Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Do conservatives not think there is any problem with the Environment?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (16728points) 3 weeks ago

That it is all just fake news, and it’s full speed ahead?
Climate change is just left wing propaganda?
Or is there a real problem and something really has to be done or this planet is doomed?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

127 Answers

Yellowdog's avatar

Most conservatives are concerned about being good stewards of the environment, but do not see the “Green New Deal” as being anything but a way to control people and install a sort of government-controlled socialism, or way of controlling speech and thought.

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m in the middle of helping someone in FLA right now so I can’t answer as well as I’d like. But America is not even on the Top Ten in world polluters—China and Indonesia and even Egypt are. The United States and other “western” nations are not, nor is even India. But there are some places that truck their sewage right to the ocean.

I would hope that environmental issues is where we will eventually see more common.ground.

Aster's avatar

Climate change is a real problem and I hope we find a solution within the next fifty years.

Yellowdog's avatar

Climate Change devotees say its an immediate problem—something that requires radical change within the next twelve years, @Aster—not fifty.

Hey, if we could, I;d be all for it. But like you, I think we are doing only minimal impact right now, and will change in time. Like, yeah, 25–30 years. Lets just not wreck the energy and life of our nation and world attempting to do noble changes that are not really addressing the issues.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Conservative dogma, for at least 40 years – is that while climate change is an issue, there’s no proof that humans caused it, and therefore there’s no reasons for humans to fix it.

Of course, that’s a prescription to do nothing at all.

That conservative view has loosened a little, but not much. The EPA still actively does things that lead to increased pollutants in the air. Some conservatives use the approach “addressing this will cost money and we don’t want to increase the size of government” – which is another excuse for doing nothing at all.

Even a free market approach to climate mitigation – carbon credits and a market strategy for reducing pollution – has been shot down by conservatives for much the same reasons, and nothing happens.

Now, before @KNOWITALL jumps in and says “not all conservatives think that way!” – I’ll agree. Not all do. A few are conscious of the dangers of climate change. Sadly, politicians and people in political power on the right have not as a rule done a thing about addressing climate change.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Gee with a two second google search I came up with the top five countries that are the worst polluters…
Top 5 most polluting countries
China (30%) ...
United States (15%) ...
India (7%) ...
Russia (5%) ...
Japan (4%)

Jaxk's avatar

Air and water quality has been improving for 50 years in the US. The idea that nothing has happened or will happen is simply not true. I can’t speak for all conservatives only myself. I don’t buy into the idea that we’ll all be dead in 12 years. I’ve been hearing that crap since 1989 and it hasn’t happened. I have no problem with cleaner air and water but the ‘hair on fire’ predictions are way over the top.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Haha no, but that is how liberals believe conservatives think. Liberals are very binary on the issue. Conservatives are not, we know environmental issues are dire but we are not as sensitive to the alarmist view. I know not everything attributed to climate change really is, it’s not hard to see the bandwagon and everything that is attached that has nothing to do with it. That said our contribution to the changing climate is nothing to ignore and requires immediate attention. That attention needs to be appropriate, calculated and not over-driven which is something the left have problems with. Their alarm actually causes damage IMO.

The all out deniers are few and dwindling and they don’t represent the typical conservative. They are special interest groups and we all know who they are. They masquerade as “conservatives” and may even convince some to join their team but make no mistake, they are not really us.

wiscoblond's avatar

@Jaxk Water quality is improving? Try telling that to people living in Michigan.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Air quality has seen a dramatic improvement, water has been a mixed bag but we are mostly dealing with issues that were caused decades ago.

rebbel's avatar

@wiscoblond Give it some time, it’s only been, what, five, six years now?

seawulf575's avatar

I can tell you that I, for one, am a big supporter of helping the environment. I am quite certain that in our overblown biosphere, mankind has an impact. I would love to phase out our dependence on oil.
Now…the better question might be “why don’t conservatives want to go along with the goals of liberals as they relate to the environment?”
That is where I will give you more details…the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say.
Climate Change: Do I believe the climate is changing? sure. Am I convinced it is all due to mankind? Not at all. And I am not alone. It started with the first UN IPCC report. They gathered together a bunch of scientists to make a determination as to whether the climate was changing, but it was called global warming at the time. That group of scientists did their research independently and then compared conclusions. The answers fell into a couple of areas: there is no global warming, there may be global warming but it is uncertain if it will continue or if it will change, there is global warming but it cannot be determined what the cause is, and there is global warming and it is all due to mankind. The smallest populations of answers fell to “there is no global warming” and “there is global warming and it is due all to mankind”. The UN IPCC then took the report and rewrote it making it appear that it was conclusive that man-made global warming was a certainty. Many of the scientists that worked on that report were upset by this change, especially since their names were left on the report. Many of them have since spoken out about this.
Modeling: Based on the initial UN IPCC report, another group set about coming up with models that could realistically predict future trends. To date, not a single model has been able to predict this. The initial “models” showed that due to global warming the polar caps were melting and would continue to melt until coastal areas were flooded. When polar caps started growing, they could no longer really call it global warming so they started calling it “climate change”. And a funny thing started happening; every odd weather event was suddenly a result of “climate change”. Temperatures go up…it’s climate change. They fall below normal readings…it’s climate change. A bad storm hits, its climate change. one area gets record rain fall and it is due to climate change while another area gets a drought and that is climate change. It seemed like they (the climate changers) were trying to take credit for any oddity in weather as proof of their claim. That sounds way too much like a snake oil salesman.
Corrective actions: Every plan that came out to battle “climate change” had basically one thing that could be done. Place control of carbon emissions in the hands of the government. Now, even if man-made climate change were real, this answer is not realistic and is not addressing the problem fully. In any system, if you have an intrusion of contaminants, there are several things that have to happen to correct the problem. First, you have to identify all possible sources of contaminants and eliminate the ones that aren’t actual. Then you have to look at how the contaminants are getting into the system…what the flow path is…and is it possible to stop that flow. And third, you have to come up with a way to remove the contaminants in the system to either clean the system up or to stem the negative input from the influx of contaminants.
The answer of giving control of all carbon emissions to the control of the government means, in every realistic sense, they would have control over how many cars are able to be driven, how many companies can exist, what sort of housing you can live in, what jobs you can have, what you can eat, how many children you can have, if you can have a pet, and on and on and on. That is an awful lot of power to give to people who have shown themselves to be incompetent, corrupt, and self-serving. This answer also doesn’t look at any other options including cleaning up the carbons. Plants are great at this. There are tons of things that could be done today to help clean up and remove carbons from the atmosphere. Do you see any action at all being taken to do this? No. I saw one of the Dem candidates that wanted to have some of these things be used as a political talking point. If it is actually as dire a condition as they are broadcasting, then why are they playing political games with solutions? Why aren’t they taking action now to show us they are actually real? The Amazon rainforest is burning. This is killing trees and filling our atmosphere with carbons. Why aren’t we sending everything we have to SA to help battle this blaze? Why isn’t there an all-out media blitz to try putting pressure on our government to take action?
All in all, those that scream about climate change being such a threat are not taking the actions that would be taken if they actually felt that way.

flutherother's avatar

It boils down to whether you want to listen to the scientists or listen to someone like Trump. Trump has accused climate scientists of having a “political agenda” so you might want to listen to someone more independent, like Trump I suppose.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I for one am grateful for @seawulf575‘s long defense of doing nothing, which completely proved my original point (see answer 5) about conservative dogma. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree, we are concerned BUT!
So we do nothing ,but we are concerned.

johnpowell's avatar

I just wish conservatives would be honest. No spin is really needed here. Just say the most important thing is the economy and short term results. It is at least a honest argument, and I can respect it. But spinning it into the ground is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Same thing with Trump. Don’t lie. Say you wanted judges, tax cuts, or whatever. But don’t die on the hill defending every little stupid thing he does. It makes you look stupid and that stink isn’t washing off once he is out of office. You are permanently stained.

