Trump signed bill to clean plsstic out of the oceans

[redskinsfan92]

None of the mainstream media has even mentioned this. I searched all over for s mention. Not surprised. Doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[Bible_Belt]

https://earther.gizmodo.com/trump-signs-actually-good-bill-to-clean-up-ocean-garbag-1829711006/amp

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is just another pathetic right-wing rationalization. "Look! Trump did a good thing! Praise him!"

Here's the deal - if bipartisan legislation has supermajority support, the executive doesn't get a pat on the ass for signing it. The alternative, a veto, just gets overridden.

Trump is just a figurehead to sign whatever McConnell sends him. Grow some standards.

 

[AttackFormation]

This is just another pathetic right-wing rationalization. "Look! Trump did a good thing! Praise him!"

Here's the deal - if bipartisan legislation has supermajority support, the executive doesn't get a pat on the ass for signing it. The alternative, a veto, just gets overridden.

Trump is just a figurehead to sign whatever McConnell sends him. Grow some standards.

Trump managing to trick these people on election was one thing. That's how politics work and someone had to be elected, when every candidate on both the so-called "sides" simply serves their neoliberal plutocrat handlers, from Reagan to Obama. But I can't believe there are people who still genuinely think a career con man, staffing their government with an old network of parasitic, destructive plutocrats is working for the public good, and that there's some positive difference between him and the others.

 

[Spaz]

Cleaning the ocean is good regardless of his motivation.

It's the act that matters, why bother with the motivation behind it?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Cleaning the ocean is good regardless of his motivation.

It's the act that matters, why bother with the motivation behind it?

The motive is always important. If 100% of Congress unanimously agrees on legislation, why are we giving Trump credit for signing it? His choices are to sign it, or have Congress simply overrule him to which it becomes law anyway.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Trump managing to trick these people on election was one thing. That's how politics work and someone had to be elected, when every candidate on both the so-called "sides" simply serves their neoliberal plutocrat handlers, from Reagan to Obama.

If you think Reagan and Obama were equally plutocratic, I have some snake oil to sell you.

 

[Spaz]

The motive is always important. If 100% of Congress unanimously agrees on legislation, why are we giving Trump credit for signing it? His choices are to sign it, or have Congress simply overrule him to which it becomes law anyway.

What matters is the result = cleaning of the oceans. I

The details doesn't matter, it's merely a process towards the results.

 

[EyeBRollin]

What matters is the result = cleaning of the oceans. I

The details doesn't matter, it's merely a process towards the results.

Details always matter. You're desperate to rationalize your support for Trump. This law was enacted was in spite of Trump, not because of him.

 

[sosousage]

None of the mainstream media has even mentioned this. I searched all over for s mention. Not surprised. Doesn't fit their narrative.

hes doing it because he wants to plants atomic bombs there and plastic is in the way

 

[samspade]

Details always matter. You're desperate to rationalize your support for Trump. This law was enacted was in spite of Trump, not because of him.

All politicians are motivated by self-interest. The whole American system was set up for that. Even an obviously "pro-environment" politician is acting out of his own interest - to get elected. We can all argue about who deserves the credit, but bottom line is the ocean might get a little cleaner.

Also, environmentalism, aka "saving the planet" is human self-interest. The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are...so obviously one line of thought is that mitigating environmental damage will extend our presence here. If mankind goes extinct, Earth will continue to exist, even with large amounts of plastic floating in its oceans, until it is swallowed by the sun.

 

[sosousage]

All politicians are motivated by self-interest. The whole American system was set up for that. Even an obviously "pro-environment" politician is acting out of his own interest - to get elected. We can all argue about who deserves the credit, but bottom line is the ocean might get a little cleaner.

Also, environmentalism, aka "saving the planet" is human self-interest. The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are...so obviously one line of thought is that mitigating environmental damage will extend our presence here. If mankind goes extinct, Earth will continue to exist, even with large amounts of plastic floating in its oceans, until it is swallowed by the sun.

i think no one cares about saving earth because we will all die out of old age before something about in environment goes wrong

 

[AttackFormation]

If you think Reagan and Obama were equally plutocratic, I have some snake oil to sell you.

I don't know which one of them you'd say is worse, and it doesn't matter. The point is they both serve their rentier handlers and that going into thinking one of them doesn't, like these people do with Trump, is a trap.

 

[Billtx49]

How was it in spite of Trump?

It’s only more Lib bitchin about 2016 still…
Some of them can’t get past it and move on.

 

[EyeBRollin]

All politicians are motivated by self-interest. The whole American system was set up for that. Even an obviously "pro-environment" politician is acting out of his own interest - to get elected. We can all argue about who deserves the credit, but bottom line is the ocean might get a little cleaner.

Is who deserves the credit not the topic of the OP?

How was it in spite of Trump?

Already explained. You know how to read, right?

 

[EyeBRollin]

I must have missed the explanation, can you quote exactly where you explain how it is "in spite of Trump"?

You already quoted my explanation. Pleading ignorance is not an argument.

 

[Spaz]

Details always matter. You're desperate to rationalize your support for Trump. This law was enacted was in spite of Trump, not because of him.

Irrelevant.

Details r only relevant towards how fast or slow that process is towards a result. The faster the better.

One would then argue the semantics of the entire process and not just Trump.

U r putting emotions into a process thus being biased.

Now tell me, who's being desperate?

 

[EyeBRollin]

One would then argue the semantics of the entire process and not just Trump.

U r putting emotions into a process thus being biased.

Now tell me, who's being desperate?

Nope. That's wrong. Let's review the facts.

This bill was passed with unanimous support. If Trump vetoes, the bill still becomes law when Congress overrides.

You so desperately want to give credit to Trump when it has nothing to do with him.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The idea that the ocean can be "cleaned," which is never going to happen, is a distraction from the real answer to plastic in the ocean, which is reducing plastic consumption. But doing things like making plastic bags and utensils illegal is never going to be a popular idea, especially to Republicans. France has been the world leader in this regard, followed by California, damn liberals that they are. Republicans view the planet's demise as necessary to maintain corporate profits. To say that the repubs are cleaning the environment is like saying Kavanaugh is a crusader against rape.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The assumption is that somehow Trump would be against it?

No assumption. The facts are that it is irrelevant what Trump thinks about a law unanimously passed by Congress but you'll do anything to give him credit.