Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: Out of interest, are there any other environmentally dangerous materials currently banned in the USA which Russia could export if Trump should overturn the ban?
Asbestos has never been banned in the US it’s use has just been heavily restricted. There’s still lawful uses for asbestos today just like there has been for decades. There are very real dangers with the use of asbestos but not all uses of asbestos are equally dangerous. It is a fibrous mineral that causes cancer when the fibers are inhaled into the body/lungs which is why it’s no longer allowed to be used in fibrous insulation. Anyone who has worked with fibrous insulation knows how the fibers get everywhere which is why cancer from asbestos became so prevalent, it was often installed by people not using proper safety precautions such as masks and decontamination processes and even if it was the buildings still had walls full of cancer causing fibers. We have asbestos in cement board to this day because asbestos is great for increasing tensile strength and fire resistance. I’ve overseen asbestos remediation projects that included the removable of drywall, floor and ceiling tiles of non friable asbestos. When the fibers are worked into the manufacture of the product like that there’s really no realistic danger to people from it. If there is non friable asbestos in your floor tile then you don’t have any asbestos fibers floating around in the air like you have with asbestos insulation, nobody is going to grind up floor tile and inhale massive amounts of the resultant particulates. We need buildings, buildings are required to be fire resistant to a certain degree so we need to put fire retardants in building materials and most of that stuff is stuff you don’t want to inhale or ingest or get in your body. The town in Russia has an open strip mine of asbestos the size of Manhattan so the town is literally covered in asbestos fibers every day which is why the town is riddled with cancer and suffers from an unconscionable deathrate. US construction sites aren’t going to have clouds of asbestos fibers floating around covering everything with cancer causing dust anymore because we already have laws against that which can’t be overturned by a presidential EO. We import the vast majority of asbestos from Brazil but now Brazil wants to stop mining it, which is good because asbestos mines are pretty much a crime against humanity but Russia is still willing to strip mine it and it’s still useful so as long as somebody is willing to kill their miners to get it we’ll take advantage of the benefits of using the material.
The mine and the factory Uralasbest owns are the principal employers. The town depends on the jobs that mining asbestos and making asbestos products bring. Nationwide, the industry employs 38,500 Russians directly while about 400,000 people depend on the factories and mines for their livelihood, if supporting businesses in the mining towns are counted. About 17 percent of Asbest residents work in the industry.
Asbest is a legacy of the philosophy known as gigantism in Soviet industrial planning. Many cities wound up with only one, huge factory like this town’s sprawling asbestos plant. The cities, known as monotowns, were an important engine of the economy. A Russian government study counted 467 cities and 332 smaller towns that depend on a single factory or mine. A total of 25 million people out of Russia’s population of 142 million people live in towns with only one main industry that cannot close, even if it is polluting.
The United States, though, has tightly restricted its use. The country imports about 1,000 tons of asbestos, mainly from Brazil, for use in aerospace and automotive industries for items like clutch pads. “They consider it dangerous but we consider it safe,” said the association’s spokesman, Vladimir A. Galitsyn. Russia has three research institutes dedicated to studying uses for asbestos.
Russia’s asbestos output is about a million tons a year
The majority of what we import from Russia is crude oil, fuel oil, steel making materials, steel mill products and aluminum and bauxite. It's hard to say what on that import list would go up if we changed policies. It's important to note that our increase in Russian asbestos buying is a product of Brazil, our primary asbestos supplier by a significant margin halting asbestos mining in their country. If Brazil was willing to continue to supply us with asbestos I doubt we'd be buying more from Russia regardless of any EPA policy changes. Private industry is buying the asbestos and I doubt Trump could force them to spend more money by importing it all the way from Russia instead of getting it from South America just to make Putin happy. It's also worth noting that we import about 1,000 tons of asbestos a year and Russia produces about 1,000,000 tons of asbestos a year so even if we bought 100% of our asbestos imports from Russia it's only a tiny fraction of their business.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/product/enduse/imports/c4621.html
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
If Ross is the best grifter of all time then he's essentially out Trumped Trump. I'm reasonably sure that in Trump's mind grifter and businessman are synonyms so by that twisted outlook Ross really is one of THE BEST PEOPLE. Like Wolverine, Wilbur is the best there is at what he does, but no well adjusted person should aspire for that particular achievement.
The Alt-right is in a tizzy after Alex Jones got kicked off Youtube and Facebook. Of course they're claiming it's because of his politics. News flash...being a horrible human being is not a political position.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.
The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.