I hated Obama’s use of drones.. See, that wasn’t hard.

seawulf575's avatar

@elbanditoroso except a big part of my problem is that those that are screaming for needing action (and that are in power) have many, many things that can be done now. And they are doing nothing. So it isn’t the Conservatives alone…it is the liberals as well. Example: Sen Markey’s version of the NGD has many things in it that really are a stretch to include in a resolution about the environment. However there are several things in it that actually do apply and could be done now. Restore natural ecosystems through low-tech methods of improving soil performance and afforestation. Cleaning up existing and abandoned hazardous waste sites. Working with threatened or fragile biosystems by working with biodiversity. These are all worthy efforts. Why aren’t any of the Dems pushing hard on these things? Why aren’t liberals up in arms about our politicians doing nothing about the things that are easily in their control? They are talking a good story but not following through at all. It’s like either we give them control of everything or they will give us nothing.

seawulf575's avatar

@johnpowell And I, for one, would really appreciate it if when I am straight out honest (which is most times) I wouldn’t get accused of being a liar. No spin here…it happens all the time. When I tell how I feel about something, I am accused of lying and not admitting to the real reason. How about this….I wish liberals would be honest. It isn’t about the climate or healthcare or transgenderism. It’s all about hating conservatives and wanting to wipe them off the face of the earth. No matter what. No matter what topic is needed. No matter how many lies have to be told. How does that work for you?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Honesty is best,like your friend saying the us isn’t even in the top ten of the worlds worst polluters(check second answer) and a quick google check shows the us as number 2 in the worlds top five worst polluters.
Like Trump saying he never met Putin, and look when he was in Russia for his beauty contest saying has has met him several times.no lies there?
I don’t hate conservatives, but do hate the way you snark at everything left wing, and expect us to gobble up your right wing so called facts like Sunday dinner.
Climate change should be taken seriously , but what the hell do I care I don’t have children, and I think it will have no problem supporting life till I cash out.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“I just wish conservatives would be honest. No spin is really needed here. Just say the most important thing is the economy and short term results”

Rephrase: I just wish conservatives would be honest. No spin is really needed here. Just say the most important thing is the economy and short-term achievable results with a realistic cost.

kritiper's avatar

Many, many, years ago, people would tear the hell out of the Earth, like mountains and forests, because they thought they could because “God” put it here for them to use as they saw fit. At least some conservatives still think that way, and since it’s all under “God’s” control, there’s nothing to worry about. After all, it’s natures way, and Man has no control and/or plays no part in it.
(It’s a cop-out!)

Patty_Melt's avatar

Dems had someone in offfice recentl, the ultimate president.
How could there be any problem with urgent need for solutions so soon after? If oh my god the sky is falling and must be propped up right away, why didn’t Ogodma fix it all?

Look we all know global warming is happening. It happened when no human warrior as on the planet yet.
During my lifetime major cities were so packed in air pollution, it could actually be tasted on approach from beyond the suburbs.
The facts are that people have been working for decades to reverse pollution and the effects left behind.
I can remember back in the early and mid seventies what it was like to approach, or even bypass Chicago, Buffalo, LA, and even smaller cities with smokestacks belching their poison.
The facts include
Big measures have been taken in the right direction.
Big changes have been made.
Other countries are in fact exceeding our footprint. I believe it was China, however I didn’t fact check this one so it could have been somewhere else, said basically the US had its heyday at the top of industrialization, and now that somebody else was, we were trying to shame them over pollution.
There was a dangerously large hole on the ozone which has begun to repair.

Nobody is denying that pollution exists, and that we cannot ignore it for the sake of the planet, but the issue is not new, and is being addressed every day.
What Trump is stepping back about is other governments on calendar e again are looking at the US like the world’s getting place. Those governments needs to be responsible for themselves.

As usual I am not here to be involved in a toe to toe shouting match, so anybody who hopes to draw me in will be disappointed.
I have stated facts as I personally have observed them from across the nation for nearly sixty years. I have lived in the deeply rural countryside, and metropolitan areas. I have visited places I never lived. I have seen drastic changes take place.
Our president, and our country are not ignoring the issues involved with global warming. Those who wish to make it sound like a new topic are either dillusional, or hoping to use it as a political weapon.

Once again I see a question specifying American conservative views, and all kinds of everybody else thinking they know what American conservatives think or feel.
I can see you all becoming more a joke than ever.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Climate change, happens. It’s part of the natural cycle of our planet. But to deny that human beings are contributing, is a straight lie. IMO. It’s not necessarily a conservative, vs liberal thing. It’s just a small percentage of the businesses, that have to sheer profits, to adhere to guidelines, that would slow down the environmental impact. Most of these businesses, are associated with the conservative party. Trump, is a prime example, of putting profit, over pollution.

@seawulf575 . I don’t personally want all conservatives, squashed out. I think a lot of them, would be happier, in say, Israel. Rather than contributing to the environmental impact, and societal impact, that they see, may to want.

Let’s say, hypothetically, liberals want conservatives wiped out. Which I know is not true. That makes no sense. Most liberals, want diversity, in every part of society. So. This argument, holds NO water.
Liberals, and whatever category I fall under, want the US to “do the right thing.” Conservatives, seem to be at war with protecting the environment, and protecting a white/Christian country. But the reality of the situation, is that the US leads, by example. WE will ultimately lead the rest of the world, in things like environmental impact. Sacrifices, will indeed have to be made. But, we as a nation, can do that. We can survive the extreme measures, needed to help our planet, from becoming an inhospitable place to live. We just have to keep giant businesses, from derailing the slowing of our environmental impact, by placing rules on the companies contributing to the worst of the environmental damage. Unfortunately, that is contradictory, to capitalism. Another thing that the right, is clearly hung up on.

Conservatives, are often led astray, by religious beliefs. That is not really, a lie. Not at all. Those beliefs, contradict, science-based/factuality.

I will, again, introduce “terraforming,” to get my point across. Terraforming, is the scientific fact, that introduction of greenhouse gas emissions, will warm a planet, and increase it’s chances of being habitable, by humans. This has been a long running/scientifically proven way, of warming an “M” style planet, to suit our needs.
It’s the exact same thing as what is happening on Earth. We are introducing greenhouse gas emissions, and warming up the planet. Call it, a combination of natural events, plus our contributions, or whatever helps you sleep at night. But it’s scientific fact, that it will warm the planet. The biggest problem is rising sea levels. This will cause cataclysmic changes in our world.

We have problems now. Fighting overy resources, and land. A rise of 20–50, feet of seach level, will likely result in massive wars, and loss of coastal cities. The ramifications, will be catastrophic.

Need I say more? Really?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And yet you say us Dem/libs are all hate,isn’t that right @Patty_Melt sounds like a lot of hate come from your side.
A lot of talk about you rep/cons being all concerned about the environment but as @elbanditoroso says it’s a prescription to do nothing and you think we are the joke?

kritiper's avatar

I always find an unspoken truth, specifically, to be quite humorous as well as very serious. What is so funny is that it is never mentioned and/or taken seriously. And that is population control.
It is a fact that in the year 1800 the world’s population supposedly hit 1 billion.
In 1930, supposedly, the world’s population hit 2 billion.
As of this moment, 2019, the world’s population is estimated to be about 7.7 billion.

