Nearly 56,000 Bridges Called Structurally Deficient (usatoday.com) 243
schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: Nearly 56,000 bridges nationwide, which vehicles cross 185 million times a day, are structurally deficient, a bridge construction group announced Wednesday. The list is based on Transportation Department data. The department scores bridges on a nine-point scale, and while the deficient ones might not be imminently unsafe, they are classified in need of attention. More than one in four bridges (173,919) are at least 50 years old and have never had major reconstruction work, according to the ARTBA analysis. State transportation officials have identified 13,000 bridges along interstates that need replacement, widening or major reconstruction, according to the group. "America's highway network is woefully underperforming," said Alison Premo Black, the group's chief economics who conducted the analysis. "It is outdated, overused, underfunded and in desperate need of modernization." The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361. The eight states where at least 15% of the bridges are deficient are: Rhode Island at 25%, Pennsylvania at 21%, Iowa and South Dakota at 20%, West Virginia at 17%, and Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma at 15%.
Hoorah (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but how about California?
Fully controlled by Democrats and still deferring the infrastructure maintenance.
Look at that states Roads, Dams and Bridges.
Just pointing out that the Democrats are not the angels you are making them out to be and they are just as complicit as the Republicans.
propaganda headline (Score:5, Insightful)
bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"
Just because a bridge is old doesn't mean it's unsafe. In Europe, a 50 year old bridge is likely to be called "the new bridge" and have people griping that it's not as good/pretty/whatever as the "old" bridge
how many of the other bridges are just fine as is, but could stand to be upgraded for various reasons other than that they are deteriorating?
once you start lying about things, how can we trust anything that you say?
David Lang
Re: (Score:2)
bridges that need to be widened
Or raised. [11foot8.com] Because truck drivers basically say 'Fuck you' when you put up a sign for an over height/weight/width detour.
Re: (Score:3)
Have fun raising a railroad bridge
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lower the road.
Re:propaganda headline (Score:4, Informative)
That road has a sewer mains below.
Re: (Score:2)
A good opportunity to replace the sewer as well. Its not like this isn't done all the time - in my city they just replaced the south bound mainline railway bridge overnight with no disruption with a complete new bridge (and not a second bridge build alongside the first). Why? Because of the bridge strikes that had weakened the old one.
These sorts of things are done all the time - railway bridges over motorways, replaced in one night due to the disruption a longer replacement would take.
Re: (Score:3)
You can break the speed limit, but height limits are not so easy to bargain with.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the truck wins [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That poor crash beam has taken a number of hits over the years
https://youtu.be/LmTEoZJA5-w?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
and just pay a bit extra on infrequent truck shipments.
So the truckers just pocket the extra and chance squeezing under/over/through the tight spot anyway.
Re:propaganda headline (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say technically, that is EXACTLY what they are. Their structure is lacking the width to handle current traffic levels, therefore it's structurally deficient. What you probably mean is that a bridge that is labeled as "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean unsafe, but a bridge that needs to be widened to handle traffic is most certainly structurally deficient.
/pedantry
Too much traffic... (Score:2)
Maybe we should reduce the number of cards on the road rather than trying to rebuild 1076 bridges per week... We could build places where people live together and call them cities, and build vehicles that carry multiple people and call them trains, and hire a plumber from Brooklyn to fix the evil in the world and call him Mario...
Re: (Score:2)
bridges that need to be widened to handle additional traffic are not "structurally deficient"
Well, yes and no.
If traffic patterns result in a bridge continually carrying more load (of slowly moving and stopped cars) than it was designed for, then it is "structurally deficient". Widening it to handle additional traffic could remedy the issue.
The report distinguishes between "structurally deficient" and "functionally obsolete", which refers to bridges that simply don't meet current standards, like lane width.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe, a 50 year old bridge is likely to be called "the new bridge" and have people griping that it's not as good/pretty/whatever as the "old" bridge
Its true that, although sometimes the new bridge isn't even that new - http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/... [sabre-roads.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Surprising (Score:4, Funny)
The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A common complaint against rural America.
