is the biggest one.  Biden is listening to Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Occasio-Cortez.  They all have very socialist policies.  Socialist policies do not respect private property.

Not only do socialists not respect private property - they cannot even tolerate it - unless it is theirs and then their socialism becomes a lie.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 One of my sisters posted a picture of herself and my brother in law going to vote. Also, some dumb anti-dem quote about voting for Trump, I really don't get it. We talked about this a million times, they don't like Trump at all and yet...voting for him. Fine but the reason got me... because "that's what our leaders want us to do". Really? No wonder I'm the black sheep, to be honest it is ridiculous. 

On another note, more I hear Trump talking... more I realize he needs to go home and perhaps plan a new season of the Apprentice or something. The game is over.

Don't get me started with Joe, every time he talks is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 2:50 PM, Carborendum said:

To the degree that what I have concluded on this so far is in error... my apologies but.....

it seems to me that the world's wealthiest families have been somewhat influenced by the ideas

of economist Thomas Malthus and... .they have hired brilliant economists, lawyers, journalists and CEO's.... (CEO's are paid on average

eleven million dollars annually in salary plus benefits)..... in order for those CEO's to withhold critical information from

average people like you and I.  These CEO's justify the withholding of life saving information on the pretext that it might cause

another hit to Wall Street comparable to what happened in 2008.

These economists, lawyers, journalists and CEO's are very good at suppressing information that has the potential to result in aspects of

Isaiah chapter forty five being fulfilled in our time period.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/isa/45?lang=eng

 

13 I have raised ahim up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall bbuild my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for cprice nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

Edited by DennisTate
add a scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Suzie said:

 One of my sisters posted a picture of herself and my brother in law going to vote. Also, some dumb anti-dem quote about voting for Trump, I really don't get it. We talked about this a million times, they don't like Trump at all and yet...voting for him. Fine but the reason got me... because "that's what our leaders want us to do". Really? No wonder I'm the black sheep, to be honest it is ridiculous. 

On another note, more I hear Trump talking... more I realize he needs to go home and perhaps plan a new season of the Apprentice or something. The game is over.

Don't get me started with Joe, every time he talks is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Last I checked the church does not endorse any candidate.   It does however tell us to be active and engaged and to vote.  By that standard I would expect most member will vote for their selected candidate because "that's what our leaders want us to do." and they will not be wrong to do so.  However saying it in that way it horribly misleading because implication of church candidate endorsement and membership voting exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Last I checked the church does not endorse any candidate.   It does however tell us to be active and engaged and to vote.  By that standard I would expect most member will vote for their selected candidate because "that's what our leaders want us to do." and they will not be wrong to do so.  However saying it in that way it horribly misleading because implication of church candidate endorsement and membership voting exactly the same.

There was a time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the church leaders endorsed political candidates.  This was one of the reasons (among others) that the majority of the Church members were driven from the boundaries of this nation and the lives of it leaders sought (including the murders of Joseph and Hyrum).  Once established in Utah, in a conference of the Church, Brigham Young divided the congregation designating half to be republicans and the other half to be democrats.  Forever since the church has remained outside of political party politics but strong backers of the principles upon which this country was founded - with the exception of slavery (which stance was among the reasons the church was forced to flee the country.)

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 3:49 PM, 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).

I read the article you linked.  I would point out two things concerning the study referenced to justify the article.

First.  The deaths referenced are based on model projections.  As a scientist and engineer in the field of automation and robotics - I am well acquainted with modeling and their projections - specifically the use and values of models and projections.  Models should never be confused or used without or beyond real world metrics - ever.  If we have real world metrics - they should ALWAYS be used rather than model projections.

Second. The deaths were classified by maladies linked to but not exclusively caused by air pollution.   This is not uncommon in today's reporting - take for example COVID-19 deaths.  Anyone that dies with the COVID virus is cataloged as death by COVID but the reality is that rarely was COVID - "THE CAUSE" of death but rather a contributing or catalyst type factor.   I am not saying the article was worthless - just somewhat misleading.

