IGX

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:12 pm I think I understand why some folks continue to support DJT, but the Scott Pruitt issue seems pretty problematic. I don't hear a reason why this guy should still have a job. Anybody?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:12 pm I think I understand why some folks continue to support DJT, but the Scott Pruitt issue seems pretty problematic. I don't hear a reason why this guy should still have a job. Anybody?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:12 pm I think I understand why some folks continue to support DJT, but the Scott Pruitt issue seems pretty problematic. I don't hear a reason why this guy should still have a job. Anybody?

Turdacious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:34 amAnother big factor-- for the best case scenario for Republicans to happen, the replacement needs to be confirmed before November. So there is a mid term time crunch.

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:46 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:34 amAnother big factor-- for the best case scenario for Republicans to happen, the replacement needs to be confirmed before November. So there is a mid term time crunch.

But isn't there a time-lag between the election and when the new guys are sworn in / take office? Even if hypothetically the Reps lost their majority in November, they would still have a couple months to take action, right?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:39 am Gene I was talking about the corruption

Live in a lobbyist’s townhouse for 50 bucks a night;

Install an illegal $43,000 phone booth in his office;

Spend roughly $3,000 on fancy pens and journals and over $1,500 on “tactical pants”;

Let a foreign agent and longtime pal plan his $100,000 trip to Morocco;

Wine and dine an accused child molester at a five-star Italian restaurant;

Go over the White House’s head to give giant raises to at least two loyalists;

Allegedly make travel decisions based on his “desire to visit particular cities or countries,” and subsequently instruct staff to find him something to do in those locations to justify the use of taxpayer funds;

Allegedly direct staff to “find reasons for [him] to travel to Oklahoma, so [he] could be in his home state for long weekends at taxpayers’ expense”

Reportedly insist on the use of lights and sirens to transport him more quickly through traffic to the airport, meetings, and social events;

Reportedly demote or reassign at least six E.P.A. officials after they raised “concerns” about his habit of using taxpayer money as though it’s a slush fund;

Use his position to attempt to score his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise and a $200,000 a year job;

Treat E.P.A. staffers like personal assistants whose jobs included picking up dry cleaning, driving around looking for a particular type of fancy moisturizing lotion, and paying for his fancy hotel stays.

In 1978, the EPA tried to suppress research showing the cost of proposed air pollution standards. If Pennsylvania’s two senators at the time (John Heinz and Richard Schweiker) hadn’t intervened, the EPA would have imposed standards stringent enough to effectively shut down the U.S. steel industry.

In 1991, a panel of outside scientists brought in to review EPA practices concluded (among other things) that the EPA often tailors its science to justify what it wants to do and shields key research from peer review. EPA Administrator William Reilly acknowledged, “scientific data have not always been featured prominently in environmental efforts and have sometimes been ignored even when available.”

In the 1990s, under the leadership of Carol Browner, the EPA refused to divulge how it calculated cost-benefit analyses. Indeed, in 1997 Browner admitted that new research would be required to set a “scientifically defensible” standard for air quality issues that would “fill obvious and critical voids in our knowledge.” The Browner-led EPA also blatantly broke federal law by actively lobbying against legislation designed to curb some of EPA’s abuses. Browner herself broke the law by defying a federal judge’s orders and overseeing the erasure of the hard drives and the destruction of back-up email tapes that she had used as administrator.

A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks.

Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants.

A Virginia federal judge on Thursday dismissed an environmental policy think tank's suit seeking to shutter a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study examining the effects of potentially lethal pollutants on human subjects, ruling the study didn't constitute a legally contestable “final agency action.”

In a complaint filed Sept. 21, the American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center accused the EPA of exposing study participants to fine particles, such as those emitted by cars and coal power plants, without informing them of the risks.

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:51 pm I have a really hard time seeing Trump's pick not getting through the wickets. Too many Red State Democrats up for re-election this Fall.

She didn't pay her dues on the precinct level making deals and "performing the art of the possible" as Adlai Stevenson put it. Going in cold she's not going to understand how things are done, worse she's going to try to do things her way.

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:44 pm

She didn't pay her dues on the precinct level making deals and "performing the art of the possible" as Adlai Stevenson put it. Going in cold she's not going to understand how things are done, worse she's going to try to do things her way.

Sounds like POTUS

The barriers to entry have certainly dropped recently.

"I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live," she explained. "What that means to me is health care as a human right, it means that every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade-school education if they so choose it. I think that no person should be homeless if we have public structures or public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."