Considering the cost of s single mile of subway in Manhattan, or the cost of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Fransicso, bridges in Iowa are probably cheap per mile, foot, or pound.
And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.
THIS is why we should either look to Washington to continue to pay for maintenance and improvement of the In
Re: (Score:3)
"Much of"? How much of? The agriculture in Iowa is federally subsidized with tax money collected from Manhattan, LA and San Francisco. Without those subsidies, Iowa would be Oklahoma.
Re: Surprising (Score:2)
Then Iowa would be shipping beef to Manhattan.
Re: Surprising (Score:2)
Just a different direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, we will maintain the roads and bridges on our side of the state line, but if Iowa wants to sell us food, isn't that sufficient economic incentive for them to maintain the roads and bridges in their state?
Let Washington give them enough money to do so but give it to them unconditionally so we can see whether maintaining ALL of their existin
Re: (Score:2)
If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?
I also don't think "Iowa" as in the State Government makes a lot of decisions as to whether its commodities move by rail or road, I think the private sector makes that decision as to which makes the most economic sense.
I'd also wonder how many of these bridges in trouble are on main transit/shipping routes and how many are highway overpasses or creek/river bridges on small highways. Farmer Jones may rely on them to get to fields or get agricultural consu
Re:Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"
There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.
This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.
There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.
Re: (Score:2)
As you say the cost of food is usually the main issue when it comes to importing food. The question is whether or not it is cheaper to pay for infrastructure and grow food in country, or neglect infrastructure and import most of the food.
Of course even if importing ends up being the cheaper option what happens in times of emergency or changes in the political landscape. What if relations with food importers sour and they refuse to sell us food, are you going to suddenly restart the agriculture industry that
Re: (Score:3)
You provided evidence for the position you argued against. The comment you replied to isn't the stupid one.
Re: (Score:2)
Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
I'm seriously dying laughing over here. Have you ever stayed at a Trump hotel? They're great when they're brand new but they never get maintained or renovated when they really need it.
Infrastructure (Score:2)
Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
This is untrue, at least effectively. The problem with infrastructure in this country is that it isn't compatible with our current politics. Infrastructure doesn't get out the vote -- it's not a divisive issue. It's also not something where you can distribute pork around the country in the form of, say, NASA supply contracts. I have a bit of a hobby horse going on with this issue, but I do see this as being a result of two-party politics and ultimately our voting method (FPTP). Since our political process d
Re: (Score:2)
"Since our political process demands that we be sorted into two groups"
No, but it is certainly simpler for the method we use. And behold, while we have a party nominee elected, he is not really a member of that party. He usurped the nomination process, and there is some fairly weak but useful evidence that he could have won if he had not, but been a third-party candidate - he did, after all, receive little support from that party.
But 'demands' is hopefully your shorthand for 'encourages'.
And a two-party sys
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Iowa's #43 in per capita Federal spending for 2013 based on the 2014 Pew Trust spending report, getting roughly $25B. (Source: Wikipedia...) Meanwhile, we were #37 on per capital Federal tax contributions for 2015 (roughly $24B). Sorry, I can't quickly find numbers from the same exact year, but 2013 vs. 2015 wasn't that much different. Really suckin' at the ol' government teat there, eh?
We'd do just fine without the coastal states, but we have no oil, and they have inadequate agriculture to feed t
Re: (Score:2)
I was very shocked a couple weeks ago. I went to visit an old friend who now lives in a tiny Iowa town called Dayton. While I had zero signal on my AT&T phone there, he had gig fiber to his house. A total WTF moment. I live in the downtown area of a mid-large city and cannot get fiber to my house.
Re:Surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
At all times, I needed roads and bridges which I could count on to keep me from becoming an organic smear on the inside of a steel Hot Pocket. Whether the product was avocados, oranges, corn or pigs it's nice for those of us who eat to know that the people making our food can get it to us.
