• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harvey

Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

No the right wing in this thread was and is the one demanding explanations about Houston.

Idgaf. It's till ironic. Still a stupid decision. Keep yelling at clouds about your deluded "wins" on message boards.

Keep destroying your credibility, all non partisans know what happened, and actually read the parts of my posts that you skip over to suit your narrative. For all your roaring you'd think you would manage to show some claws.
I think the main takeaway from this thread is that you don't know what the word ironic means.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

In light of H. Harvey, you don't believe flood protection standard should be in place?

The city of Houston is more then free to set their zoning standards and building codes, what's you're point?
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

Sorry but I don't read or reply to chopped up posts that destroy context and usually introduce a lot of non sequitur.
:roll:

Fine, have it your way.

This is not Houston's first hurricane or flood. They had a big one in the 30s, again in '94, again in '01, again in '06. Allison, in 2001, was classified as a "500 year flood," and we've got another one just 16 years later. Hmmmmm.

The locals, who you claim should know better than federal authorities, should know not to allow significant development in flood-prone areas without proper mitigation -- and yet, they did. The locals, who you claim should know better than federal authorities in how to build flood-resistant infrastructure, may not actually have the requisite expertise to design flood mitigation strategies. This is certainly the case for many of the small towns currently slammed by Harvey, in both Texas and Louisiana.

What you decry as disruptive federal meddling is actually a set of recommendations developed by experts. It's the same thing those locals should want anyway. That is, if they know what they're doing.

Of course, this is all rather stupendously irrelevant, because the executive order only affects federally funded infrastructure projects. It's a power duly delegated by Congress. It is undoubtedly within the scope of the President's authority. It has nothing whatsoever to do with local building codes. It isn't thwarting development. It's not hobbling or harming residents, as all it's really doing is making sure that bridges and highways built with federal dollars meet a more appropriate standard for flood resistance.

As to your claim that the standards relating to climate change are "vague," that seems a tad unlikely. After all, we have numerous summaries, analyses and reviews by federal agencies that specialize in such matters, including NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers. After seeing two "500 year" hurricanes hit the same area less than 20 years apart, it's also kind of vital.

Summary: You don't have any viable basis for your lackadaisical and ideological claim that "locals know better," and it doesn't seem like you understand what the EO covers. Your position is about as impressive as a fallen souffle.

Happy now?
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

I think the main takeaway from this thread is that you don't know what the word ironic means.

Oh, I don't know. He seems to have it down pretty well in this situation.

Obama issues an EO to encourage construction that is less prone to massive flooding in areas of high risk, Trump issues an EO rescinding Obama's EO and Houston is immediately hit by a catastrophe that the rescinded EO was intended to prevent (or at least mitigate).


Smells like irony to me.

i·ro·ny
/ˈīrənē/

"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

(The fact that this particular EO couldn't have possibly helped Houston at this particular time is not lost on me, but it doesn't do much to squash my amusement).
 
Last edited:
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

The city of Houston is more *then free to set their zoning standards and building codes, what's *you're point?

*than
*your

Grammarnazi, out.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

I think the main takeaway from this thread is that you don't know what the word ironic means.

Ironic is rescinding an EO designed to protect against floods and days later being hit with a catastrophic flood.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

Oh, I don't know. He seems to have it down pretty well in this situation.

Obama issues an EO to encourage construction that is less prone to massive flooding in areas of high risk, Trump issues an EO rescinding Obama's EO and Houston is immediately hit by a catastrophe that the rescinded EO was intended to prevent (or at least mitigate).


Smells like irony to me.

i·ro·ny
/ˈīrənē/

"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

(The fact that this particular EO couldn't have possibly helped Houston at this particular time is not lost on me, but it doesn't do much to squash my amusement).

They're trying to joust at me, that the most ironic part of my thread is post #1. "Sometimes the jokes write themselves." Because they think I embarassed myself in the highest degree. I don't understand them. they think I was arguing that Trump is at fault for the hurricane damage, and that if it wasn't for Obama's EO being rescinded, everything would've been fine.

'cept I wasn't arguing that. They desperately want me to take that position, so they can just jam me into their neat little box marked, "dumb leftys".

they don't care, they just want me to be dumb for them.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

The city of Houston is more then free to set their zoning standards and building codes, what's you're point?

The point is that they did not set proper standards or codes. 3 major floods in 2 years is not acceptable. Every home that was flooded should have been required to be built on stilts. All of Houston is on a flood plain and their attempt to mitigate that was woefully inadequate.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

:roll:

Fine, have it your way.

This is not Houston's first hurricane or flood. They had a big one in the 30s, again in '94, again in '01, again in '06. Allison, in 2001, was classified as a "500 year flood," and we've got another one just 16 years later. Hmmmmm.

The locals, who you claim should know better than federal authorities, should know not to allow significant development in flood-prone areas without proper mitigation -- and yet, they did. The locals, who you claim should know better than federal authorities in how to build flood-resistant infrastructure, may not actually have the requisite expertise to design flood mitigation strategies. This is certainly the case for many of the small towns currently slammed by Harvey, in both Texas and Louisiana.

What you decry as disruptive federal meddling is actually a set of recommendations developed by experts. It's the same thing those locals should want anyway. That is, if they know what they're doing.

Of course, this is all rather stupendously irrelevant, because the executive order only affects federally funded infrastructure projects. It's a power duly delegated by Congress. It is undoubtedly within the scope of the President's authority. It has nothing whatsoever to do with local building codes. It isn't thwarting development. It's not hobbling or harming residents, as all it's really doing is making sure that bridges and highways built with federal dollars meet a more appropriate standard for flood resistance.