Details of the rulemaking proposal are still being finalized, but based on a recent draft seen last week and described to NBC News, immigrants living legally in the U.S. who have ever used or whose household members have ever used Obamacare, children's health insurance, food stamps and other benefits could be hindered from obtaining legal status in the U.S.
Immigration lawyers and advocates and public health researchers say it would be the biggest change to the legal immigration system in decades and estimate that more than 20 million immigrants could be affected. They say it would fall particularly hard on immigrants working jobs that don't pay enough to support their families.
Trump administration planning policy to limit legal immigration
Aug.07.201801:54
Many are like Louis Charles, a Haitian green-card holder seeking citizenship who, despite working up to 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant, has had to use public programs to support his disabled adult daughter.
Using some public benefits like Social Security Insurance has already hindered immigrants from obtaining legal status in the past, but the programs included in the recent draft plan could mean that immigrant households earning as much as 250 percent of the poverty level could be rejected.
A version of the plan has been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the sources said, the final step before publishing a rule in the federal register. Reuters first reported that the White House was considering such a plan in February.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said: "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law."
Miller, along with several of his former congressional colleagues who now hold prominent positions in the Trump administration, have long sought to decrease the number of immigrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year. And even before the rule is in place, the administration has made it more difficult for immigrants to gain green cards and for green-card holders to gain citizenship.
In fiscal year 2016, the last full fiscal year under the Obama administration, 1.2 million immigrants became lawful permanent residents, or green-card holders, and 753,060 became naturalized U.S. citizens, according to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Data from the first quarter of fiscal year 2018 indicates that the administration is on track for a decline in immigrants granted green cards by 20 percent. Data for the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018 for immigrants obtaining naturalized citizenship shows little change compared to the same period of 2016. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says they expect naturalization numbers to rise in the latter half of the year based on previous trends.
Four immigration lawyers practicing in Massachusetts, Virginia, Tennessee and California told NBC News they have noticed a spike in the number of their clients being rejected when seeking green cards and naturalized citizenship.
In a statement, agency spokesperson Michael Bars said, "USCIS evaluates all applications fairly, efficiently and effectively on a case-by-case basis."
“Contrary to open borders advocates, immigration attorneys and activists," said Bars, "USCIS has not changed the manner in which applications for naturalization have been adjudicated, as the law generally requires that an eligible applicant must have been properly admitted for permanent residence in order to become a U.S. citizen. ... We reject the false and inaccurate claims of those who would rather the U.S. turn a blind eye to cases of illegal immigration, fraud, human trafficking, gang activity and drug proliferation at the expense of public safety, the integrity of our laws and their faithful execution."
"I did everything they asked me"
Charles, the Haitian green-card holder who works as a nursing assistant in a psychiatric hospital near Boston, said he was stunned to learn his application for citizenship had been denied. He had used a fake passport given to him by smugglers when he entered the U.S. from Haiti in 1989, but confessed to border officers and received a waiver from USCIS absolving him of his wrongdoing and allowing him to obtain a green card in 2011.
Now 55, Charles is a homeowner and a taxpayer and thought obtaining citizenship would be a smooth process. "I thought in this country everything was square and fair," Charles said.
But when he went for his citizenship interview in August 2017, the USCIS officers told him they were going to revisit the decision to waive the fake passport incident, meaning he could potentially lose his green card as well.
Then he received a letter in September telling him his request for citizenship had been denied.
"I was devastated. And I'm not sure exactly why they did it. I did everything they asked me to."
He appealed the decision, but as he waits for a final verdict, his lawyer says his green-card status may also now be in question.
In late November, the Trump administration announced they would end temporary protected status for Haitians who came to the U.S. after the deadly 2010 earthquake. Charles's wife was a recipient of that protection and without him becoming a citizen, he would be unable to vouch for her.
But Charles's biggest concern is his daughter. Although she is in her 20s and a U.S. citizen, she has severe disabilities that make it impossible for her to live by herself.
Charles is unaware of Miller's new plan to limit citizenship for immigrants who have used public assistance. But it is likely to affect him because he has used public assistance to help care for his daughter, so she could end up further hurting his chances for citizenship.
Though its effects could be far-reaching, the proposal to limit citizenship to immigrants who have not used public assistance does not appear to need congressional approval. As the Clinton administration did in 1999, the Trump administration would be redefining the term "public charge," which first emerged in immigration law in the 1800s in order to shield the U.S. from burdening too many immigrants who could not contribute to society.
Rosemary Jenks, executive vice president of NumbersUSA, which promotes limited immigration, said the new rule and the increased scrutiny around green card and citizenship applications are all part of a new focus at DHS on enforcing the law and preventing fraud.
"Applications for renewal or adjustment of status that have been filed with the government before are being re-examined to look for fraud," Jenks said.