“UN: Population expected to rise to 9.7 billion in 2050.
The world’s population is getting older and growing at a slower pace but still expected to increase from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, the United Nations said Monday. (6–17-19)
The U.N. Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division said in a new report that world population could reach it’s peak of nearly 11 billion around the end of the century.
But Population Division Director John Wilmoth cautioned that because 2100 is decades away this outcome “is not certain, and in the end the peak could come earlier or later, at a lower or higher level of total population.”” -Associated Press
(found in The Idaho Statesman, 6–18-19)

11 billion people?? “The peak”??
EGAD!!

wiscoblond's avatar

Host Trevor Noah asked Greta Thunberg about the difference between Sweden and the U.S. in terms of treatment of the climate crisis — and Greta’s answer says it all.

“I would say yes,” Greta said, when Noah asked her if she has noticed a different feeling surrounding climate change between the two countries. “Because here, it feels like it is being discussed as something you believe in or [do] not believe in. And where I come from, it’s more like, it’s a fact.”

https://www.greenmatters.com/p/greta-thunberg-trevor-noah-daily-show

Patty_Melt's avatar

I want to apologize for the unreadable portions of some of my posts across fluther.
My phone is being cray cray. I make corrections but it remakes my changes when I post. I need to do a better job of double- double checking before time runs out.
I know I said I would not respond to anyone challenging what I said here, but if anyone has questions about the unclear wording I would be happy to clarify.
Again, I’m sorry.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 your answer leaves me so much ammo, I don’t know where to start. First off, you and I agree that our climate has changed many, many times on this planet and continues to do so. And we agree that mankind has some impact. We may not agree that mankind is the only cause, nor even the biggest contributor. But none of that means we don’t need to be good stewards of our world.
But then you went off the rails. ” I don’t personally want all conservatives, squashed out. I think a lot of them, would be happier, in say, Israel.” Since there are far more conservatives than liberals and it is the liberals that want to change everything, I would suggest that maybe it should be the liberals that would be happier in some socialist country….Venezuela for instance.
“Most liberals, want diversity, in every part of society.” Except for anyone that disagrees with them. How many colleges and universities have tried banning anything conservative? Lots. That isn’t diversity. How many times have we seen conservatives attacked for nothing more than wearing a hat? How about the attack on Andy Ngo? Darn…a journalist doing his job and he is beaten for it. Why? Because he’s a conservative. The list goes on. No, you don’t get to claim that liberals want diversity. They want good little robots is what they really want and are willing to attack anyone that disagrees with them.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now to continue beating on your response. I’ll merely say your response is life as seen through a skewed filter.

seawulf575's avatar

@kritiper that is indeed a problem. I suspect we will have another big war sometime in the next 20 years that will wipe out a big chunk of those people. We won’t understand why it happened…there will be lots of contradictory excuses. But nature has a way of making adjustments.

Yellowdog's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Terraforming means to make another planet, such as Mars, more earthlike and habitable to humans. It has nothing to do with destroying the earth with greenhouse gasses.

flutherother's avatar

Until recently, the United States was taking a lead in combatting the pollution that threatens our planet.

However, in June 2017, Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, a climate pact forged under his predecessor involving nearly 200 countries.

In December of last year, under guidance from the White House, the Department of the Interior unveiled plans to allow oil drilling on millions of acres that have been off-limits for environmental reasons. That same month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would end rules limiting carbon emissions on new coal plants, soon after the president dismissed a report by his own government warning of future devastating economic consequences to the US from climate change.

Also under Mr Trump, federal bodies have supported freezing emissions requirements for new cars and trucks at 2020 levels until 2026.

It seems to me that at a time when climate change is really starting to bite that the present “conservative” administration is acting irresponsibly by putting short term economic gain ahead of the environment.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Many conservatives, including myself, acknowledge climate change. I dont see how some of you could possibly be more in love with nature than I am, either.

What seemed to be a point of contention was Trump putting coal miners back to work, loosening EPA restrictions, allowing dumping in streams, etc… I will not defend that except to say many people would pick the economy and jobs over a clean stream, its true. Not all of us, but enough.

I try to do my part, no kids @kritiper, recycling, limiting my exposure to chemicals, disposing of tires, oil etc properly, not littering. All we can do as individuals is make better choices. And as voters, check the candidates thoroughly first.

But yes, there are problems we need to address.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Last I checked liberals and conservatives both drive cars, heat and cool their homes, go out to eat etc, etc… A little honesty here would be a big step. Reason #1 we have this issue is because consumers demand it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Are You Including liberal politicians.

jca2's avatar

This is an excerpt from an email I just received:

“The Senate could confirm one of Monsanto’s most dangerous messengers to a major government position ANY MINUTE NOW.

Trump’s administration is already full of corporate and Big Polluter cronies, and their lethal policies could lead to mass species extinction and irreversible ecological damage. Now, Trump has tapped former Monsanto executive Aurelia Skipwith to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service.

If Skipwith is confirmed, she’ll have the power to undermine the Endangered Species Act, roll back pesticide regulations and further threaten the future of bees, butterflies and other critical pollinators. ”

To me, this is an example of the Fox guarding the Hen House.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@jca2 – inadvertent but relevant use of the word “FOX” in the last sentence, given Trump’s media obsessions.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Yellowdog . Terraforming, is what we are doing to Earth. Making the analogy, extremely relevant.

@seawulf575 . If there are more conservatives, than liberals, why did Trump lose the popular vote, by more than 2 million votes? That’s not even counting the millions, who voted for Bernie…

I especially love your take on liberals, wanting people who disagree with them, gone. Considering the vast hypocrisy of this coming from a conservative, who supports banning billions of Muslims, from even visiting America…
Which exposes yet more hypocrisy, by not banning Saudi Arabians.

Your analogy, of Venezuela, being what liberals would like, is pathetically below your intelligence level. So. I won’t even bother addressing that.

I will concede, that I view life through a prism. But that is all based on observation. Not the bullshit sandwiches, that Trump makes for you, and your fellow sheep… Keep eating it up. You just make my points for me…

JLeslie's avatar

Realistically, the end consumer can only do so much, it’s important to put regulations on corporations regarding pollution.

When I go grocery shopping I bring my own reusable bags 90% of the time. When I don’t have them for whatever reason, and I shop at Walmart, Walmart does not have the option of plastic or paper bags, it’s only plastic. Do you know how many parts of America shop primarily in Walmart? A lot. Even if they just forced Walmart to have the option of paper so a consumer could choose to use paper it would help.

Corporations making products that throw off pollutants into the air, water, and land, if they are making millions in profit they certainly have room to do things cleaner and maybe cut into their profit a little. Too bad. I don’t see how any religious person can be ok with knowingly poisoning people. We need to care about the planet, our neighbors, and ourselves. Corporation now have status as individuals under the law, so then they need to act that way not only financially, but also with the same conscience.

Forget climate change, what about autoimmune disease and cancer? What about flora and fauna dying that upset the balance in our environment that we depend on for air and food.

What about being less dependent on foreign by having renewable energy produced and utilized in America.

I live in Florida and if developers and builders here were mandated to build solar on residential rooftops it would be huge. It’s ridiculous that we don’t do it. The volume would have the price go down, the houses would have fair market values, because the entire community would be built with the same expense. All the houses could take cost savings on other typical upgrades to possibly decrease the expense, especially in more expensive homes. Maybe no crown molding, or quartz counters only in the kitchen, or forgo extra fancy facades or landscaping.

As far as coal and fracking, maybe we need to realize as a society that as we progress there will be fewer jobs, that saving industries that cause problems for our planet aren’t what we should focus on. I think it is very likely the job market will get tighter, especially in some industries. Why not make sure everyone will still be safe, fed and have a roof over their head.

The conservatives are so headstrong about people being lazy and unworthy they don’t stop to think that maybe EVERYBODY can have a better life if we look at this reality. The extreme liberals are so headstrong they don’t want to think for a second about the pitfalls of socialism.