I've made this point over and over - it's hard enough getting people to pay the bill to build infrastructure. The stuff is expensive, after all, and doesn't generally produce a profit by itself. ROI isn't obvious. It's vastly harder to get people to pay for maintenance/repairs/improvement when the average Joe can plainly see that it "looks fine to me". Never mind replacing it when the original item passes the lifespan originally set for it by the architects and engineers who originally designed and built the thing - it's always smarter to just replace or reinforce the critical parts, or to inspect it more often.
This was the one and only thing which POTUS said on the campaign trail which I found myself agreeing with - we need to put a lot of time, effort and resources into our infrastructure, starting yesterday. Incidentally, I don't mean building the Great Wall of America - I mean roads, bridges, dams, power plants, power grids, aqueducts, pipelines, flood control, . . .
Re:Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. You probably don't even notice the vast majority of the ones you drive over. Every small water course will be crossed by a small pre-stressed concrete bridge. Installation costs on those are tiny, they last for ages and the engineering component of them is minimal. Generally when people say bridge they imagine the large span ones, where as the huge majority are tiny tiny things.
Construction wise pushing 2 piles of dirt each side of railway line, waiting 12 months for it to settle and harden and then sticking a 6m concrete span across is a very cheap. very easy way of crossing the rail line. It is marginal on cost on a controlled crossing and heaps more efficient and safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell is your maintenance cost so high?!?!?! A stabilised earth embankment with suitable drainage will last ages. If you are having to retain it you have done it wrong. The whole idea of an earth ramp is that it has settled to its natural angle of repose. Planting some grasses and initial covering with a geo-membrane is all you need to do.
Maintenance of the bridge is going to be tiny. You would have regular yearly inspections checking for concrete cancers and cracking but thats about it.
Maintena
Re:Surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges.
You shouldn't be. I drove through part of it last year (a very small corner of it) and being a relatively flat state (compared to PA), they need bridges to cross the roads, otherwise you'd have intersections all over the place, not to mention any rivers (creeks compared to rivers in the east) and those oddball depressions one comes across.
For example, if you take Exit 10 off of 29 N, you are at a bridge. That bridge is 29 N but under it is Route 2. Imagine if you had an intersection of 29, which is a highway, meeting a smaller, slower road such as Route 2.
Nebraska and South Dakota were the same way. Relatively flat states but lots of bridges to go over the other roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely they could use tunnels to avoid having so many bridges?
Re: (Score:3)
At multiple times the cost of a bridge, for sure. Tunneling isn't cheap, and at that scale you're going to need ventilation, lighting, and drainage systems. In a fairly flat place, a tunnel is going to be the lowest point for miles around. This isn't like mountain tunneling where you can use a slight incline at the center of the tunnel or have one end higher than the other to ensure that you don't make a lake in the middle of it.
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. one existing toll bridge vs building more free bridges.
Louisiana politician Huey Long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"... built 111 bridges and started construction on the first bridge over the Mississippi entirely in Louisiana
The problem for the USA is later funding needed to look after what was built over the years.
A bridge construction group announced... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's different, the mechanic gets money from you directly (the physician analogy is not relevant in many countries). The people writing these reports are NOT getting a direct benefit from th reports. It's a lazy statement of someone unaware of their function. Most likely it's a group of people from academia, public works and yes industry that make the point. While the guys from the industry may have some monetary interest, it doesn't affect the other groups.
Actually, if you bother reading those reports, y
Structurally Deficient (Score:4, Funny)
Liquid fuels tax (Score:5, Insightful)
The five states with the most deficient bridges are Iowa with 4,968, Pennsylvania with 4,506, Oklahoma with 3,460, Missouri with 3,195 and Nebraska with 2,361....
Finding a new funding stream for road and bridge construction is a priority for state and federal officials because the gas tax that primarily funds the highway trust fund hasn’t kept pace with construction priorities as cars become more efficient.
