Kevyn

President Donald Trump inquired about the possibility of “selling” Puerto Rico after the island was pummeled by Hurricane Maria, his one-time head of homeland security told The New York Times.
Elaine Duke, former acting secretary of homeland security, said that Trump approached the situation of a devastated Puerto Rico as a businessman would and asked about the option of “divesting” or “selling” the U.S. territory as it struggled in the aftermath of the 2017 hurricane. She was taken aback by that response, she told the Times. This how he sees Americans, as a commodity, assets or debts to be treated accordingly.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

You are right. "Once again" the President is tried, condemned, and hung because of a stupid remark, ignoring all the good and right things he has done. When are you going to apply the same standards to Joe Biden? Nor did you apply them to President Obama, and certainly not to the Goddess of the Left, Queen Hillary.

Kevyn

He is criticized, not tried, condemned and hung, get a grip. And it is not a stupid comment it is a stupid way of thinking. No one in their right mind would support a President who thinks it is worth considering selling a part of the country hit by a disaster to “cut our losses” his obvious duty is to do all in his power to assist the American citizens devastated by this disaster.

moldyoldy

Still looking for the good and right things.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

China might be interested

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I concede that you have a valid point. But it was still just a stupid remark, not a serious consideration. Want to weigh that against him? I agree. But on the other side of the scale is a long list of items he has accomplished that has benefited Americans tremendously.
And no one in their right mind would support a p**********l candidate that wants open boarders, nor one that can't read a teleprompter, nor one who has to be kept hidden in his basement.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Here's a couple that I liked:
Reducing overbearing and unnecessary federal regulations.
Reducing overlapping and redundant federal authorities.
Reducing i*****l i*********n, and building secure borders.
Providing tax relief that benefited every single taxpayer.
Lowering unemployment to record levels, especially among women and minorities.
Helping to bring record high levels to the stock market
Helping to bring manufacturing and other businesses back to the US
Proving that President Obama's "new normal" economy was a lie.
These are just off the top of my head. There are a lot more.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

kevie: Great ideal! We can make you King of Puerto Rico, land of the slackers! Wake-up and realize Puerto has been so fiscally abused by its leadership and e*****rate that it is now a total liability....kinda like the demo party which it mimics to the tee!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Poppycock!!!!

moldyoldy

Those rose colored glasses are working for you.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

You asked, I gave you examples. Instead of trying to be clever, feel free to refute any of my statements. Just remember, no one will take your word for it. Please provide credible evidence.

moldyoldy

Let’s start with regulations. I removed the ones protecting our ground water from pollution by the coal and oil people. Big business comes before people in everything the right does.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

President Trump removed onerous and unnecessary regulations from many areas of our economy, including some of the ridiculous ones concerning water. I haven't seen any reports in the last four years of unclean or polluted water. Have you? Quite unlike the fiascos that took place in the eight years prior. And FYI, big business doesn't come before people. Big business IS people. However, they have to be watched because they can't be trusted. Neither can politicians or governments. So we watch them. The l*****ts under President Obama was attempting to destroy them with regulations. Thankfully, President Trump stopped that.
Next?

moldyoldy

Latest News: On June 1, 2020, the Trump administration published a rule that weakens clean water protections in an effort to fast-track oil and gas pipelines. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act gives states and tribes the power to block federal projects that harm lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands within their borders. Earthjustice is fighting to defend their authority to protect clean water.

“This lawless administration has once again prioritized polluters over people,” says Earthjustice staff attorney Moneen Nasmith. “States and tribes have the authority to protect their waters from destructive f****l f**l projects.”

Everyone and everything needs clean water. Without clean drinking water, humans get sick. Plants, animals, aquatic life, and the entire food web need clean water to survive. That’s why the Trump administration’s efforts to gut federal clean water protections are so disturbing.

The administration repealed the Clean Water Rule and is now attempting to undo the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. Because water policy can start to feel like a whirlpool at times, read on for a breakdown of what’s being proposed and what will be lost.

How Is the System Supposed to Work, Anyway?
Let’s say a company wants to start mining for coal or heavy metals, or an energy company wants to drill for oil and gas, or a developer wants to pave over a bunch of wetlands for a shopping mall. First, the operator has to apply for and secure a federal permit. Because industrial and development activities pollute water and destroy wetlands, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are tasked with reviewing plans and deciding whether to give them a green light, setting down requirements along the way to minimize water pollution. The 1972 Clean Water Act guides this entire process. It spells out the minimum requirements to protect water quality for health and the environment and to protect waterbodies from destruction.

Why do we have a Clean Water Act and a Clean Water Rule, and what’s the difference?
Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. Even though the 1972 Clean Water Act established that all “waters of the United States” would be federally protected, things haven’t exactly panned out that way.

The filthy state of Maine's Androscoggin River helped inspire the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
The filthiness of Maine's Androscoggin River helped inspire the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
CHARLES STEINHACKER / NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Instead, there have been a lot of attacks by industry and developers over which waters should really get the protections of the Act, because polluters would prefer to not be subjected to the Acts requirements and the permits that ensure those requirements are applied. Over time, a series of Supreme Court decisions arising from these fights sent mixed messages about which waters should be protected under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Rule — enacted by the Corps and EPA in 2015 under the Obama administration — sought to clear up this confusion and provide science-based guidance on how the Corps and EPA would decide which waters are protected under the Act. Obama’s EPA first completed a comprehensive study on watershed health and connectivity and checked its work with panels of the most significant experts in all fields related to water from biology to geology to hydrology. They then rolled out a new rule based on that science. Environmentalists generally received the Clean Water Rule as a step in the right direction.

What’s the administration’s next move?
The repeal of the Clean Water Rule effectively threw away those science-based definitions, so now decision-making about Clean Water Act permits will revert back to the old, convoluted system.

Even more worrisome, though, is that the Clean Water Rule repeal clears the path for another proposal — essentially a replacement rule, which environmentalists have dubbed the “Dirty Water Rule.” This is a completely new take on that all-important phrase from the Clean Water Act, “waters of the United States” (or WOTUS, if you want to get wonky) and it attempts to cut huge numbers of waterbodies across the nation out of the protections in the Clean Water Act.

How many people would this affect?
The Clean Water Rule protected drinking water sources for more than 117 million Americans — over a third of the nation. If headwaters of major rivers are no longer protected from industrial pollution, downstream water quality will also suffer.

What Is The Dirty Water Rule?
To understand the Dirty Water Rule, imagine you have a map of the United States charting all the rivers, lakes, bays, lagoons, wetlands, headwaters, etc. across the nation. Then, someone takes a Sharpie to it, marking X’s over a significant portion of them and declaring they no longer count as “waters of the United States.” For these excluded waterways, federal clean-water standards no longer apply, and nobody will step in to stop polluters from doing things like burying streams with mining debris, or flushing toxic byproducts into a river or a bay.

The Dirty Water Rule would negatively affect nearly one in every five streams; more than half of all wetlands; and many other lakes, ponds and other waters. Especially troubling is that it guts protections for wetlands, which naturally filter harmful industrial pollution, naturally store floodwaters, and act as buffers in coastal locations susceptible to hurricanes. Trump’s Dirty Water Rule is likely to be unveiled near the end of 2019. (Editor's Note: The Dirty Water Rule was finalized on Apr. 21, 2020.)