I think environment concerns are very wrapped up with basic philosophies about how the country should work.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 not that I expect facts to have any effect on your delusions, but here is the proof of the conservatives outnumbering the liberals

https://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

As for liberals wanting to silence opposition, take Obama as a perfect example:

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/barack-obama-to-censor-fox-news/

But really, it is the left that has created the BAMN process, that has influenced its followers to brutally attack someone for wearing a MAGA hat or for wearing Jewish religious attire. It is the left that had a college professor physically attack a minor and steal her sign because that professor didn’t like the message the minor was presenting. And the media tried covering for her (the professor). It is the left that tries to silence opinions they don’t like by calling the person presenting them as racists or misogynists while they give other liberals a pass for the same behavior. You, yourself, fall to that level as well. Look at your statements to me. You imply I am consuming bullshit sandwiches that Trump feeds me. Yet what have I really done? I have called out hypocrisy by the left for creating lies. And Trump didn’t feed me those things…I can see the hypocrisy for myself. But you want to try silencing me by attacking.
As for banning millions of Muslims, let review what that REALLY was. It was a ban on people coming to this country from nations that had sworn violence against us or that were hot spots for terrorist activity. That’s it. It was a list of 7 nations, I believe. I could be wrong on the number, but it wasn’t very many. And not all the nations were even Muslim majority. And there were dozens of other Muslim majority nations that were not on the list. Yet the liberal media tells you it was a “Muslim Ban” so you eat it up. As for Saudi Arabia, that is a matter of speculation as to whether they are a hot spot for terrorism. But your even bringing them up shows you know that what I am saying is true. You want to believe it was a “Muslim Ban” but then YOU point out that one of the biggest Muslim majority nations was not on the list. So which is it? Was it a Muslim Ban or not?
And yes…Venezuela is what your Dem heroes want this country to become. That is where Socialism leads almost 100% of the time.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But you leave Denmark out where it works? Why is that?^^

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I find it hilarious that you always criticize any links I post as being from liberal media, and here you post one from an admittedly conservative site.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@jca2 You have to understand with these two anything left is propaganda, anything right is the holy word,end of story.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 wasn’t it you that said you had to use a liberal post to identify a problem with conservatives? Don’t you think it goes the other way too? AND, I don’t slam your sources, I slam the story they use and the wording. I go to the facts of the post.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Oh yeah sure, like politipost you blamed the quick wording they used when Trump lied but refused to click the link and read the whole lie, you cherry pick and will take even two words even way out of context and claim them as solid fact.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 you are confusing some socialist programs with Socialism. They aren’t the same thing. We, in the US, have some socialist programs, but we are definitely not Socialist. Here is a fairly good list of socialist countries

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-are-considered-socialist.html

Help me out here…which of these countries should we emulate?

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Funny…you want to come at me for not buying into a liberal lie. Why is that? I’m not allowed to read something and see the lie in it? How very inclusive and diverse of you!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But you come at us expecting us to buy all Rep/con shit hook line and sinker, how diverse of you as well.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 No, I come at you with facts. If that is Rep/Con shit, then maybe I do expect you to buy it. Just as I expect everyone to respect facts. So from that aspect I am diverse. But really, isn’t it the liberals that claim to be the diverse and inclusive group? They swear up and down that conservatives aren’t. So why would you expect me to be something you swear I am not?

seawulf575's avatar

@wiscoblond your response if useless, but then it’s pointless as well. At least it was short.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

All your so called facts lean very heavy right, that might delight you but gets the rest of us skeptical.
When we post a fact you snark it’s just left wing bias, and your fact are the holy word see where we have a problem?

wiscoblond's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m curious what you think about the Swedish regarding my first post. Thoughts?

Yellowdog's avatar

@wiscoblond regarding your post about the Swedish talk show—

If all you hear is one point of view. and anyone who disagrees is just a damn ugly and a plain, dumb ig-no-RAY mus, then it seems like FACT. All other points of view are evil and ignorant and in denial of reality. Is that what you meant about where someone said in your earlier post?

But if there is no censorship of another side, maybe someone in denial or at least denying or refuses to acknowledge your reality. then everyone has a choice to decide which position to take, based on evidences and facts.

I am not stating my actual position on climate change. I kinda like the position who believes in it, because it makes people seem, ida know, cleaner and more in touch with nature / creation. But people have a right to disagree, and may have data that refutes yours.

wiscoblond's avatar

^First, it’s not a Swedish talk show. It’s a girl from Sweden who traveled to the states by boat. The young girl is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. She’s an activist. She was on a late night talk show here in the US. She mentioned how the climate crisis in Sweden is viewed as fact, whereas here in the states it’s a debate.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

You are talking way over his head @wiscoblond.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

“Non compos mentis” or maybe something else.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . A majority, thinking alike, does not prove anything…
The Natzis, of the 30’s- -40’s, were NOT right, in their thinking. They were led by a person, not un-similar to Trump.
He has you twisted, around his finger. JUST LIKE HITLER. In his representation, that the Mexican, and central Americans, are the bad guys. They are the reason for any problems?
I consider you, a smart person, but you are being led along to believe, that they are like the Jews, in the 1930’s- ,40’s. A straight lie

You are smarter than that.
But. You refuse to see the similarities… This is where, I cannot understand you…

The empty can, rattles, the most. And yet, you allow yourself to be ensnared, in Trump’s rhetoric.

I suggest you use your intellect, and overcome the bullshit…

It would do you, and our fellow people, a favor.

You have admitted to not trusting the media. If that is so, why trust a con-artist, and a failure, at everything he has done?..

Why do you trust the words, of a habitual liar, but not the same intelligence community, that shaped your own life?

I can’t understand….

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@MrGrimm888, oh that was amazing.
“You have admitted to not trusting the media.” and yet he posts sources from the media he apparently DOES trust for his sources. Which media is that?

seawulf575's avatar

@wiscoblond here is your first post in this thread:

”@Jaxk Water quality is improving? Try telling that to people living in Michigan.”

Not sure the Swedish have anything to do with that. Sorry…I just don’t see the tie.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Okay…we are making progress. You are at least acknowledging that there are more conservatives. That’s progress.
And since the fact that there are more conservatives, your entire view of things has been threatened since you really believed you were the majority. So you pull out Godwin’s Law and bring Hitler into it. But what you don’t realize is that you have to create all sorts of things that just aren’t true to make your point. You make an assumption that I am wrapped around Trump’s little finger. If you look at most of my posts, I am not actually defending Trump. I am pointing out lies by the left. That is a huge difference. And, as with this current response, I am pointing out where they are in the conversation and why they are lies. So being wrapped around his finger is just wrong.
Secondly, you pull out the liberal created lie that he says Mexicans and Central Americans are bad guys and that they are the reason for our problems. That again, is just not true. But what he has said, and what cannot be disputed, is that many of the illegals in this country come from that border. And they come across that border because no one has done anything to tighten up that border. And with that open border and those illegals come bad people and bad things. These bad people and bad things hurt American citizens. His view, and I do share it, is that we have borders for a reason…to establish the bounds of our country and to help protect our citizenry. How many times to criminals have to come into this country and hurt or kill Americans before it is too many? That question is where the liberal view point falls apart because there is only one answer and it does not support the idea of open borders.
As for being led to believe that the immigrants are like the Jews, I would suggest that analogy applies better to you. You are being led to believe that people attempting to enter this country against our laws are being mistreated and demonized…just like the Jews in Germany. Your claim of me being led implies that I look at immigrants as something to be feared and hated. Not the case at all. But your blatant support of them no matter what tells me that you view them as the poor victims in this game. Here’s a clue…they are breaking laws that pretty much no other country in the world would tolerate and some would punish them harshly for.
Trump’s rhetoric. You know my point of view on this: What rhetoric? Pretty much everything that you refer to as “Trump’s rhetoric” can be traced back to some exaggeration or lie from the left. So who is being ensnared by it?
You assume I trust Trump. I don’t. I hear what is said, see what is done, and run it all through my skeptical filter. And to be honest, he comes out cleaner than the left. Your example of trusting Trump and not the intelligence community. That is a perfect example. Trump said his campaign was spied on illegally. You on the left, and the liberal media all said he was paranoid and a liar. Yet now the proof is out there…he was being spied on illegally. By those same intelligence communities that you tout. And that should be a very scary thing to you. Those that have access to all the tools to spy on people used that power as a political weapon to try interfering with our elections and then to try unseating an elected POTUS. That is really ugly and scary. Why doesn’t it bother you?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Now to get back on topic just for a second, Trump pulling the U.S out of the Paris accord tells us how conservatives view climate change.
Didn’t Trump himself say climate change is a hoax started by the Chinese?
One of our extreme right wingers stated the U.S isn’t even in the top ten of the worlds worst polluters, but with a two second google search the U.S is the second worst polluter out of the top five.
Trump is trying or has stopped emission laws and standards for new vehicles, California being his biggest fight, really concerned about the environment there.