In light of this, immigration attorneys are cautioning their clients before moving from green-card status to citizenship.
Rose Hernandez is the supervising attorney at the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition's naturalization clinic. She said the clinic's model has completely changed in light of the crackdown. She now sends six information requests to government agencies to check on green-card holders' backgrounds before she advises them to file for citizenship. If the government finds something she doesn't, the fear is the applicants could lose their green cards and be sent home.
And other immigration attorneys are preparing to push back fiercely against the public charge rule.
"Any policy forcing millions of families to choose between the denial of status and food or health care would exacerbate serious problems such as hunger, unmet health needs, child poverty and homelessness, with lasting consequences for families' wellbeing and long-term success and community prosperity," said the National Immigration Law Center in a statement.
Really?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: The Alt-right is in a tizzy after Alex Jones got kicked off Youtube and Facebook. Of course they're claiming it's because of his politics. News flash...being a horrible human being is not a political position.
He also got kicked off spotify. He was literally violating the rules in place on youtube, spotify, and facebook, he has advocated for violence. So I am not surprised and GOOD RIDDENS
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 17:45:18
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
Well the major reason some of these people are kept is because they make money. Certain commentators bring a lot of money, but they are supported by a 'fake' audience.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
skyth wrote: The Alt-right is in a tizzy after Alex Jones got kicked off Youtube and Facebook. Of course they're claiming it's because of his politics. News flash...being a horrible human being is not a political position.
I am eagerly awaiting the trial. I hope he gets obliterated with damages.
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
Well the major reason some of these people are kept is because they make money. Certain commentators bring a lot of money, but they are supported by a 'fake' audience.
Supported by a “Fake audience”, what is that? Like ghost subscribers or something ?
Asherian Command wrote: He also got kicked off spotify. He was literally violating the rules in place on youtube, spotify, and facebook, he has advocated for violence. So I am not surprised and GOOD RIDDENS
I look forward to the upcoming purge of Dakka Dakka members who advocate violence.
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
Well the major reason some of these people are kept is because they make money. Certain commentators bring a lot of money, but they are supported by a 'fake' audience.
Supported by a “Fake audience”, what is that? Like ghost subscribers or something ?
Yes, and Russian Bots. They aren't real, its fake support, they pay for people to inflate their views.'
Also this has been making the rounds currently:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 18:09:10
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
I don't think they care too much about that. Nor do I think anyone cares about Alex Jones, that has an IQ over 85.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
Nominally he's getting kicked out due to the ongoing lawsuit about his whole deal with insisting that the parents of the children who were murdered at Sandy Hook are all fake and never had kids and harassing them over it. Actually it's because he tipped his meter 0.001 unit from "brings in ad clicks" to "scares away ad clicks".
Asherian Command wrote: He also got kicked off spotify. He was literally violating the rules in place on youtube, spotify, and facebook, he has advocated for violence. So I am not surprised and GOOD RIDDENS
I look forward to the upcoming purge of Dakka Dakka members who advocate violence.
Me too.
I read today that Ron Paul was booted off twitter.
In other conspiracy news Alex Jones may well be back on all of those platforms after the primaries.
And Speaking on John Stewart , he said one time on the Daily Show Something like, why would you do something to prove a conspiracy theory right? Aimed at the last administration if I recall.
I'm considering leaving Yourube, it's been on my mind all year.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
I doubt it will. It's not now and I don't see that changing.
Have you heard the wonderful things Sarah Leong has to say about white men?
I'm guessing all of these ban only apply to some people and not others for "reasons".
But I couldn't guess what those reasons might be.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
d-usa wrote:Zero Hedge, what a bastion of journalistic integrity.
infinite_array wrote:Yeah, also being "reported" by such luminaries as RT and Breitbart.
If you are pushing ludicrous political policy and junk economic theory, you may as well add a fake persecution complex on top as well. Your audience already has established a total lack of fact checking ability.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Formosa wrote: Wait so advocating for violence is enough to get you thrown off these platforms, and rightly so, I assume this will be applied across the board then?
Otherwise they run the very real risk of appearing biased in favour of one side over another.
I don't think they care too much about that. Nor do I think anyone cares about Alex Jones, that has an IQ over 85.
Meh... he has his own websites.
Until Alphabet, Twittah, Facebook, et. el. becomes the gatekeepers to public speech, government shouldn't do anything to restrict how these companies want to operate.
I get that there’s a line and a slippery slope... but, I can’t gin up a lot of outrage over infowars. But, then again, it's never the rights of nice people we should be concerned about... I dunno... would Voltaire disapprove?
