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.
Wolfblade wrote: The point is banning guns would reduce overall violent crime because there would be fewer guns to do it with
Who cares? Too many Americans like having guns. They are not going anywhere so peeps should just get used to it. Our society is the way that it is because people just do not have respect for one another. There is a lot of violent crime that is done without guns. If you eliminate guns it might stop some of the mass shootings, but its not going to get rid of knife or other weapon attacks, or rapes, or other kind of crimes that are committed every day that shouldn't be happening at all. And to tell people who live in rural areas that they cannot own a gun for self defense is crazy to me too.
If you found some way to teach Americans to be nicer to each other, there would be less Americans shooting each other. Good luck changing that, and you might as well start trying, because that will happen long before anything happens to gun ownership. It is after all, the lack of respect people have for one another that is essentially the leading argument for wanting a gun in the first place.
I think you missed the point which was pointing out the hypocrisy in complaining that illegal immigrants are a major source of violent crime, then not supporting something that actually is a major problem in violent crime.. It's plenty obvious that there's no way to get Americans to willingly give up guns (nor do I think they should), but if he truly believed that reducing crime at any cost was a good idea, then he would not oppose a gun ban.
As for illegal immigration, I don't give a rats ass what it does to violent crime. They are still illegal. I don't know what makes them so special that they can break laws and I can't. There is a system for immigrating into this country, follow it.
And there are repercussions for breaking the law, I say we follow that too (instead of toddler prisons). On the other hand, what's a realistic way to solve illegal immigration? A border wall? Please, billions spent purchasing land, fighting court battles, and building roads/temporary housing, and only then finally getting to hiring people to actually build a wall, which wouldn't even be remotely effective? Spending millions on improving other countries? Trump's base would never accept that and it'd be too rational or empathetic of a move for Trump to even consider.
Wolfblade wrote: And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?
What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.
But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.
The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)
But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.
So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?
Wolfblade wrote: Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)
The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.
Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.
As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.
According to a CDC study done in 2015 guns are used by citizens to stop a crime at least as often, and likely much more often, than they are used to commit crime.
However that is besides the point. The point is banning guns would reduce overall violent crime because there would be fewer guns to do it with, and yet there's a double standard being imposed here. Illegal immigrants generally don't commit violent crimes (even when looked at as an entire group compared to other groups), so preventing illegal immigration (aside from being impractical or impossible to totally and completely shut down) would only reduce violent crimes by a small amount. Banning guns might not totally stop violent crime either, but it would reduce it by at least a small amount, so therefore he should be in favor of banning guns right? Instead he trots out the tired old "guns are tools, people kill people, knives are dangerous too" speech to sidestep that potential flaw in his logic.
Looking at the stats compiled by the Australian Gov. here http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/ The chart titled "WEAPON USE IN HOMICIDE INCIDENTS, 1989-90 TO 2013-14 (N)" looks like homicides where a gun was used was declining from '89 to '92 before spiking in '93 and '95 with the buyback happening in '96 . What is interesting is that in '96 the # of homicides where the gun was used as a weapon did drop, but it was only by 16% which is surprising given the scope of the buyback program. That said based on their data homicides with guns are declining, but that was the trend before the buyback anyway. Homicides with knives however have remained fairly stable over the same time period.
I'm not saying banning guns is a good idea, but rather as above
I think you missed the point which was pointing out the hypocrisy in complaining that illegal immigrants are a major source of violent crime, then not supporting something that actually is a major problem in violent crime. It's plenty obvious that there's no way to get Americans to willingly give up guns (nor do I think they should), but if he truly believed that reducing crime at any cost was a good idea, then he would not oppose a gun ban.
skyth wrote: I don't think anyone is actually trying to ban firearms, just pointing out Tony's hypocrisy...
exactly
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 19:02:19
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Wolfblade wrote: On the other hand, what's a realistic way to solve illegal immigration? A border wall? Please, billions spent purchasing land, fighting court battles, and building roads/temporary housing, and only then finally getting to hiring people to actually build a wall, which wouldn't even be remotely effective? Spending millions on improving other countries? Trump's base would never accept that and it'd be too rational or empathetic of a move for Trump to even consider.
