Donald J. Trump has reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah.

Indigenous American tribes and environmental groups have begun filing lawsuits in an attempt to block the President’s decision.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10155472075236939/

Is this is good, bad, or neutral?

Most comments are vehemently against him, but a few are saying Clinton and Obama created the monuments by taking a lot of public land and Trump is just giving it back to the people. Some examples:

Quote :

"Whatever he wants for the use of people God bless him. Far too much land in Utah and Nevada has been gobbled up by the Feds. Good for our President."

Quote :

"It was a MONUMENTAL LAND GRAB, done at the END of Obamas term....that DEVASTATED rural lives and puts the very land at risk."

Quote :

"Speak for yourself. I live 4 miles from the Grand Staircase monument, and I'm happy Trump did this. We can now enjoy our land again without the stupid restrictions."

Quote :

"Genie Baumann this land was taken from us locals by Pres. Clinton, and it's been tough for us to be locked out if it and restricted from using it like us and our ancestors have done for over 150 years. There's roads all over it that have been closed so we can't enjoy it unless we want to backpack to see it. I'm a backpacker, so I can see it, but my family and my friends arent. They sit out and are now limited to a small portion of it compared to pre Clinton days. The land will be still administered by the BLM, and will be just as pretty or ugly as it was previously. Come on out here and take a drive and see this for yourself. And bring your backpack and a lunch."

Quote :

"Travis Roundy i agree and 1) I don't like Trump at all, 2) I don't live in Utah. I can't see how this is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. The land was taken from individuals. Even Natives had to pay to travel it. Now, the land is being given back. What's the problem?"

Quote :

"Alana Jade Cox not even close. This land has been taken care of for over 150 years by the local people. It's as pretty as it ever was, and honestly we don't need Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to put up a boundary and rules to keep us from destroying it. Seems like we did a pretty OK job keeping it nice enough over the years. The restrictions keep us from accessing some of the spots we love. I don't want to hike 6 miles to see a place when there's already a road there with a GSNM sign there closing it off. I'm a backpacker too, and like to drive out there and enjoy it without my backpack on. 90 % of the population doesn't backpack so why restrict the access? I just don't see why you would want the govt to control everything around..... probably because you don't actually live here and have likely never even set foot on the monument."

12/5/2017 10:36:59 PM

It's terrible if you actually give two shits about the environment and preserving pristine wilderness areas (ignoring the fact that many of them used to belong to native tribes).

If you want to frack, mine for coal, drill for oil, etc in these places then congrats?

12/5/2017 11:27:56 PM

^^ the land was already federal land, all the designation did was set it aside so it couldn't be developed or any resources extracted (and i think the area was selected to not include any areas that had a lot of resources). the antiquities act only applies to federal land.

the arguments about management are dumb too because the same agencies that were managing the land would manage it after the designation. the comments about closed off access are kind of valid, but one big contributing factor to land access being closed is not having resources to sufficiently manage the land, and the people complaining are the same people who are fine with defunding gutting the department of the interior (and also it's not like these lands are going to be open to the public if private companies move in for resource extraction)



it's unquestionably bad that he reducing the size, but Clinton and Obama were asking for problems with the amount of monument designations during their presidencies

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2017 9:05:51 AM

What the fuck was going on in that speech? He was slurring his words BADLY at the end. Sounded like a guy on his eighth beer..

12/6/2017 1:20:56 PM

^trump has early stage dementia

12/6/2017 1:23:01 PM

he didn't say anything new, but just like with everything else with trump, people will act like this is a brand new stance that will destroy everything...

Quote :

"It's terrible if you actually give two shits about the environment and preserving pristine wilderness areas"

nah this is beating a dead horse. Being angry about people breaking furniture on the titanic when it has a gaping hole and its sinking anyway. if we're going to have runaway global climate change anyway, theres no sense in staying off a little patch of land because its pretty. Might as well let the economy do its thing.

Not my stance but its common sense. Don't come after me. I would have addressed climate change long ago, then this would be an issue.

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 1:28 PM. Reason : k]

12/6/2017 1:23:06 PM

earl'd

12/6/2017 1:23:52 PM

People don't even realize the capital of Israel was already in Jerusalem and diplotmats were already carrying out embassy duties in Jerusalem. All trump did was turn our official position into our long-time practicing position.