BUT I am going to agree with our extreme wolf on one thing, The environment shouldn’t be used as a political play from either side, things have to be done now or younger people are going to take over a planet that is on it’s last leg of life support.

Yellowdog's avatar

Ay’all— I am the extreme right winger @SQUEEKY2 is telling about—who said the U.S. isn’t one of the top ten world polluters, but I’ve never heard the rumor that China started the Climate Change fiasco. That’s a U.S. / Canada / European thang.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Uh YOU did check answer 2 on this thread.^^^^^^^
I saw him say that on TV, I know,I know Fake news but it sure looked like ole orange hair on tv saying it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog only believes Trump and Breitbart News.

@Yellowdog use to believe in Fox News but not since they started telling the truth about Trump

Brian1946's avatar

@wiscoblond

“It’s a girl from Sweden who traveled to the states by boat. She was on a late night talk show here in the US.”

Do you remember the name of that talk show?

rebbel's avatar

Daily Show

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m glad the Scandinavian countries and like-minded individuals want a clean environment.

The cleanest cars possible are okay with me, too—but lets not ban gas right away, and I do have the right to eat cheese cowburgers. Cheese, as a dairy product, and Beef. The mother and child reunion is only a motion away. Same as chicken sausage and eggs. The mother and child reunion is only a moment away.

We’re getting there. Please keep up the good work. The environemt, a CLEAN environment, is ONE issue that we are coming into eventual agreement upon.

seawulf575's avatar

Oh c’mon @Yellowdog you know that’s not what conservatives think! You have to ask a liberal to be able to find out what you think!

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I never said Trump wasn’t being spied on. I said he was. He had dealings with Russian oligarchs, and other untrustworthy people. That is why he was being “spied” on. Because our intelligence communities, were doing their job…

Yellowdog's avatar

Actually, he was being spied upon by the Obama administration to help his successor, Hillary Clinton. And plant a bunch of shit along the way.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Delusional and Breibart !

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Oh my god @Yellowdog! Do you honest to god believe that? I suppose you also believe Hillary was running a child porn ring out of the basement of a pizza joint.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

And signed an agreement with devil to play the blues guitar like no one else at crossroads of 49 and 61.

DELUSIONAL

MrGrimm888's avatar

Haters want to hate. Trump should very well have been being watched by our intelligence communities. He burned all his other bridges, so he had to deal with questionable characters, to get financial deals. It’s the FBI’s job, to make sure he wasn’t avoiding taxes, etc. Any sitting POTUS, would have agreed, that he should have been monitored. The dems, had zero belief, that Trump could have won, evendors the primaries. It’s stupid, to consider that they were doing anything other than watching a questionable character dealing with other questionable characters. It’s just that simple. NO CONSPIRACY. NOTHING…

wiscoblond's avatar

@seawulf Excuse me, I meant my second post where I shared a link.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You can talk till you’re blue and these extremists won’t believe you it is and always will be Hilary and Obama’s fault you should know that by now.
I mean there was nothing wrong at all with Trump meeting Putin alone at all should at least a couple of trusted advisers should have been in the room,I think so, but then I am just a hate filled Rep/con.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sorry meant to say Dem/Lib, not Rep/con me bad.^^^^^

Yellowdog's avatar

The Inspector General Report is out.

The Durham report will be out in about five weeks.
Its pretty damning.

There will be criminal referrals. The question is, will the DOJ prosecute one (four or five, actually) of their own.

The only real Russian propaganda, foisted on the American people to sway or steal an election, was the Dossier. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.

People expect this from Hillary, so I suspect the criminal involvement will be Andrew McCabe (who was denied an appeal and will face charges) and of course Jim Comey. Our intelligence agencies and law enforcement should never be involved in attempting to sway an election and fraud upon a FiSA court. Lets hope about ten of them see long prison sentences.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Another wall of text with no substance.

seawulf575's avatar

What you liberals are failing to recognize is the implications of Trump being spied on. Think about it…a candidate for POTUS and then POTUS, being spied on by the intelligence communities to help find dirt to hurt his campaign. That is enormous. So let me reverse it for a moment. Let’s play “what if” What if Trump used the intelligence apparatus to spy on any or all of the Dem challengers for the 2020 election? How would you feel about that? Oh, he could buy some bogus data and use that for the basis for spying. Would that be okay with you? I can tell you it wouldn’t be okay with me…for the same reasons it is not right that the Dems did it. Are you just SOOOO wrapped up in your liberal cocoon that any illegal act is okay so long as it helps another lib?

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 The implications would be enormous if the accusations were true but it seems they aren’t.

jca2's avatar

Wait, we’re still talking about Hillary and Obama?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Whatabout . . . ?

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother It would be enormous if the accusations were true, and they are. Remember, the DOJ already came out and said that the intelligence communities had spied on Manafort, Page, Flynn and several other Trump associates while they were working for the Trump campaign. That was the basis for charges against them. And that spying went on both before and after Trump was elected.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Oh come on! They were so called spied on because of suspected illegal activities not because they were part of the Trump campaign and YOU know it but if it makes you feel good to spin it go ahead.
By they didn’t those wonderful people face charges,and Manafort convicted?
Flyn was proven to have lied, I know you think they were as pure as the driven snow but not the rest of us.
Oh and Flynn did actually meet with the Russians, and they are still innocent in your mind?
And Mueller’s report you say cleared your wonder boy, 2 things there ONE he said it DID NOT exonerate Trump just he could not convict him.
And 2 if he is so innocent then why do they refuse to release the whole report to the Democrats??

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 You don’t get illegal wiretaps to do an investigation. If there were actual suspicions of illegal activities, an investigation would have been enough. After all, the left claims they were spied on to find out about old activity that may have been illegal. You know…the things they were indicted on. Not about things they were doing during the campaign. So why spy on them when the deeds were supposedly done long ago?
And your response entirely ignores the fact that the FBI had to use Hillary’s opposition research, passed off as valid, to obtain FISA warrants instead of actually getting official warrants the old fashioned way. THAT is a huge red flag. And it has come out that most of the Steele Dossier is not reliable intel. And there is evidence that Comey was warned that it was likely not valid BEFORE he used it as a basis for the FISA warrants.
So your belief that it was somehow warranted to game the system, lie, deceive, and violate rights to do an investigation into old events, you need to think about how that really sounds.
The way things played out, there is only one answer that actually makes any sense at all. The Dems and the intelligence agencies, under and probably with the assistance of Obama, used their powers illegally to spy on an opposing political candidate. This is the sort of thing I would expect in Russia or China…not the USA.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So it’s the lefts fault that Manafort among others have faced charges?
How about why has Trump and his team refused to release all of Mueller’s report to the left and public if he is so innocent that is?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Manafort is so so sorry!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That he got caught !