Well, whatever else that's been done hasn't really worked. There are already walls in some places, or fences at least. They are there for a purpose. I am not for shipping out billions to other countries to improve them, god knows where that money would end up in places like Mexico. We have enough issues here to sort out anyway.
This topic will not go away until one is put up. If its not Trump, it will be someone down the line. There will be a massive shift in human migration in the coming years due to Global Warming, and if you think Europe or others have seen the last of it as the Syrian war dies down, you have another thing coming. Mankind has migrated essentially in pursuit of resources, and when some areas can no longer produce food or are even too hot to live in (like areas of the middle east), they will start migrating again. Where they will all end up I do not know, but I am sure there will be resistance, and its actually natural. We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
I think it would be more accurate to say some people are acting no different today than the racist "panics" over immigrants from Ireland, Italy, China, Japan, etc etc. The fact that people are getting fooled by the same tricks isn't something to be so blase about.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Wolfblade wrote: On the other hand, what's a realistic way to solve illegal immigration? A border wall? Please, billions spent purchasing land, fighting court battles, and building roads/temporary housing, and only then finally getting to hiring people to actually build a wall, which wouldn't even be remotely effective? Spending millions on improving other countries? Trump's base would never accept that and it'd be too rational or empathetic of a move for Trump to even consider.
Well, whatever else that's been done hasn't really worked. There are already walls in some places, or fences at least. They are there for a purpose. I am not for shipping out billions to other countries to improve them, god knows where that money would end up in places like Mexico. We have enough issues here to sort out anyway.
This topic will not go away until one is put up. If its not Trump, it will be someone down the line. There will be a massive shift in human migration in the coming years due to Global Warming, and if you think Europe or others have seen the last of it as the Syrian war dies down, you have another thing coming. Mankind has migrated essentially in pursuit of resources, and when some areas can no longer produce food or are even too hot to live in (like areas of the middle east), they will start migrating again. .
And yet, those walls or fences haven't done anything, so what makes you think a bigger, more expensive wall will do anything? The only ways to solve the problem are either
A. Make America unappealing to live in (trump and his criminal cronies seem to be taking this route)
B. Armed guards along a wall every 10 feet on the border
C. Fix the problems of the country they're emigrating from.
D. Increase manpower in the immigration department to process asylum and immigration cases faster.
A. is obviously the worst choice, it's a lose-lose situation for everyone (except the rich who have enough cash, influence/pull or whatever to live comfortably no matter what), B. is stupidly expensive to put in place and then further maintain, and train people for, C. might work, would also be incredibly expensive, and D. simply shifts those illegal immigrants to legal immigrants.
Where they will all end up I do not know, but I am sure there will be resistance, and its actually natural. We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west
Is that actually a justification for racism I see? People as a whole should strive to be more than their base instincts of fearing someone who's different than them.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Just Tony wrote: Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns,
Is it possible that today's "illegally obtained unregistered" guns are yesterday's "registered" guns, and that reducing the numbers of the latter would over time lead to reduced numbers of the former?
Well certainly not being able to buy at will and carry around here has made even accounted to population gun shootings very rare while still allowing those foi hunting for those that want.
So either our gun laws work better or we are genetically superior. Pick whichever you prefer. I'm on camp of good laws
KTG17 wrote: We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.
Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.
Erdogan has also urged Turks living in Germany to outbreed their "counterparts". This is more of a statement to cause more divisions and hostility and further establish the "us vs them" mentality than a real goal that a significant amount of people would aim at, I'd say. It's a phrase used by leaders how want to stir gak up, not something believed by the broad masses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 19:36:28
Donald Trump probably would not have become president without his victory in seven of the 11 primaries held on Super Tuesday, March 1, 2016. Now his presidency is in danger of being undone by Terrible Tuesday – Aug. 21, 2018. This was the day when his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was convicted of eight felony counts in a Virginia courtroom and his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in a New York courtroom.
The Manafort charges of tax and bank fraud do not directly implicate the president, but they do vindicate the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, showing that his inquiry is no “Rigged Witch Hunt” but a serious investigation that has produced 35 indictments, six guilty pleas and one conviction. No special counsel has done more, faster. If Manafort had been found not guilty, it would have been a massive blow to Mueller. Because he was found guilty, it is a blow to Trump.
