Christy42 wrote: » This has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. We were having a conversation about people being too easily offended. If the Army is unhappy with how they are being honoured they can feel free to stop sponsoring the nfl. As has been pointed out the players kneeling are not breaking the contract which was agreed to by both sides.
Peregrinus wrote: » I think the issue is, why did Trump choose to mention Puerto Rico's debt at all at this point, in this context? Texas and Florida both have much bigger debts that Puerto Rico; Trump never thought to comment on this when addressing the impact of hurricanes on those states. His bringing it up in this context suggests that he thinks it is in some way relevant either to the damage PR has suffered or to the response which the Federal Government should make. Either that, or he's a drooling idiot who tweets whatever pops into his head without intending it to be in any way relevant to public discourse or any any way connected to what is actually his business as President. You choose.
Manic Moran wrote: » Puerto Rico is bankrupt. As in actually filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago. The infrastructure has suffered as a result, and it is part of the reason its people are so badly off and will be for the next while. Florida and Texas may owe more money, but their infrastructure is better and they are not insolvent. Congress is about to pass an aid bill for the island. It is perhaps possible that such significant fiscal issues should be part of what Congress should be taken into account when passing that aid bill? Maybe part of the bill should include not only repairing, but also improving the infrastructure so that the next hurricane isn't as bad, which also means paying off various debts so that the power company has money left over for improvement.
Manic Moran wrote: » Puerto Rico is bankrupt. As in actually filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago. The infrastructure has suffered as a result, and it is part of the reason its people are so badly off and will be for the next while. Florida and Texas may owe more money, but their infrastructure is better and they are not insolvent.
Congress is about to pass an aid bill for the island. It is perhaps possible that such significant fiscal issues should be part of what Congress should be taken into account when passing that aid bill? Maybe part of the bill should include not only repairing, but also improving the infrastructure so that the next hurricane isn't as bad, which also means paying off various debts so that the power company has money left over for improvement.
Akrasia wrote: » One would hope that if they rebuild the infrastructure, that they build it properly and modernize it. But do you honestly think the republicans will vote give money to Puerto Rico beyond the bare minimum they can get away with. America is broke remember, they can't afford to spend any money (unless it's 80 billion dollars extra for the military.)
MadYaker wrote: » Would Puerto Rico not be mostly latino who tend to vote democrat? Or at least young latinos tend to vote democrat. So it might not be democrat yet but it will be in a few election cycles. I'm surprised the republicans haven't tried to do that already if it would benefit them. Someone should mention it to Trump, he isn't going to think of it himself. He's too busy berating NFL players, shoring up the white supremacist vote and insulting Kim Jong Un on twitter.
Leroy42 wrote: » And why would GOP and especially Trump want to spend money on latinos. ...Trump is doing this out of sheer petiness and probably more than a little racism
Manic Moran wrote: » Don't make the mistake of thinking that because they speak a variant of the same language that PR Latinos are the same as Mexican ones...
recedite wrote: » Trump-haters will keep on making the same mistake because they assume that the President is motivated by racism...
oscarBravo wrote: » We know he's a racist, but we also know that he's primarily motivated by insanity.
recedite wrote: » How do you "know" he is a racist? I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians. Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency? Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage. Is that the action of a racist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YXLWNGGxo
recedite wrote: » How do you "know" he is a racist? I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.
recedite wrote: » Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?
recedite wrote: » Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage. Is that the action of a racist?
Nody wrote: » On a separate note there's a battle of ideology going down in Alabama among the Republicans. On the one side there's the Republican party and Trump backed candidate Luther Strange; on the other there's Sarah Palin, Tea Movement and Bannon supported candidate (and general nutcase by the looks of it) Roy Mooreto help drain the swamp. Roy is a judge who told his colleagues to ignore a Supreme court decision on same sex marriage, that State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior" in a custody battle over a lesbian asking for custody of her child due to the husband being abusive and violent, and to put a plaque of the 10 commandments in his court and held before session group prayers in the court house. He's clearly a man who don't care about minor things such as the constitution which is a complaint the republicans like to leverage on moderate judges; however if you still had some doubts if he was really that bad simply know that Nigel Farage is campaigning for him as well as that should clarify any outstanding concerns you may have.