Quote :

"Passed the Senate on October 24, 1995 (93–5 Roll call vote 496, via Senate.gov) Passed the House on October 24, 1995 (374–37 Roll call vote 734, via Clerk.House.gov)"

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 1:52 PM. Reason : correction trump didn't even do that. congress did it 22 years ago]

12/6/2017 1:30:13 PM

earl'd^2

12/6/2017 1:33:35 PM

They actually do. And it hasn’t exactly been opposed by Democrats who wanted the same thing. Step back from the anti anti-Trump mindset and realize hardly anyone has been kicking up much of a fuss despite the fact this is extremely pro-Israel.

12/6/2017 1:33:58 PM

it's bad for foreign policy in the region, which is why we operated as described

12/6/2017 1:35:47 PM

Was I the only one who noticed Trump slurring words in the Jerusalem speech?

12/6/2017 2:11:40 PM

^^ this

It's a big "fuck you" to Arab countries in a region where Israel has more enemies than allies. It's Trump being Trump, essentially.

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2017 2:11:47 PM

FWIW he hasn't been crazy old man tweeting much the past couple days either. Wonder if he's sick? He's old and he eats like shit, maybe he had low-grade stroke or something and they're trying to cover it up.

12/6/2017 2:20:01 PM

Or, it could just be Wednesday.

12/6/2017 2:29:00 PM

Lawyers probably told him to chill a bit after his tweet admitted to obstruction last week

12/6/2017 2:32:46 PM

Quote :

"It's a big "fuck you" to Arab countries in a region where Israel has more enemies than allies."

Since everyone important already knew, its only a "fuck you" to people who didn't know, and its good that more people know the truth now, even if that truth is a bad thing.

Thats the thing about Trump. He's more of a wrecking ball to all of the facades that have been put up than anything else. He's not going to lie about what we are. We've been what we are for a long time but now we are no longer pretending to be something other than what we are. This only pisses off the people who didn't already know we were what we are.

You have to acknowledge the bad policies before you can change them so at worst, Trump's "actions" are a symbolic first step.

12/6/2017 3:53:20 PM

this is all part of trump's plan to solve the israeli-palestenian conflict, earl can see right through his 12 dimension chess game!

12/6/2017 4:14:08 PM

I said this on the previous page:

Quote :

"As a pro-Israel American Jew, this means absolutely nothing to me. It's such an arbitrary thing being played up for the very few who actually care."

The only people who seem to notice this is even happening are people who are incredibly pro- or incredibly anti- Israel. It's another one of Trump's ways to create a larger gap between the extremes, but just about everyone in the middle doesn't care.

Countries who have their embassy in NYC and not in DC don't fail to recognize DC as our capital. It will mean increased tension and violence in the short term and absolutely nothing in the long term.

12/6/2017 6:16:10 PM

i doubt the Palestinian's will find it such a non-issue

12/6/2017 6:36:46 PM

Quote :

"The only people who seem to notice this is even happening are people who are incredibly pro- or incredibly anti- Israel."

This isn't true at all. I'm neither pro/anti-Isreal, nor am I pro/anti-Palestine. I don't have a horse in either race, but that entire region is a powder keg of anti-Israeli sentiments. In any event, it's painfully obvious this has way more to do with Trump's proclivity to be petty and piss off anyone he wants just so he can feel powerful.

It's an unwise move, period.

12/6/2017 7:05:45 PM

basically just this tanked any chances of the US being a mediator in an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement for absolutely no gain other than appeasing AIPAC

12/6/2017 7:10:43 PM

Quote :

"Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement"

lol

12/6/2017 9:49:20 PM

Quote :

"It's an unwise move, period."

How is it unwise. He didn't actually change anything. The Palestinians already knew the US was meeting with Israelis in Jerusalem. Everyone of significance already knew.

So why not use this fake action as a way to get another "win" for his supporters (trump being trump, right?). The only people who are really happy or really upset are people who didn't previously know the truth. In essence, Trump has just made them more aware of pre-existing US policy.

-----
Lets subscribe to the notion being thrown out that this will make the arab world angry with the us. Do we really have to ask if images of anti-US protests in the streets of Gaza will benefit Trump or not?

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 10:06 PM. Reason : He wants what you worry will happen to happen. He needs it. ]

12/6/2017 10:04:41 PM

Quote :

"In any event, it's painfully obvious this has way more to do with Trump's proclivity to be petty and piss off anyone he wants just so he can feel powerful. It's an unwise move, period."

Cool story, bro. Where was the hysteria when the senate voted 90-0, that "Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel?" in June? But that was just the entire senate's proclivity to be petty and piss off anyone they want just so they can feel powerful.