Efficient cars aren't the problem. The problem is that legislatures can't keep their grubby hands off that money. Pennsylvania is second on the list, yet it has the highest fuel tax rate in the country, How can that be? Because about half the money is diverted away from road and bridge construction to projects like mass transportation and funding the state police.
Re:Liquid fuels tax (Score:4, Interesting)
As part of the election last november in Illinois. A lockbox provision was approved so that "transportation taxes" must only be spent on "transportation." I have been doing professional engineering services and consulting for IDOT, the Illinois Tollway, O'Hare, UP, CN railways etc. for 17 years, and it STILL took me a while to go through all the legalese on that question. It seems pretty thorough; Alas, I'm not a lawyer and currently waiting for all the legal contortions that will be spent to still spend that money on things that aren't quite related to transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass transit reduces stress on roads and bridges. Sounds like you're cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if mass transit is worth using....
Re: (Score:2)
"Mass transportation", like its name indicates, transports massive numbers of people. When more people use mass transit, fewer roads need to be built (and then maintained). This can save money overall for the government.
So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny thing too, because I remember how Obama's stimulus plan was supposed to go towards this sort of issues.
No, the point of that program was to buy votes for the Democrats. It had nothing to do with anything useful to the general public.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So much for that Trillion or so that Obama Spen (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, maybe you Mississippi politicians should have chosen to spend their stimulus funds [thedailybeast.com] on more useful things.
Structurally Deficient (Score:5, Informative)
"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning (which may vary by state) and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe. Quite often, it means that the bridge must have a sign in front of it stating a maximum gross vehicle weight.
Also, what qualifies as a bridge subject to government attention? Do you have a 20 foot concrete culvert passing under the road? That's a bridge, and the government (correctly) pays attention to it. But it isn't necessarily a big deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Structurally Deficient" has legal and engineering meaning...and does not necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm quite certain the average Joe reading the article thinks "structurally deficient" means "dear Lord, you wouldn't catch me driving over that death trap." I don't think the authors, a construction group, has much interest in clarifying that. They want to drum up fear and dollars.
Unless on the interstate system (Score:2)
Bridges are a local problem (state and county level) interestingly enough the top 4, maybe 5 are the biggest butthurt about "dey took ur jeobs"
how's that small limited government working for you, oh you want aid to fix your bridges AND your horse and buggy economies
ugh
Re: (Score:2)
Missouri had just switched from a Republican trifecta to Republican controlled state houses [ballotpedia.org] with a Democratic governor when it started and successfully completed a project to replace or repair 802 bridges in 4 years [modot.gov], with project planning beginning in late 2008 and construction starting in 2009 and ending in 2012, on budget and 14 months ahead of schedule. And then the Republicans cut the budget so now we can only handle 100 bridges a year, just barely keeping our heads above water, as about 100/year go in
Re: (Score:2)
Explain exactly how the problem with infrastructure is "small, limited government"? I see government at all levels growing every single year.
The only states that are really cutting things right now are the Dakotas, but that's only because they cranked up spending like crazy with the extra revenue from the oil boom(government couldn't just keep budgets stable and have a surplus, they had to spend every last f***ing penny) and are now having to scale back as those revenues have dried up.
Yeah, we sure have "
2013 (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2013, 66,749 [infrastruc...rtcard.org] bridges were considered structurally deficient. This is a 17% decrease in the last 4 years. I think this should count as good news.
Should be, "Nearly 56,000 Bridges IN THE U.S." ... (Score:2)
I mean I know the article came from USA Today but other than that, there was no indication that these bridges all resided in the United States.
I live in California but I think this really should be addressed. Slashdot isn't a U.S. only tech site.
Cheers,
NowGetOffMyLawn
Re: (Score:2)
With terms like "nationwide" and naming several states in the summary, I think it's a reasonable thing to assume.
In other news... (Score:3)
Nearly 56,000 bridges nationwide, which vehicles cross 185 million times a day, are structurally deficient, a bridge construction group announced Wednesday.
Let's see what I can do with this sort of headline.