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But don’t forget @Tropical_Willie it’s still all Hillary and Obamas fault.

Yellowdog's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I bought a copy of the Mueller report just three or four days after its release. It was extremely poorly written, and relied heavily on flawed sources such as crowdstrike and other Democrat-supported agencies.

Mueller, who was woefully unfamiliar with the report’s contents, sources, and who was on the team, gave a nine-minute speech where he stated that they could not indict a sitting president. But at his interview he corrected himself and went with his original premise, stating that there was no evidence of a crime but no evidence that a crime did NOT occur.

The Mueller report was the most intense, transparent investigation in U.S. history. It was far more thorough than even Watergate. Nothing was hidden. It was exhaustively thorough, with over 1.5 million documents submitted by the president and the white house. It resulted in a pulpwood publication that could have been written by a ninth or tenth grader that concluded with no evidence of “collusion” and insufficient evidence to make an obstruction case.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I didn’t think you would like anything that came out of the report, but you are still dodging the fact why have the republicans keep refusing to release the whole report?

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 You didn’t even come close to addressing my point. My point was that for the crimes Manafort was facing, a simple investigation would have been enough…not on going spying. The crimes of which he was accused were almost 10 years old. Wiretapping today would likely not provide any more evidence than already existed. And be honest…they weren’t spying on Manafort to see if they could gather evidence. They were spying on Manafort to see if they could find anything they could use to incriminate Trump.
As for why the Mueller report was not released, unredacted (which is what you seem to be asking for), there was material in it that was classified for a number of reasons…whether it was sensitive material for national security or, more frequently, it contained names or information that could negatively impact ongoing investigations. That makes sense and was explained ad nauseum, but apparently the left really believes they are hiding something. Sounds amazingly like a conspiracy theory without any real triggers.

Yellowdog's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 The entire report is released, except for the redaction of a few identities which must remain confidential. Congress has always had access to even that information, but cannot take it out with them.

Just curious, why do you and some in the media / leftist loop keep saying that its not released and that there is some kind of cover-up? Its actually difficult to find that anything HAS been redacted.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Evidence came to light that Hillary is responsible for Lincoln’s murder. IT’S TRUE!!!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I knew it! Probably for Kennedy’s as well.
Or was that Obama?

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, yes, that IS what you’re sounding like. I guarantee if there was any more to see, or any “cover up” Elizabeth Warren or Nadner would blow it wide open.

seawulf575's avatar

Question to the liberal jellies: Why is it that when the right does something potentially wrong in the past, any and all efforts to investigate are not only warranted but encouraged and not believed when they show no wrongdoing, but when left does something entirely underhanded and illegal, your response is “that was in the past, it isn’t worth looking into, and you are just trying to deflect”?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Are you referring to Trump? IMO, anything regarding Trump, even in the past, should be up for discussion as he is our current President. Anything regarding Obama, Hillary, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Bush, etc. is water under the bridge.

If you went to therapy and continually talked about an ex-spouse or ex-boss or ex-anything, the therapist would probably say ok, let’s process our feelings, work through them and move on. Let’s not be stuck obsessing on the ex.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Ostensibly (as per @SQUEEKY2), the spying on Trump was to find information about a crime Manafort committed 10 years before joining the Trump campaign. Why wasn’t that water under the bridge? Not to mention, some of what you want to be water under the bridge has likely cost this country millions and millions of dollars and has created great divisiveness in this country before and during Trump’s administration. Why is that of no concern at all to you? It also showed how a corrupt government can abuse its power to get whatever it wants. Why is that of no concern at all to you?
To use your analogy, if you went to therapy and continually talked about your ex-spouse, but it was all about things they were doing to continually impact your life, the therapist would likely not tell you to let it go. He/she would tell you how to deal with them in a way to stop the problems the ex is causing but not hurt you emotionally. Isn’t that what I am suggesting? So why is it that you cannot admit that your Dem heroes have probably done some horrible things that really need to be addressed so they don’t happen again in the future?

jca2's avatar

Manafort joined the Trump campaign? As I said, it’s Trump (or Trump related) so Trump is responsible.

Why do you use terms like “Dem heroes?” Have I ever said any of these people were my heroes?

I hope you’re not one who uses terms like “Libtards.” I see that language used on social media and it’s so nasty and unnecessary.

seawulf575's avatar

Manafort was indicted for things he did 10 years before he joined Trump’s campaign. He was indicted after he was off the Trump campaign. So while you are desperately trying to make this all about Trump, the fact remains. Manafort did things years ago and the Dems and the corrupt intelligence agencies tried using that as a basis for spying on opposition party candidate. Investigating Manafort for those things would have been very easy and, in fact, was done without the spying that was done. So why the spying?
As for “Dem Heroes”, that is a term I use for all you liberal jellies that want to avoid actually looking at illegal actions from prominent Democrat figures. Your avoidance and refusal to admit wrong doing is the same thing people do with those they view as heroes. Maybe if you actually admitted they did wrong…?
And no, I don’t use Libtards. I find it a ignorant term. It is offense to me on many levels. If I think you are being stupid or willfully ignorant, I have no problem stating that and explaining my reasoning. When I present an opinion, I have no problem explaining my thought process and greatly welcome efforts to show me where I am wrong in my reasoning. Unfortunately, most times all I get is dodges. Changes of wording or topic that are then attempted to be used as debate. I don’t buy it. I also don’t adhere to the views of people that create a persona and thought process assign it to me, and then try to condemn me for it. I find that just as ignorant as calling someone a libtard.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Uh you do your fair share of dodging, if Manafort crimes were ten years in the past why is he just facing charges?
You never admitted that Flyn did indeed lie,chose to skip right over that.
Or why did Trump meet Putin totally alone,left that out as well.
It is interesting how far off topic this thread has gone.
Why did Trump pull the US out of the Paris accord if conservatives are indeed concerned about the environment?
You scream about needless costs over these investigations , but was fine and the cost was never a concern over an improper BJ from an intern?
And not a peep over a huge tax cut for the wealthy, but the left spend a dime on the working slob and you scream the sky is falling.
And you really think your hero is so clean then why did his kid and pretty sure him as well meet with the Russian operative to try and get dirt on horrible Hilary?
Anyways both sides are very good at being sleazy, I know you think your side has nothing but good in their hearts.
You claim your always being attacked , but fail to realize you do more than your share of attacking as well.
NOW I will tell you why a Canadian is so concerned of what ole Trump is doing, well his Tariffs are really raising hell in our forest industry, with thousands out of work right now.
And we are going to be very lucky if his idiot tariffs don’t send us into a global recession, but if they do I have no doubt you will probably blame the left for that as well.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 so how, exactly did it take spying on the opposition political campaign to catch Manafort? Or even that Flynn lied which is a whole different issue. He was charged with violating a law that is arcane and no one has ever been charged under. There is some reasoning behind the idea that he was coerced into confessing to something he didn’t do. But either way, you still haven’t addressed how or why FISA warrants that were obtained through highly questionable circumstances were used to “investigate” any of this.
As for Trump meeting with Putin alone…when did this supposedly happen? As far as I know, they always had interpreters at a minimum. I know they talked at a dinner during the G20 summit, but they were at a table with lots of other G20 members. So again…what was the private, totally alone meeting they actually had? More leftist innuendo? Misrepresentation?
As for the needless costs of investigation, isn’t it funny you bring up Clinton? Aren’t I always accused of deflecting when I do it, no matter how pertinent it is to the conversation? But since you brought it up, I will gladly give you my take on it. The entire investigation into Clinton started into his Whitewater dealings. That had serious potential for being fraud. Personally, I feel it should have stayed there. But since they had it open, when Clinton was accused of having sex with an intern (which under today’s standards would be a #MeToo crisis if someone on the right did it), the Starr investigation picked it up. I feel that was an inappropriate use of the investigation. But then, instead of just admitting he got a knobber in the Oval Office, Clinton lied under oath. That is called perjury. He also tried using the power of the office of the POTUS to block or end the Starr investigation. That is called Obstruction of Justice. Those two charges are what got him impeached. He’s lucky the Dems voted party line in the Senate and that the Repubs didn’t, otherwise he would have been tossed out of office.
You go on about the tax cuts for the wealthy, but what you don’t know (because you aren’t in this country) is that those tax cuts helped the working folks as well. I saw an immediate increase in my pay. I know many, many people that saw an increase. Those tax cuts helped to create jobs, putting more working folks to work. So maybe you need to actually read some of the benefits of those tax cuts before you continue to make your self look foolish by railing against them.
As for Trump or Trump Jr meeting with a Russian operative, you need to get your facts straight…again. Trump never met with anyone. Trump Jr. attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer that later was accused of being a Russian spy. The agent claimed to have evidence that certain Russian entities were funding and helping the Hillary Clinton campaign. Trump Jr attended, found out the agent had nothing in the way of real evidence, that the entire focus had been to try getting a meeting to discuss an entirely different issue…to try getting Trump to commit to policy before the election. The meeting ended at that point with Trump Jr. not committing to anything. Now, here’s an interesting thing….you are upset that, in your view, someone from the Trump campaign would meet with a foreign national to dig up dirt on Hillary, but you apparently have no problem with Hillary’s campaign meeting with a foreign national to dig up dirt on Trump. Care to explain that discrepancy? No…probably not. It doesn’t help your fantasy world.
As for Trump’s tariffs, Maybe you need to look at what he is trying to do. For decades, we in the US were in unfair trade with almost every other country. We were taking in products at a lower cost than we were able to sell our products outside our country. It has hurt our economy for a long time. You know…hurting the working folks. Trump is attempting to equalize the playing field a little. I personally think it is a gamble. It could end up in a global recession or it could wash out with us being treated a little more equitably. I’m not jumping up and down because the jury is still out on that one.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I find it ironic, that the right, is called the “right.”..