As to your claim that the standards relating to climate change are "vague," that seems a tad unlikely. After all, we have numerous summaries, analyses and reviews by federal agencies that specialize in such matters, including NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers. After seeing two "500 year" hurricanes hit the same area less than 20 years apart, it's also kind of vital.

Summary: You don't have any viable basis for your lackadaisical and ideological claim that "locals know better," and it doesn't seem like you understand what the EO covers. Your position is about as impressive as a fallen souffle.

Happy now?

Obama's executive order required all federal construction projects to take into consideration climate change. This put an impossible burden on anybody wanting to bid on a federal project. I am quite sure the City of Houston has sufficient provisions in their modern day codes to allow for existing probable circumstances. To require building codes to withstand a 10 on the Richter scale earthquake or a F-7 tornado or a 500 year flood or ocean level rises predicted by climate models, none of which have been correct so far, is simply not a realistic requirement.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

Obama's executive order required all federal construction projects to take into consideration climate change. This put an impossible burden on anybody wanting to bid on a federal project. I am quite sure the City of Houston has sufficient provisions in their modern day codes to allow for existing probable circumstances. To require building codes to withstand a 10 on the Richter scale earthquake or a F-7 tornado or a 500 year flood or ocean level rises predicted by climate models, none of which have been correct so far, is simply not a realistic requirement.


How many 1 in 500 year floods has Houston had in the last 17 years?
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

Ironic is rescinding an EO designed to protect against floods and days later being hit with a catastrophic flood.
You're conflating two unrelated events.
 
You're conflating two unrelated events.

No, I'm not.

The EO was designed to protect against severe weather. Which may or may not be due to climate change. Trump rescinds it and almost immediately TX is hit with severe weather which may or may not be due to climate change. Whether or not the EO was active, does not lessen the irony.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

How many 1 in 500 year floods has Houston had in the last 17 years?

Dunno. What does the history of Houston say about that? But then it has only been a city for 180 years.

At any rate it should be the prerogative of the State of Texas and the City of Houston what the building codes will be. And it is the prerogative of the federal government to establish any additional standards for federal projects while complying with the building codes already in place. The current President wants sensible and practical standards without any confusion and without unnecessary red tape based on fuzzy notions re climate change, such red tape that can hold up projects for years.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

Dunno. What does the history of Houston say about that? But then it has only been a city for 180 years.

At any rate it should be the prerogative of the State of Texas and the City of Houston what the building codes will be. And it is the prerogative of the federal government to establish any additional standards for federal projects while complying with the building codes already in place. ...

That's exactly what O's EO did. You know, the one Trump rescinded. Ironic, ain't it?

The current President wants sensible and practical standards without any confusion and without unnecessary red tape based on fuzzy notions re climate change, such red tape that can hold up projects for years.

Subjective and hyperbolized.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

I wasn't supporting ludin, I thought it humorous that you both threw out specific numbers without any supporting links. You are correct that it is on ludin to support his original claim of a specific number of degrees in temp increase, but when you counter with another, different, but also specific number of degrees, you should provide a link, which you have now done.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk


You show me yours, I’ll show you mine. How many times do I half to repeat myself before you, or others, answer that question. A claim was made without reference of any meaningful proof. I asked for that, which is in order. How many times do I half to repeat myself that I don’t have to provide proof of the opposite without being given proof of the initial claim?

Give me the supporting evidence of the claim. You are condemning me for what the poster didn’t provide to begin with.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

I wasn't supporting ludin, I thought it humorous that you both threw out specific numbers without any supporting links. You are correct that it is on ludin to support his original claim of a specific number of degrees in temp increase, but when you counter with another, different, but also specific number of degrees, you should provide a link, which you have now done.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk


Good. Keep in mind that it takes time to research the necessary of my response to the many that have not done research to begin with. These flaming trolls are lazy. I do, as well as many others, all the work of research to bring the light of day. They, have no enlightening response of fact.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

You show me yours, I’ll show you mine. How many times do I half to repeat myself before you, or others, answer that question. A claim was made without reference of any meaningful proof. I asked for that, which is in order. How many times do I half to repeat myself that I don’t have to provide proof of the opposite without being given proof of the initial claim?

Give me the supporting evidence of the claim. You are condemning me for what the poster didn’t provide to begin with.

About 2 and a half times.

I'm "condemning" you for offering up a specific number without proof. Regardless of whether it was originally your claim or not, if you refute someone and say "the earth has warmed by 1.47 degrees Fahrenheit ... you must have misplaced a decimal", you should provide a link to the source of your specific info. The validity of which was borne out later when you DID provide a link, and found out your previous remark to ludin was incorrect. He who provides the facts, must support those facts with sources.

And you don't half to provide proof to claim an unsupported claim is false, but when you claim it's false, and "here's what the REAL information is ... ", then you half to provide some support. Because now you ARE the one making the claim.
 
Re: Donald Trump Scrapped Barack Obama Flood Protection Standards Days Before H. Harv

About 2 and a half times.

I'm "condemning" you for offering up a specific number without proof. Regardless of whether it was originally your claim or not, if you refute someone and say "the earth has warmed by 1.47 degrees Fahrenheit ... you must have misplaced a decimal", you should provide a link to the source of your specific info. The validity of which was borne out later when you DID provide a link, and found out your previous remark to ludin was incorrect. He who provides the facts, must support those facts with sources.

And you don't half to provide proof to claim an unsupported claim is false, but when you claim it's false, and "here's what the REAL information is ... ", then you half to provide some support. Because now you ARE the one making the claim.


Yup. It gets tiresome having to research false claims that the posters are too lazy to have done themselves. I could have just stopped at pointing out the claim made by the poster gave no link to supporting evidence. Though I corrected my figures, the data still proved my point. Warming over the last decade is much greater than the poster asserted as being within "norms".
 
Back
Top Bottom