-Nearly 56,000 projects nationwide are managed by insufficiently trained project managers, the Project Manager Institute announced Wednesday.
-Nearly 56,000 unions nationwide, which employ 36 million workers are insufficiently funded, a union advocacy group announced Wednesday.
-Nearly 56,000 XYZ nationwide, which are important for ABC reasons, need more money, said a group who's business is XYZ, and who would get most of the money if such money were allocated.
To any interested parties, the Notabadguy Institute would like to note that Notabadguy needs structural investment and more money. Perhaps some of that internet money.
In other news, to no one's surprise, BeauHD continues her unbroken record of being a shitty editor looking for partisan news to throw at the slashdot masses. Thanks for being a cuntwaffle.
Down from 73,000 ten years ago (Score:3)
Roughly.
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/s... [dot.gov]
Don't worry.... (Score:2)
Obama has thousands of "shovel ready" jobs ready to fix our roads and bridges and...oh, wait a minute.
I question the list (Score:2)
The list of 'structurally deficient' bridges includes the WA Hwy 520 bridge over Lake Washington, completed in 2016. It is not structurally deficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.
But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a
Re: (Score:2)
You can't Chicken Little away negligence.
Re: (Score:3)
A person drinks a gallon of bacon grease a day for 40 years, then suddenly dies of a heart attack.
Here's a better analogy: Millions of people eat bacon everyday. The medical establishment claims this is a crisis and many bacon eaters are going to die within 40 years unless the medical establishment gets a lot of money to "fix" the problem. The money isn't spent, and 40 years comes and goes. Few people die, and bacon eaters aren't dying any faster than danish eaters.
Would you still insist that the "crisis" was real? Or would you maybe consider that bacon isn't as bad as you were told?
Disclaimer: I e
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the best thing to do is to totally shoot the messenger!
Re:Dams, too (Score:5, Informative)
I partially blame the Environmental groups involved, because of previous hyperbole used in previous reports. That being said (and being a nearby resident), I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.
But, instead, we have more infrastructure projects proceeding even though we can't maintain what we got. After all, we need a High Speed Rail Train between Fresno and Bakersfield ASAP!!!!
Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
Re:Dams, too (Score:5, Informative)
Blame this on the environmentalists all you want but the Obama admin. tried to get infrastructure reform done for 8 years and the GOP blocked it for no purpose other than spite and a Machiavellian effort to further the interests of the GOP and make Obama look bad. If anybody is to blame for this it is Mitch McConnell and his predecessors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
Bingo.
Mitch McConnell was instrumental in blocking proposed bills that would have started addressing the aging infrastructure. Not just once, but over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend staying away from Krugman. Republicans were pushing for more infrastructure spending in the bill. You can't change history. The ARRA only spent about 3% of the bill on infrastructure, which is why many R's opposed it. You can read about their alternative bill here [cnn.com] Suck it.
Mitch McConnell would like a word with you (Score:2)
McConnell is still railing against infrastructure spending, to this day. From your link the proposed bill (which seems to have got very little traction from the party leaders) would have spent $114 billion versus the version that passed the House which offered $90 billion. Frankly I don't know why you seem to think that the RNC is interested in infrastructure spending. A cursory review of recent headlines shows that this is the only issue that Democrats are willing to work with Trump on, and McConnell is ve
Congress and waste (Score:2)
I can't help but wonder if the approximately five trillion dollars [politifact.com] we completely wasted in attacking Iraq and Afghanistan might have been enough to fix a bridge or two...
Re: (Score:2)
Will this line ever get old?
Re: (Score:3)
The erosion on the main spillway had no effect on how much water they were releasing from the reservoir. The reason the water flowed from the emergency spillway was because it rained too much, and there was poor water management while levels were rising.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The "erosion" on the main spillway was a huge crater many yards (meters) across, with increased flows spewing additional chunks of concrete into the air and into the Feather River. As the inflows exceeded the outflows (65000 CFS out, 120000 CFS plus in) the lake went to 100% and over the emergency spillway. The erosion on the emergency spillway threatened to destroy it, and they had to up the flow on the main spillway to 100000 CFS to start lowering the lake levels. There is now a HUGE crater at t
Re: (Score:2)
>Of course, even though much of California is washing away, just last week the Sacramento bureaucrats declared we're still in a drought.