Hypocrisy reigns. Trump invited the Taliban, to Camp David. If Obama did that? ...... Seriously?...

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Inviting the Taliban to Camp David could have been an interesting exercise in diplomacy. If they had not been bat-shit crazy, it could have set forth a whole new relationship in Afghanistan. And no, Obama never did that. He just armed and trained al-Qaida soldiers in Syria who then went to become ISIS. How’s that for hypocrisy?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Here is what I quickly found when looking at Trump and Putin alone….
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/29/18202515/trump-putin-russia-g20-ft-note

But of course it doesn’t lean heavy right so you will just blow it off as left wing bias.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

As for right or wrong ways to investigate potential crimes,some times the authorities do seem to go at it pretty dirty,I know very little about that sort of thing so can’t comment.

Sagacious's avatar

Most polluted countries, from WHO data.

The 20 countries with the most polluted urban areas
Pakistan – average PM 2.5 concentration: 115.7

Qatar – 92.4
Afghanistan – 86
Bangladesh – 83.3
Egypt – 73
UAE – 64
Mongolia – 61.8
India – 60.6
Bahrain – 56.1
Nepal – 50
Ghana – 49
Jordan – 48
China – 41.4
Senegal – 40
Turkey – 39.1
Bulgaria – 38.6
Mauritius – 38.1
Peru – 38
Serbia – 35.8
Iran – 34.2

The 20 countries with the least polluted urban areas
Australia – average PM 2.5 concentration: 5.7
Brunei – 6.6
New Zealand – 6.8
Estonia – 7.2
Finland – 7.3
Canada – 7.5
Iceland – 8.2
Sweden – 8.7
Ireland – 8.8
Liberia – 9.3
Japan – 10
Bhutan – 10
Norway – 10.9
Malta – 12
Portugal – 12.3
Spain – 12.4
United States – 12.9
Monaco – 13
Malaysia – 13.2
Luxembourg – 14

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/most-polluted-countries/

MrGrimm888's avatar

^What unit of measurement, is PM?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Other, more reputable websites provide different messages.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Regardless of which countries are doing the most polluting, the entire planet is being affected. America, used to lead.by example, and that made other countries try to follow. Our sudden reversal, of fighting pollution, is only exacerbating the situation.

raum's avatar

Particulate Matter

seawulf575's avatar

Again…if man-made Climate Change was real (and I am not conceding that it is) the question that really screams to be answered is: Why aren’t we taking basic, simple, low-cost/high yield actions to combat it? Why aren’t those that scream the loudest about it screaming about sending assistance to stop the Amazon rainforest from burning? Why aren’t we pushing to plant more trees and plants? Why aren’t we establishing grants for research into alternative energy sources? Why does the only answer that anyone can come up with sound amazingly like “give me total control of everything and I will start working to make things better!”?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

First the countries got together and pledged millions to help fight those fires.
second some steps are being taken now such as food stores pushing reusable bags when buying groceries .
Restaurants switching to paper straws,those are some basic low cost steps.
People are pushing greener energy concepts and it is gaining ground but the fossil fuel industry fights it all the way.
Governments especially conservative type governments don’t want to admit clime change is a problem, the former Canadian conservative government put a gag order on a bunch of government scientists about their findings about climate change,WHY would they do that if it isn’t such a threat?
Do I think it’s as dire as the fanatics think it is NO, but if we don’t wake up it will be to late.
And deregulating emission standards on new vehicles that your orange hair god just did is not a step in the right direction.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I can think of a really good idea of why they would put a gag order on climate change “scientists”. Maybe their conclusions weren’t realistic or verified, maybe they were trying to push an agenda and the government didn’t want to invoke fear based on stuff that wasn’t real.
I’ve said it before…I think we need to really explore alternative energies, transportations, etc. But I think the approach to this whole Climate Change fear gives great clues that it isn’t real and that it is a way to get control of people.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

The same type fear that Russia or North Korea are going to attack North America and we must be prepared?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But you are right green energy solutions must be researched and great invested in so maybe we can hand a planet that can sustain life to the younger generation not a lifeless blob.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 For someone who says they dislike conspiracy ideas, why would a government scientist do that?
If proven wrong it would totally end their career.
More like the conservative government didn’t want their findings going public.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Oh, I don’t know. Why do liberals create stuff? Why did we just waste two years and millions of dollars investigating something that was a fraud…made up and proven false? If it isn’t verified or if it is just down right flawed, releasing it and passing it off as legit could cause all sorts of problems. If it was my call, I’d block that sort of thing too.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The world climate doesn’t care what a few ultra conservatives think, Hawaii has had the worse Summer from high temperature and in flow of junk plastic.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But there is no evidence that it’s human caused,or at least that is what the right wingers keep screaming.
And we must believe what the right wingers say,why else deregulate emission controls for new vehicles?

jca2's avatar

Cut and pasted from today’s NY Times. I haven’t yet read it.

Earth’s oceans are under severe strain from climate change, a major new United Nations report warns, threatening everything from the ability to harvest seafood to the well-being of hundreds of millions of people living along the coasts.

Rising temperatures are contributing to a drop in fish populations in many regions, and oxygen levels in the ocean are declining while acidity levels are on the rise, posing risks to important marine ecosystems, according to the report issued Wednesday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders in policymaking.