Since when did the US start deciding where another country's capital should be? If we said Holland's capital should be the Hague instead of Amsterdam, would anyone care?

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 12:03 AM. Reason : 1]

12/6/2017 11:59:49 PM

Where have I said anything hysterical? All I said is that it's not a smart thing to do and that it's an apt reflection of how Trump generally behaves.

Would you care to explain how it's a GOOD thing? You think people are going to be less likely to engage in violence tomorrow than they were today?

And btw. People aren't 'hysterical' for simply calling Jerusalem the 'capital' of Israel. Relocating the embassy there from Tel-Aviv speaks a lot louder than just those words...

12/7/2017 12:16:03 AM

Quote :

"If we said Holland's capital should be the Hague instead of Amsterdam, would anyone care?"

in the context of the Middle East, this is one of the dumbest things I think I’ve seen recently

12/7/2017 12:44:47 AM

Quote :

"The only people who seem to notice this is even happening are people who are incredibly pro- or incredibly anti- Israel. It's another one of Trump's ways to create a larger gap between the extremes, but just about everyone in the middle doesn't care. Countries who have their embassy in NYC and not in DC don't fail to recognize DC as our capital. It will mean increased tension and violence in the short term and absolutely nothing in the long term. "

Isn't the subtext signaling American backing for a 1-state solution?

You yourself have argued on here that a 1-state solution is not a good solution, for various reasons.

If the US is not supporting a 2-state solution, doesn't this have some significant implications?

12/7/2017 1:19:48 AM

Lol, he doesn't really want a 2 state solution

12/7/2017 6:52:09 AM

I wonder how many people actually read/watched the entire speech

Quote :

"Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif. Above all, our greatest hope is for peace. The universal yearning in every human soul"

Quote :

" -US President Donald Trump sparked fury across the Middle East by recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital -Palestinian protesters seen hurling rocks while Israeli troops fired teared gas to disperse crowds in Bethlehem -Pro-Hezbollah newspaper al-Akhbar carried front page saying 'Death to America' along with a burning US flag -Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said America had 'pulled the pin on a bomb ready to blow in the region' -Hamas called for 'days of rage' and a new 'intifada' uprising after saying Trump had 'opened the gates of hell' -Israeli military are to deploy extra troops to the West Bank with mass Palestinian protests expected on Friday -Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims other states are now considering following America's lead "

This is exactly the result he wanted. Believe it or not, many Americans believe these people are animals who cannot be reasoned with. Images of rage, chaos and hatred towards america only reinforces their view that what Trump has done is correct and a sign of new American strength

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5154805/Erdogan-Trump-throwing-Middle-East-ring-fire.html#ixzz50aQpWM5Q

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 9:48 AM. Reason : trump knew it]

12/7/2017 9:29:29 AM

I'm not nearly as familiar with the Middle East as I am other things but speaking strictly from my opinion, the whole ordeal never was going to work regarding a two state solution.

At least we're backing the horse that can win militarily. I'd argue a large number of Americans feel the same as I do - I am completely psychologically exhausted with the idea of "peace in the Middle East." It's not ever going to happen.

12/7/2017 9:55:55 AM

we have already established that you are a POS neoliberal imperialist

12/7/2017 10:10:22 AM

My favorite version of user dtownral is the mind-numbingly self-righteous one.

12/7/2017 10:22:22 AM

lol

12/7/2017 10:25:00 AM

what is the neoliberal, imperialist spin for being excited about a military victory over the Palestinian people?

12/7/2017 10:29:18 AM

Now that Trump has gotten pretty good distracting everyone from his scandals and failures by antagonizing NK and the Middle East, I wonder what he can do next to get our allies to completely sever ties with us. That alt-right retweet seemed to mildly irritate the Brits, but he's going to have to try harder. Hmm. Maybe it's time to really push for the wall with Mexico again, since that relationship is basically done.

12/7/2017 10:47:29 AM

^^not sure, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "hey, at least they can't call us anti-Semitic."

12/7/2017 11:13:47 AM

I don't think there is a "victory" one way or the other but it's pretty clear that our strategy for the past 60 years has not accomplished anything. Certainly not by playing with both sides. I really don't care which side we pick, but trying to appease both is simply not going to happen.

Hell I'd be perfectly fine simply offering citizenship to every single Israeli. Have them all move here and completely forget about that aspect of the Middle East entirely.

Then again, I don't believe in any religious shit so that's easy for me.

Like I said, I don't know too much about the nuance but peace is impossible there until one ethnic religious group takes over. That or until every one stops touting their religion as the one true one while trying to kill all non-believers.