You can't be sure they're wrong. Droughts are commonly broken by flooding events - but a flooding event may not mean the end of a drought. It depends how much more rain is coming. A few floods in the middle of a drought generally fails entirely to actually RELIEVE the drought.
Now it's likely the drought WILL be ending since that terrible El Nino does appear to have been
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Did you see a protest group opposing spillway repair?
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you that most of the issue was due to the FAILED Primary Spillway not being maintained. The topover caused by the failed spillway was fully preventable, had the DWR and ACE and the rest done their job the last 7 years.
Hear hear! Of course, their budget was cut so they didn't actually have the money to maintain the spillway, but hey! That doesn't matter! They should have been maintaining it anyway! Out of the goodness of their hearts!
I mean, they're public servants, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Cali has the highest income taxes in the US, so why wasn't the funding there? Answer: pension funding. State, county, and local level are all screwed by pension obligations. Decades of pushing the problems forward by raising pensions for government workers instead of raises, because that was politically acceptable. But the pigeons have come home to roost.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're a RWNJ looking for an excuse to hippie punch, even if it has no relation to facts or reality in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention certain dams in California.
If only they'd listened to the environmental groups and shored it up during that long drought....
Had we listened to Greens, there would be no more dams.
But to address the bridge inspection problem, I say: Hire more trolls!
Re:And after 200,000 people had to flee because of (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump has shown he doesn't give a damn about Americans. He withheld federal money to pay for the dam that the state of CA build and maintained.
Seriously? He's been in office less than a month.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll blame him for everything back to the start of the Clinton administration. It's gotten so silly that I just quit listening. There are zero unbiased sources of news. It's either Pro Trump or Anti Trump. He's a grade A asshole but all he's done so far is try to stop people from coming in from 7 countries and build a Cabinet. Since he's done next to nothing they'll just use whatever is at hand to stick him with.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just don't like the truth...
Re: (Score:3)
As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.
An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.
As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.
He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed [nytimes.com] the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:
"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."
That's from the New York fucking Times, back
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny, please. If it's actually *not* a joke, please let the sad AC off the hook at least.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Erh... you ARE aware that there were 8 years between the "Bush Crime Family" and the hairpiece? Why didn't that one do anything?
And more interestingly, why doesn't he get any blame?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
because a Republican-controlled Congress was dead-set on doing nothing [politico.com] in order to obstruct Obama at all costs [thehill.com]. This is, seriously, no shit [salon.com], because the Republicans would be damned if they even APPEARED to be supporting a president that some still swore was not a citizen [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
My Dad voted for Hilliary 3 times and he's dead.
Re: (Score:3)
You got a problem with physics, architecture, materials science, civil engineering, design, graph theory, and a whole bunch of other nerdy subjects? News flash: "Technology" doesn't mean "only technical stuff that *you* happen to be interested in".
Re: (Score:2)
Because anyone who actually knows something about a subject and speaks up about it is by definition motivated only by greed. Uh-huh...
Re: (Score:2)
You've discovered the playbook of climate deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
This fallacy is a common mistake, I would categorize it as Poisoning the well [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid your new POTUS isn't any better than that - he's even doing his work on the golf course!
Re: (Score:2)
it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that republicans voted no against anything obama tried to do.
The president doesn't control the purse strings congress does. unless Congress votes for it the bridges will go unfunded.
it is something that has some bi partisain support but knowing republicans they will throw a rider in that only white males can do the construction work or some other bullshit rider.
Re: (Score:2)
Bridges are primarily the responsibility of state governments, either to pay for them or to apply to the federal government for funding.
You can blame your own voting record for the past 2 decades and not Trump or liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
Independent of what, or is this just a hurr durr gubbermint post?