But not nearly as a big a blow as Cohen’s admission under oath that he violated federal campaign laws by arranging illicit payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy playmate Karen McDougal “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” For the first time since Watergate, the president is now an alleged co-conspirator in the commission of a federal crime. As Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said, his client “testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”
And Cohen may only have begun implicating the president. Davis said on MSNBC that Cohen would be happy to share other incriminating information with the special counsel, including “knowledge about the computer crime of hacking and whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time about that crime and even cheered it on.” This would seem to vindicate an earlier leak that Cohen may be able provide the “smoking gun” evidence showing that Trump himself gave the go-ahead to collusion with the Kremlin.
In short, there is growing evidence that the president is, to use the word favored by Richard Nixon, “a crook.” Even buying the silence of his reputed playmates could by itself have been enough to swing an exceedingly close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Trump certainly would not have authorized the payments unless he thought it was politically imperative to do so. There is also considerable evidence, as I previously argued, that Russia’s intervention on Trump’s behalf affected the outcome. Even more than Nixon, Trump is now an illegitimate president whose election is tainted by fraud.
The inevitable question is: Now what? If Trump had an iota of decency, he would resign — but he doesn’t, and prevailing Justice Department guidelines hold that a president can’t be indicted while in office. So the onus is on Congress to act. A responsible Congress would have by now already convened an impeachment inquiry. But that is not the Congress we have. We have a Congress dominated by political hacks and moral invertebrates who are determined to act as the president’s enablers and legitimizers at all costs.
It tells you all you need to know about the moral standing of Trump’s defenders that Terrible Tuesday also included the indictment of one of his earliest congressional supporters, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), and his wife, on charges of misusing campaign funds to pay personal expenses. This comes shortly after another of Trump’s early endorsers, Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), decided not to seek reelection after being indicted on insider-trading charges.
But the far more serious crimes of Trump’s congressional supporters do not involve personal peculation. They involve violating their oaths of office by failing to hold the president accountable for misusing his office. Some, such as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have gone much further by actively attempting to impede the Justice Department investigation into Trump’s alleged misconduct. They have become, in a moral if not legal sense, accessories to obstruction of justice.
And they have gotten away with it because the congressional leadership has allowed them to do so. Judging by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s (R-Wis.) cowardly and cautious statement on Tuesday — “We are aware of Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea to these serious charges. We will need more information than is currently available at this point” — there is no sign that the Republicans in Congress will ever provide any serious oversight of the Republican in the White House.
The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653: “Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. . . . Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. . . . Go, get you out! Make haste! . . . In the name of God, go!”
Interesting so far.
So essentially the Special Consul is probably one of the most effective and means that if it is found out the president was complicit it could be grounds for impeachment on all of his supreme court justices (theory).
But it should be interesting to see what happens next.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
(CNN)The Democratic National Committee contacted the FBI on Tuesday after it detected what it believes was the beginning of a sophisticated attempt to hack into its voter database, a Democratic source tells CNN.
The DNC was alerted in the early hours of Tuesday morning by a cloud service provider and a security research firm that a fake login page had been created in an attempt to gather usernames and passwords that would allow access to the party's database, the source said.
The DNC and the two companies involved in detecting the operation say they believe they thwarted a potential attack.
The fraudulent page was designed to look like the access page Democratic Party officials and campaigns across the country use to log into a service called Votebuilder, which hosts the database, the source said, adding the DNC believed it was designed to trick people into handing over their login details.
The source said the DNC is investigating who may have been responsible for the attempted attack, but that it has no reason to believe its voter file was accessed or altered.
The page was initially discovered late Monday by Lookout, a San Francisco-based cybersecurity firm. The company doesn't work for the DNC but alerted the party to its findings, Mike Murray, the company's vice president of security intelligence, told CNN on Wednesday.
Murray said that a link to the page could have been sent to Democrats by email or through other online platforms in a spearphishing operation.
"It was very convincing," Murray said, adding that if a person were to see the real login page and the fake login page side-by-side, it would be difficult to tell them apart. "It would have been a very effective attack," he said.
The fraudulent page was hosted on a cloud computing platform called DigitalOcean, which took action to remove the page as soon as it was alerted by Lookout, the cloud company said.
"We see no evidence that any sensitive data was stolen and our initial investigation indicates that we were able to address this threat prior to the attack being launched," Josh Feinblum, chief security officer at DigitalOcean, said in a statement.
The DNC's chief security officer Bob Lord, a former Yahoo! executive, briefed Democrats on the attempted attack at a meeting of the Association of State Democratic Committees in Chicago on Wednesday.
"These threats are serious and that's why it's critical that we all work together, but we can't do this alone. We need the (Trump) administration to take more aggressive steps to protect our voting systems. It is their responsibility to protect our democracy from these types of attacks," Lord said in a statement to CNN.
CNN has reached out to the FBI for comment.
Early Tuesday morning, Microsoft announced that parts of an operation linked to Russian military intelligence targeting the US Senate and conservative think tanks that advocated for tougher policies against Russia were thwarted last week.
That disclosure, coming less than three months ahead of the 2018 midterms, demonstrated Russia's continued efforts to destabilize US institutions. The news also places additional pressure on President Donald Trump to take action, even though he downplayed Russia's involvement as recently as Monday.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
cuda1179 wrote: Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.
You realize you're talking about the equivalent of "see, feminists want to kill all men, I found this one blog with like two readers talking about it", right? A delusional minority is not relevant in policy decisions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 20:00:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Wolfblade wrote: B. Armed guards along a wall every 10 feet on the border
It would be stupidly easy and cheap to set up a fixed line of sentry guns with overlapping fields of fire, and just reload them every week or so. Pair it with smartmines, and you're golden.
Just as killy as the Berlin Wall, but higher tech and Amerikan!
Wolfblade wrote: On the other hand, what's a realistic way to solve illegal immigration? A border wall? Please, billions spent purchasing land, fighting court battles, and building roads/temporary housing, and only then finally getting to hiring people to actually build a wall, which wouldn't even be remotely effective? Spending millions on improving other countries? Trump's base would never accept that and it'd be too rational or empathetic of a move for Trump to even consider.
Well, whatever else that's been done hasn't really worked. There are already walls in some places, or fences at least. They are there for a purpose.
Most people entering the US enter legally or at least through manned crossings, a wall to keep a trickle of people from crossing the Mojave isn't going to stop much, especially if not manned and fortified to a level comparable to that of the Berlin Wall. The existing fences are routinely tunneled under or just hopped over.
This topic will not go away until one is put up. If its not Trump, it will be someone down the line.
Unlikely. Again, people crossing the desert are a very minor chunk of illegal immigrants.
More to the point, for any such wall, you'll need to go throuhh years and more likely decades of legal wrangling acquiring and seizing all the private land needed to build and service that wall along 2,000 miles of border. Nobody likes to talk about that. Then you'll have to build out significant infrastructure to support, supply, and man such a wall, and then build the wall itself.
That's a lot of effort when the overwhelmingly vast majority of illegal immigrants are crossing through normal entry points in the first place.
There's no compelling justification for such a project beyond partisan politics. At best, it's a psychological blanket.
There's a lot of border security and immigration enforcement stuff that could use more investment, reform, and development. There are even valid justifications for walls and fences along some sections of the border. A "Festungs Rio" wall across the entire border however is not among them.
There will be a massive shift in human migration in the coming years due to Global Warming, and if you think Europe or others have seen the last of it as the Syrian war dies down, you have another thing coming. Mankind has migrated essentially in pursuit of resources, and when some areas can no longer produce food or are even too hot to live in (like areas of the middle east), they will start migrating again. Where they will all end up I do not know, but I am sure there will be resistance, and its actually natural.
Broadly speaking, Mankind is better equipped to handle those challenges than at any point in history, and Immigration of the kind we see in the US has never felled a major empire in history. What happens with climate change and other such things is anyone's guess, but walls have never had much of an effect on that.
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
Well, except that everything in that equation, such as power/numbers/information/tech/infrastructure/weaponry/population proportions/etc, is far more opposed to any outside group looking to overtake the US today than they ever were in favor of the "invading" settlers who so effectively displaced the native americans. The United States is by far the most powerful, wealthy, and capable state in all of human history on the planet Earth.
KTG17 wrote: We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.
Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.
While there are certainly internet cranks on random blogs where people state silly things, but there's certainly no large scale direction or movement around that, and no realistic chance of that happening in any foreseeable future.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
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.
KTG17 wrote: We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.
Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.
Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.
While there are certainly internet cranks on random blogs where people state silly things, but there's certainly no large scale direction or movement around that, and no realistic chance of that happening in any foreseeable future.
Not to mention there is world of difference between a gradual generational shift and a literal invading army bent on genocide.
I'd welcome a breeding war! I'll do my part
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.'”
Wolfblade wrote: B. Armed guards along a wall every 10 feet on the border
It would be stupidly easy and cheap to set up a fixed line of sentry guns with overlapping fields of fire, and just reload them every week or so. Pair it with smartmines, and you're golden.
Just as killy as the Berlin Wall, but higher tech and Amerikan!
Yes, because violating international treaties and committing crimes against humanity is always the best way to go.
I'll let it sink in that yes, the man who proposed eradicating 90% of humanity thinks you've gone too far.
I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.
E.P.A. Unveils New Coal Pollution Rules. In the Fine Print: More Deaths.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually.
The proposal, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, is a replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was an aggressive effort to speed up the closures of coal-burning plants, one of the main producers of greenhouse gases, by setting national targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and encouraging utilities to use cleaner energy sources like wind and solar.
The new proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, instead seeks to make minor on-site efficiency improvements at individual plants and would also let states relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades, keeping them active longer.
Trump administration officials say the Clean Power Plan, in its effort to reduce carbon emissions, illegally tried to force electric utilities to use greener energy sources. The new plan, they said, would achieve many of the benefits sought by the Obama administration but in a way that is legal and allows states greater flexibility.
“Today’s proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump’s goal of energy dominance,” Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A., said in a statement Tuesday.
However, the hundreds of pages of technical analysis that accompany the new proposal indicate that emissions would grow under the plan.
Compared to the Obama-era plan, the analysis says, “implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health.”
The analysis also includes a section called “foregone” climate and human health benefits. That is, instead of listing the health gains of the Trump plan — preventing premature deaths, for example, or avoiding a certain number of increased emergency room visits from asthma attacks — it is instead describing the effect of the Trump plan as benefits lost.
The proposal lays out several possible pathways that individual states might use for regulating coal-fired power plants, and what the consequences would be for pollution and human health in each case. In the scenario the E.P.A. has pegged as the most likely to occur, the health effects would be significant.
In that scenario, the Trump E.P.A. predicts its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis.
By contrast, the Obama administration’s central argument for its Clean Power Plan was that the measure protected human health as well as the climate. Specifically, it said, the plan would help avoid between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030.
The Clean Power Plan aimed to curb planet-warming greenhouse gases by steering the energy sector away from coal and toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar. According to its calculations, the decreased coal burning also would reduce other pollutants like sulfur dioxide, which poses respiratory risk, and nitrogen oxides that create ozone, which, in the form of smog, can damage lung tissue.
Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. also estimated that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan would result in 180,000 fewer missed school days per year by children because of ozone-related illnesses. Asthma instances would also drop significantly, according to the analysis.
By contrast, the Trump administration analysis finds that own its plan would see 48,000 new cases of exacerbated asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030 because those pollutants would increase in the atmosphere rather than decrease.
“With the Trump dirty power plan we see again that the Trump administration cares more about extending the lives of coal plants than the American people,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental nonprofit group.
William L. Wehrum, acting administrator of the E.P.A.’s office of air and radiation, acknowledged Tuesday that there would be “collateral effects” on traditional pollutants compared to what the Clean Power Plan might have achieved. But, he said, “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”
The numbers in both the analysis for the Clean Power Plan as well as the Trump plan are derived from an intricate three-part modeling system reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences that the E.P.A. has used for decades to calculate the benefits and drawbacks of pollution regulation.
The premature mortality numbers also draw from a landmark Harvard University study that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths. The study, known as Six Cities, tracked thousands of people for nearly two decades and ultimately formed the backbone of federal air pollution regulations.
That study itself is now under attack at E.P.A. The agency is considering a separate rule to restrict the use of any study for which raw data cannot be published, as is the case with Six Cities, which is based on the confidential health records of its participants. Scientists overwhelmingly oppose the move, pointing out that participants in long-term health studies typically agree to take part only if their personal health information won’t be made public.