 

But I would bring to light problems of pollution that are somewhat hidden for political reasons.  Some of the most deadly chemical agents involved in air pollution is very involved in the silicon chip manufacturing process.  You are correct in understanding that this is one of the world's most profitable industries - so money (greed) is greatly involved.  But this technology is also very popular.  Everyone has to have their very own cell phone and more and more you cannot purchase hardly anything that does not have silicon technology attached - not even a door bell.

Automobiles are way overused as polluters - I myself, commuted by bicycle (often 25 miles one way) to work most days (when ice was not on the roads) partly to cut down on pollution.  But for political reasons fossil fuels are taking most of the heat in the pollution accusations currently taking place.  You are correct - we can do better - but I doubt it will ever happen in our current political (and shellfish) climate.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 12:09 PM, Scott said:

Only that's not why emissions are down.  They are down in 2020 due to slowdowns during Covid and a downturn in travel.  In 2019, they were down 2% due to the closing of several coal-fired plants.  Trump (according to him especially) had nothing to do with the closure of the coal fired power plants.  

In 2018, emissions were up.   Before 2017 they had been steadily declining, especially since 2007, but with a few bumps.  

CO2 emissions aren't the only thing that has to do with the environment though.

Wildlife, wilderness protection, roadless rules, clean water, etc. are all part of the environment.  How has Trump been better with any of this?

Here is a list of environmental rollbacks from Trump, many of which have/had bipartisan support when put in place.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
 

This is what I meant about separating the rhetoric from the substance.

You may not remember what happened prior to the Accords.  There was a global downturn in the energy market.  Which also contributed to the decrease in emissions during that period.  I really don' think the Paris accords had anything to do with it.

The overall trend has been going down for decades.  With minor ups and downs as is usual in a chaotic system, Trump continued the trend and will continue to do so.

You ask how has Trump helped?  @NeedleinA has addressed that just fine in my absence.  Biden on the other hand has done NOTHING on the environment. Sure, he voted for Cap & Trade.  But he neither authored the bill nor has the bill done anything to help the environment.  It sounds cool.  But it does nothing to help.  Al he's ever done is voted along party lines.  So, if Trump only got a more fuel efficient vehicle he would have done more than Trump.  But Trump did more than that.  But you just don't hear about it on the news.

You brought up that article about pollution killing people.  Again, this is another example of rhetoric vs substance.  The news article caught the summaries and conclusions in a very bullet point manner.  Did you read the actual report?  Traveler mentioned a few weaknesses.  But it still doesn't cover the substance of what is wrong with the report.

Basically, the group was hired to do a study which ended up with the conclusion that pollution kills people.  They did the studies and found most of it was inconclusive.  But because the people paying for the study didn't want a study that said nothing, they had to reword it to sound like it did say that.  And within the body of the paper, they wrote all kinds of conditionals, disclaimers, projections (based on only a few data points), correlations which they admit was spotty, and causal relationships which could only be thorised.

That report was faulty.

Why is innovation "pure garbage"?  If Democrats truly are "pro-science" and "pro-clean energy" then they'd be all on board with pushing nuclear.  But they aren't.  Why do you think that is?  It isn't because of public sentiment.  They have a stranglehold on the media and they could just push it through with NO problems.  So, why aren't they for nuclear? 

I'd say it is because most of the environmental movements are NOT about the environment.  They are about shifting funds from one party to another.  Did you know that most big eco organizations make the bulk of their money by suing the EPA for not enforcing certain environmental regulations?  This has been true in both R and D administrations.  But as we're learning now, the deep state was really running things.  They are the ones who want to shift tax payer dollars to the eco orgs.  Why do you think that is?

Apart from that, what about the rest of the list? He's not looking too good.

Yes, yes.  You're actually voting for Harris, not Biden.  But then, how does she fare on this list?  BTW, if you say you're not voting for Harris, then... quite honestly, I don't want to insult you.  

Edited by Carborendum

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