We, along with the Europeans, fucked that region up royally (with respect to how it operates today) but it was not some bastion of peace prior to that.

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 11:23 AM. Reason : a]

12/7/2017 11:22:28 AM

^^found some:

apparently they are going with "this is the capital we should recognize, but we still need a 2-state solution" even though this action undermines the latter
https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1198
https://schneider.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-us-recognition-jerusalem-israel-s-capital
etc...

and to give credit where it's due, here is a better, more nuanced response:
https://alceehastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398913

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ^^]

12/7/2017 11:25:00 AM

Quote :

"That or until every one stops touting their religion as the one true one while trying to kill all non-believers."

There is only one side who is claiming to be the one true religion calling for the death of all non-believers. And it so happens to be the side that rejected peace plans from the Israelis on multiple occasions.

Quote :

"Hell I'd be perfectly fine simply offering citizenship to every single Israeli."

We already do this. But what about offering citizenship to all of Hamas? The Jews have more of a sovereign claim to Israel than Hamas, so I don't think they will be giving that up any time soon.

However, I do agree that there will never be a two-state solution. Hamas has repeatedly stated that they will not stop until the Jews are wiped from the Middle East. I dont care what your religious beliefs are, thats not a very productive place to start peace talks.

12/7/2017 12:24:24 PM

^ for context


When you steal land from a people it can only end with giving the land back or genocide. Its easy for Americans to side with Israel on wiping out Palestine because its consistent with what we did to the native Americans.

and if we're going to bring up religion, lets not forget that the only reason they are there is because they think a mythological being promised them the land. You can't negotiate with that sort of extremism.

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 3:19 PM. Reason : clearly]

12/7/2017 3:17:40 PM

It is actually even simpler than that. Israel needs an ally in the region and we have economic interests at stake, given all of the oil the Middle East has. If the oil suddenly dried up, the US would drop Israel like a hot potato pancake.

12/7/2017 3:28:04 PM

^^ I wish I could find it but earlier today I read a higher % of American evangelicals believe they have a religious birthright to the land than actual Jewish Israelis.

12/7/2017 3:41:09 PM

What was the reason for taking Palestine and giving it to the Israelis? Was it just a response to how they were treated in WW2? I.e., to give them a place to go back to since apparently most nations (including the US if I'm remembering correctly) did not want Jewish people residing within them?

12/7/2017 3:49:27 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

12/7/2017 3:57:26 PM

This quote can shed some light

Quote :

"The official position of the Soviet Union and its satellite states and agencies was that Zionism was a tool used by the Jews and Americans for "racist imperialism." The meaning of the term Zionism was defined by the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union: "the main posits of modern Zionism are militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism... overt and covert fight against freedom movements and the USSR."

If you read between the lines, Israel became a threat to the spread of socialism which forced the USSR to switch their position. They had previously supported Israel because they thought they would be socialist before the US became REALLY involved.

Quote :

"Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that the new country would be socialist and would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East.[3] But with Israel eventually turning into a pro-Western and American ally, this caused a great shift. Soon the Soviet government began to regard Zionism as an enemy and started supporting the Arabs more than ever. "

Using cold war logic, the US position was exactly the opposite.

12/7/2017 4:04:23 PM

^^^zionism and jews migrating to what is now israel started before WWI. yes britain's involvement was partially about finding a place for jewish people to go, but that started before WW1. after the fall of the ottomon empire, there was a british mandate that basically said they had to give the land to someone, so they started dividing stuff up and controlling who could travel where and there were mass migrations. the jewish population grew, arabs were displaced, people were unhappy, tensions increased, jews and arabs were mad at each other, both were mad at the british, there were attacks, british government pulled out, and then the UN got involved and decided to split things up into a jewish state, arab state, and jerusalem and then they went from there...

this is a good read:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/traditional-narratives-of-israeli-and-palestinian-history

[Edited on December 7, 2017 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2017 4:10:36 PM

EU and Japan finalise world’s largest free trade deal.

https://www.ft.com/content/b48e4f3a-dc0e-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482

We used to lead these deals. Now we arent even a part of them.

12/8/2017 11:19:28 AM

Trump admin scraps Obama-era proposal requiring airlines to disclose bag fees
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/363956-trump-admin-scraps-obama-era-proposal-requiring-airlines-to-disclose?__twitter_impression=true

lol, fuck consumers

12/8/2017 2:47:18 PM

So, year one summary:

12/8/2017 3:27:40 PM