If the E.P.A. finalizes that restriction rule, Mr. Schneider said, it would be able to claim in future studies a far lower premature death rate for the Clean Power Plan replacement because the Harvard study would no longer be taken into account.
The analysis of the new Trump administration plan does include premature death scenarios based on studies that are considered less comprehensive than the Harvard study. Those analyses start at the possibility of an extra eight to 25 deaths a year under Mr. Trump’s climate plan.
..here's to dying prematurely to own the libs.
1,400 or so premature deaths , more long term health concerns..
for an industry that employs less people than Arbys
I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.
ABC News (an actual source) had a statement from the farm he worked at stating that they used all current and proper Federal Laws to verify his status and employment.
So, if he was illegal, I point to the weak measures the US has to enforce employment law on employers as a major cause of an "crisis" instead of blaming migrants just looking to improve their lives. If we were serious about "doing something" about illegal immigration, we would start be enforcing the rules on the employers, and especially the large corporations. That would do much more than any wall ever could.
Edit: I was wondering exactly how long it would take for someone to try to make political hay out of this tragic story. Not long.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/22 23:08:09
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.
Wolfblade wrote: B. Armed guards along a wall every 10 feet on the border
It would be stupidly easy and cheap to set up a fixed line of sentry guns with overlapping fields of fire, and just reload them every week or so. Pair it with smartmines, and you're golden.
Just as killy as the Berlin Wall, but higher tech and Amerikan!
Nah, you should take a page from the Saudi's book, and go for the radioactive moat. Much lower maintenance.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that whole "Punch a Nazi" thing? Well, apparently Bernie voters are now Nazis.
Bravo Antifa. Bravo.
Spoiler:
I can't say I'm shocked that a militant group known for using violence on others was violent to someone. I just don't get how someone could associate the american flag with fascism.
The victim with the US Flag was actually there to PROTEST against Fascism.
This is a case of Antifa thugs lynching someone ON THEIR OWN FETHING SIDE for what amounts to a fashion faux pas.
skyth wrote: It's interesting that she was murdered because she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Of course, certain people latch on to the immigrant thing rather than the man committing violence against a woman for saying no.
But remember, women being scared of men is irrational. Or the chance of murder in the US is lower than other death factors...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that whole "Punch a Nazi" thing? Well, apparently Bernie voters are now Nazis.
Bravo Antifa. Bravo.
Spoiler:
I can't say I'm shocked that a militant group known for using violence on others was violent to someone. I just don't get how someone could associate the american flag with fascism.
The victim with the US Flag was actually there to PROTEST against Fascism.
This is a case of Antifa thugs lynching someone ON THEIR OWN FETHING SIDE for what amounts to a fashion faux pas.
As was explained earlier, when the IFF context in the street is "person waving large flag = other side", issues will happen. Doesn't excuse the guys that committed the assault, they're obviously not the brightest characters and deserve to be facing charges, but probably isn't particularly indicative of anything larger than that. I live literally 5 minutes (well, on days when there's no traffic downtown) from that park, there's a lot of idiots looking for any excuse to make trouble there, same thing that happened with the post-election riots that tore up the hardcore Hillary donor-base part of downtown. A dude tore through there a week or two ago on a multi-vehicle car jacking spree and ended up crashing out on my block
That said, to add in some spice for context, the guy organizing the Patriot Prayer events has stated that he's had firearms among his people at every event he's put on (which would have been a federal felony at the federally owned park he's done most of his events at in Portland), and when you see people showing up in fatigues and literally wearing class III/IV armor plate in tac-carriers, it's not the "antifa" street kids. Basically you've got a dude running for office elsewhere coming in from out of state across the river to stir up a shitstorm downtown every couple of months.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
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.
Women believing every man is going to hurt them IS irrational. Having healthy skepticism in any human nature is prudent though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: [ when you see people showing up in fatigues and literally wearing class III/IV armor plate in tac-carriers, it's not the "antifa" street kids. Basically you've got a dude running for office elsewhere coming in from out of state across the river to stir up a shitstorm downtown every couple of months.
Unless someone is beating someone over the head with body armor I don't really see how it's hurting anyone. That being said, there's been "body armor" on both sides (some home made). There's also gas masks, batons, asps, chains, and bottles. Can we agree that there are more than enough donkey caves on both sides?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/23 00:43:18
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