In addition, warmer ocean waters, when combined with rising sea levels, threaten to fuel ever more powerful tropical cyclones and floods, the report said, further imperiling coastal regions and worsening a phenomenon that is already contributing to storms like Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Houston two years ago.

“The oceans are sending us so many warning signals that we need to get emissions under control,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, a marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and a lead author of the report. “Ecosystems are changing, food webs are changing, fish stocks are changing, and this turmoil is affecting humans.”

ADVERTISEMENT

For decades, the oceans have served as a crucial buffer against global warming, soaking up roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans emit from power plants, factories and cars, and absorbing more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped on Earth by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Without that protection, the land would be heating much more rapidly.

But the oceans themselves are becoming hotter and less oxygen-rich as a result, according to the report. If humans keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate, the risks to human food security and coastal communities will increase sharply, particularly since marine ecosystems are already facing threats from plastic pollution, unsustainable fishing practices and other man-made stresses.

“We are an ocean world, run and regulated by a single ocean, and we are pushing that life support system to its very limits through heating, deoxygenation and acidification,” said Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a leading environmental group that tracks the status of plant and animal species, in response to the report.

The report, which was written by more than 100 international experts and is based on more than 7,000 studies, represents the most extensive look to date at the effects of climate change on oceans, ice sheets, mountain snowpack and permafrost.

ImageFishing in the Gulf of Guinea near Ghana. Rising temperatures are causing a drop in the amount of fish that humans can sustainably catch.
Fishing in the Gulf of Guinea near Ghana. Rising temperatures are causing a drop in the amount of fish that humans can sustainably catch.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And yet fright wingers refuse to believe it’s anything human caused, just nature running it’s course.
In the meantime let’s deregulate emission standards for new vehicles.
These scientists are just all left wing pawns,just trying to hurt big business .

jca2's avatar

Cut and pasted from an editorial in today’s NY Times, author Thomas Friedman:

I don’t know who sold progressive Democrats on the idea that the way to beat Donald Trump is to abolish the private health insurance of 160 million Americans and offer instead “Medicare for all” (and Mexico will pay for it), but it’s a political loser and an easy target for Trump to feast on. A much better campaign theme is hiding in plain sight. I call it “the Earth Race.”

In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy energized the country behind a “space race”: to make America the first nation to put a man on the moon. Democrats need to run against Trump on the Earth Race: to make America the leader in all policies and technologies that help men and women everywhere live sustainably here on Earth?

Yes, I know, mitigating climate change and saving the environment never poll well. But times change, and it depends how you frame the issue. Mother Nature is forcing herself onto the ballot, and Trump’s efforts to roll back more than 80 rules and standards protecting clean air, water, climate, parks and wilderness make him uniquely vulnerable. He can’t pivot away from what he’s doing. He owns it, and it’s villainous. This time is different.

In this era when so much activism is online, when was the last time you saw a bottom-up, mass movement of young people in America and across the world — some four million in all — take to the streets on every continent as they did last week to demand action to stop the heating of our planet? These young people are telling us, and their voting parents, that this issue is a political winner — theirs is a movement in search of courageous political leaders.

ADVERTISEMENT

I am not saying that the Earth Race is the only issue to run on. I’m all for strengthening Obamacare and even adding a public health insurance option. But if I were running for president against Trump, I’d be leading with the Earth Race as an economic opportunity, a national security necessity, a health emergency, an environmental urgency and a moral obligation. No other issue can combine those five.

I’d pound Trump every day with this message: “Trump says he cares about you. Well, that’s funny, because he clearly doesn’t care about the water you drink. He just revoked a rule that prohibited coal mining debris from being dumped into local streams — among other actions to weaken the Clean Water Act — so that pro-Trump coal companies can make more money while they make you sick. What kind of president does that?

Image

CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Image

CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
“Trump says he cares about you. Well, that’s funny, because he clearly doesn’t care about the air you breathe. He’s weakening clean air rules so that power and coal companies can emit more pollutants, methane and carbon dioxide into the air — so they can make more money and give your kids more childhood asthma today and disruptive climate change tomorrow. What kind of father does that?

“Trump says he cares about making America great again. Well, that’s funny, because he clearly doesn’t care about American automakers and their supply chains. He’s trying to force California and other states to weaken their gas mileage and pollution standards so our companies — which don’t even want this change — can make gas guzzlers and no longer produce cars that get mileage as good as those in Japan or emit as little pollution as China’s expanding electric car fleets. Who the hell does that?

ADVERTISEMENT

“The last time our auto industry indulged in a race to the bottom on mileage and pollution standards, it went bankrupt. That’s why automakers are resisting Trump’s effort to dumb them down. There are 42 Chinese companies actively manufacturing and selling electric cars in China right now — and they can’t wait to ship them here once Trump forces our manufacturers to make more polluting gas guzzlers.

“All 18,000 public buses in Shenzhen, China, a city of 12 million people, went electric by the end of 2017. ‘Taxis soon followed suit,’ TechCrunch reported in January. In Shenzhen today, 99 percent of the more than 21,000 cabs run on electric batteries. How does America become great again if we’re surrendering the world’s next great industry — clean power generation and transportation — to China?

“Trump says he’s pro-business. Well, that’s funny, because he’s trying to expand the use of polluting coal when both wind and solar are now cheaper in many locations, including red states. Even Texas is enjoying the cost, environmental and job-creating advantages of wind over coal, producing almost twice as much wind energy as California.

“The Los Angeles Times reported last week: ‘The cost of wind power has fallen about 50 percent since 2010. Solar has dropped 85 percent. That makes them cheaper than new coal and gas plants in two-thirds of the world, according to research organization BloombergNEF.’

“Trump says he wants to make America energy independent. Well, that’s funny, because he just rolled back the lighting standards initiated by President George W. Bush and his assistant secretary of energy Andy Karsner to phase out energy-sucking, heat-emitting incandescent and halogen bulbs and replace them with energy-efficient LEDs.

“Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, told NPR: ‘The rollback will eliminate energy-efficient standards for light bulbs that were slated to take effect in January that would save consumers billions of dollars and reduce millions of tons of climate change carbon dioxide emissions.’ Who does that?”

How do you run against all these things Trump’s doing? With a simple message repeated over and over: “Trump is poisoning Americans and weakening America. Join the Earth Race. Make America healthier, wealthier, smarter and more secure.”

ADVERTISEMENT

And with a simple solution, too. The Earth Race doesn’t need a giant Green New Deal that tries to change everything at once, as noble as that goal is. It just needs to aggressively amplify what is already happening. Today, 24 states — including blue California and purple New Mexico — have put in place, to varying degrees, steadily rising standards for clean energy from their power plants and efficiency standards for their vehicles, homes and buildings.

We’ve already seen the impact, as Andrew McAfee documents in his important new book, “More From Less.” Total resource use in America is now declining — even as our economy has kept growing — because rising standards like these have made us steadily more efficient and innovative.

A candidate running on the Earth Race should just say: “I’ll require all 50 states to move to such standards. When you get all 50 states imposing steadily rising standards for clean power, transportation and energy efficiency — and let the market determine the most effective solutions — you will unleash an explosion of innovation that will create thousands of products to export to the rest of the world in so many different areas of clean power, energy and efficiency — and you’ll be mitigating climate change at the same time.”

The Earth Race candidate would tell people every day: “You can vote for a man who wants to bring back cars that get bad mileage, lights that use more energy and produce more heat, power plants that produce more asthma, chemical companies that pollute more rivers, coal companies that pollute more air, mining companies that strip more pristine landscapes, and an economy that lags China in the next great global industry.

“Or you can join the Earth Race and make Donald Trump’s presidency an extinct species while saving Mother Nature’s endangered species.”

If a candidate can’t make headway with that message, either America is doomed or he or she doesn’t belong in politics.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther