donald trump is trying to kill you

Donald Trump Is Trying to Kill You

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/trump-deadly-deregulation.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0WD9Mhmk6hI-8WN91xO_C-0H7snbt95zZd9el0ftG2lL0dQINAhjPmDpM

There’s a lot we don’t know about the legacy Donald Trump will leave behind. And it is, of course, hugely important what happens in the 2020 election. But one thing seems sure: Even if he’s a one-term president, Trump will have caused, directly or indirectly, the premature deaths of a large number of Americans.

Some of those deaths will come at the hands of right-wing, white nationalist extremists, who are a rapidly growing threat, partly because they feel empowered by a president who calls them “very fine people.”
Some will come from failures of governance, like the inadequate response to Hurricane Maria, which surely contributed to the high death toll in Puerto Rico. (Reminder: Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.)
Some will come from the administration’s continuing efforts to sabotage Obamacare, which have failed to kill health reform but have stalled the decline in the number of uninsured, meaning that many people still aren’t getting the health care they need. Of course, if Trump gets his way and eliminates Obamacare altogether, things on this front will get much, much worse.

But the biggest death toll is likely to come from Trump’s agenda of deregulation — or maybe we should call it “deregulation,” because his administration is curiously selective about which industries it wants to leave alone.
Consider two recent events that help capture the deadly strangeness of what’s going on.
One is the administration’s plan for hog plants to take over much of the federal responsibility for food safety inspections. And why not? It’s not as if we’ve seen safety problems arise from self-regulation in, say, the aircraft industry, have we? Or as if we ever experience major outbreaks of food-borne illness? Or as if there was a reason the U.S. government stepped in to regulate meatpacking in the first place?
Now, you could see the Trump administration’s willingness to trust the meat industry to keep our meat safe as part of an overall attack on government regulation, a willingness to trust profit-making businesses to do the right thing and let the market rule. And there’s something to that, but it’s not the whole story, as illustrated by another event: Trump’s declaration the other day that wind turbines cause cancer.
Now, you could put this down to personal derangement: Trump has had an irrational hatred for wind power ever since he failed to prevent construction of a wind farm near his Scottish golf course. And Trump seems deranged and irrational on so many issues that one more bizarre claim hardly seems to matter.
But there’s more to this than just another Trumpism. After all, we normally think of Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, as people who minimize or deny the “negative externalities” imposed by some business activities — the uncompensated costs they impose on other people or businesses.

For example, the Trump administration wants to roll back rules that limit emissions of mercury from power plants. And in pursuit of that goal, it wants to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from taking account of many of the benefits from reduced mercury emissions, such as an associated reduction in nitrogen oxide.
But when it comes to renewable energy, Trump and company are suddenly very worried about supposed negative side effects, which generally exist only in their imagination. Last year the administration floated a proposal that would have forced the operators of electricity grids to subsidize coal and nuclear energy. The supposed rationale was that new sources were threatening to destabilize those grids — but the grid operators themselves denied that this was the case.
So it’s deregulation for some, but dire warnings about imaginary threats for others. What’s going on?
Part of the answer is, follow the money. Political contributions from the meat-processing industry overwhelmingly favor Republicans. Coal mining supports the G.O.P. almost exclusively. Alternative energy, on the other hand, generally favors Democrats.
There are probably other things, too. If you’re a party that wishes we could go back to the 1950s (but without the 91 percent top tax rate), you’re going to have a hard time accepting the reality that hippie-dippy, unmanly things like wind and solar power are becoming ever more cost-competitive.
Whatever the drivers of Trump policy, the fact, as I said, is that it will kill people. Wind turbines don’t cause cancer, but coal-burning power plants do — along with many other ailments. The Trump administration’s own estimates indicate that its relaxation of coal pollution rules will kill more than 1,000 Americans every year. If the administration gets to implement its full agenda — not just deregulation of many industries, but discrimination against industries it doesn’t like, such as renewable energy — the toll will be much higher.
So if you eat meat — or, for that matter, drink water or breathe air — there’s a real sense in which Donald Trump is trying to kill you. And even if he’s turned out of office next year, for many Americans it will be too late.

Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.

Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.

Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.

The city was tearing down historic statues.

It is a part of history and you cannot erase it. 

This is why the statues should not be brought down so people will understand what happened in the past....which you clearly do not... they also stand as an acknowledgement of what the country has overcome.  

 Do we really want to forget, or what do we really want to forget?

If its not handed down, the people are losing something that they won't get back from a book

Shall we remove the Washington Monument 

tear down the estate as well?

What do you mean by society in this context?

Why demolish it rather than transferring into private care?  

The statues work as a catalyst to read the history books.

Who is that person on the horse?  My parents would answer and I would have more knowledge, then I would want to read about what happened.

That will no longer happen. If you get rid of the statues, you might as well burn the books too

trying to erase history and believing that all of the South were evil people getting what they deserved, and forgetting that the north was just as bad in the way they treated blacks, even worse in some cases..

You might as well remove every statue that was built in homage to slave owners, which is most of them.   

Omar: if society deems his accomplishment not worth showcasing

Why Demolish it rather than transferring into private care?

Omar: Why make the distinction between public and private care?

In this instance, I was unsure what society means but could still infer that it referred to a majority populous.

I am positive that there will always be some degree of interest in the estate so there is an inherent choice in the hypothetical.

"Should public officials not representing the interest, destroy the property that the minority of people value, or account for that value?" I believe it is actually privately owned already, but could be wrong.

"Should public officials not representing the interest, destroy the property that the minority of people value, or account for that value?" I believe it is actually privately owned already, but could be wrong.

Okay. 

 I said they work as a catalyst gaining interest in history.  You don't just bring a picture to a kid and hope he reads the book.  

 You don't understand how one leads to the other, and sometimes unexpectedly.  

It's just like reading a required book in school, you just don't have as much interest if it is required, even though it is probably a good book.

Movies are not a good historical depiction because they are have become saturated with political correctness, and always have some sort of agenda instead of facts.

Documentaries are better, but still tend to focus on some of the wrong things.

 DBlaze: I said they work as a catalyst gaining interest in history.  You don't just bring a picture to a kid and hope he reads the book.  

Your argument is still because children likes statues therefore they would have a greater interest in history. The thing is books can replicate that and also give him/her a better source of information.