Samaris wrote: » Amazing how sarky some of the answers got. Taking a step back from it a moment, it is rather remarkable to think that a US president can open his gob and comment that this destroyed territory "owes a lot of money to Wall Street and the banks and that, unfortunately, must be dealt with", y'know, while they're still desperately low on water, fuel for the surviving generators, oh, and there's a large dam that could fail catastrophically at any moment. It does go to show the changes in public discourse, in honourable action. Once it was just assumed that the central government would help regions that fall victim to natural disastors rather than imply that the point of devastation is the point to rook them for the cash back. It's even more egregious when one considers that the island might not be in such a position without the helpful influence of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the "Jones Act" from which they seek the waiver. It started as a protection against U-boats but there's been very few of those around the last, oh, seventy years or so, so now it's more protectionism that contributes to a far higher cost of living on the island than there is on the mainland - either foriegn ships pay very high tariffs for making port there or they sail to the mainland, unload everything onto an American vessel and then send that out - the costs above and beyond the mean are passed onto the locals who are, after all, a bit of a captive audience. I wonder would their debt be so high if the cost of living due to this law wasn't elevated beyond the norm. This was immediately lifted for the two states, who are, after all, connected to the rest of the US by roads and surely it could be argued that all their aid could come in from the land. (Not the quickest or most sensible method, but exactly what's happening on PR without the road network. FEMA are working on their third national disaster within the space of a month or so. (Trump's contribution to FEMA was proposing to cut their budget, but anyway.) Of course they're there and doing heroic work. Some of them have probably seen nothing but hurricane damage for a month now. If you don't see why Trump's insinuation that the money needed to be paid back to "Wall Street and the banks" while looking at the devastation was at the least inappropriate (such a mild term), boy, Jed, I don't know. If, by some Christmas miracle, he was saying as a businessman that it would be very hard to borrow money on behalf of PR to rebuild without something being done there which the government could help out with, that's another thing. It would be rather unlike him to think of such a thing though. Especially for non-voters.
Billy86 wrote: » Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.
Samaris wrote: » Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land. Did they give any reasons?
Samaris wrote: » I think I'll need to see a few more of Trump's people fail before I consider it a positive sign. Strange was behind to begin with, afair, and Trump's help is a bit of a wild card anyway. Arizona's flipped blue before (albeit not since Clinton) and Trump didn't win there by a huge margin, Arizonans were rather torn on him (support's at 42%, disapproval at 55%). It's a datapoint, but I'll be cautious about hoping for a trend yet. Edit: Regarding Sandy, as disgraceful as it was, their protesting was to do with certain programs (such as Head Start and apparently fishing industry) getting money to rebuild. I get they don't like social programs but I'm a bit bemused at why the fishing industry caused upset.
Billy86 wrote: » Not that I can recall off the top of my head, but -and I'm not joking here- in contrast to PR being "too poor" for aid, my guess is they were trying to claim that NY as being "too rich" for aid. The real reason we all know is "Obama is going to look so, so bad if thousands die under his watch!!", which is also why there is a strong chance many simply refused to give any reason at all - let's not forget this is the same Republican party who have held as good as no town hall meetings in months. Cowards and scumbags really sums the guts of that party up quite well, makes it easy to understand the type of voter they attract.
Hurricane Sandy inflicted devastating damage on the East Coast, and Congress appropriately responded with hurricane relief. Unfortunately, cynical politicians in Washington could not resist loading up this relief bill with billions in new spending utterly unrelated to Sandy. Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.Two thirds of this spending is not remotely “emergency”; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 30% of the authorized funds would be spent in the next 20 months, and over a billion dollars will be spent as late as 2021. This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.
16,000,000,000 dollars for Community Development Block Grants (11 billion higher than HUD was requesting at the time) 600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA 348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service 100,000,000 for Head Start 50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS 45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft 22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment 50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services 24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund 10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief 4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service 3,000,000 for oil spill research 2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s famously leaky roofs. 1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA. 1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporattion
