NM11046 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Come on TG - unhinged is a bit dramatic of an accusation. I know you like the OK EPA guy, but I'm not sure that you can find an argument that shows Chimichanga to be out of line with his comments. Most of his nominated cabinets members are known to support anti LBGT causes and initiatives. Bannon has basked in the alt right motivation of racism and white supremecy There are multiple people on his nomination list that have been accused of battery or assaults against women (if if you say "accused" doesn't mean guilty I'd ask you how many of your friends have been accused? Where there's smoke there's fire) Not going to retype all the offenses that have been discussed in detail on other threads. Nothing Chimi said is incorrect, and stating it doesn't make him/her "unhinged". Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/9/13903860/trump-energy-department-climate-memo In a letter sent to Trump on Thursday, Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) warned that the new Trump administration would be violating the law if it used this information to retaliate against federal employees. "Civil servants should never be punished for having executed policies with which a new administration disagrees," Markey wrote. "That would be tantamount to an illegal modern-day political witch hunt, and would have a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce." Meanwhile, Teryn Norris, a former White House appointee to the Department of Energy under Obama, pointed to other questions in the memo that asked for the backgrounds and professional memberships of various staffers at the national laboratories. He called this “extremely concerning.” What's going to stop them? A couple of angry liberals? More: The Trump transition team seems particularly concerned that the EIA’s projections are too friendly toward renewables and not friendly enough toward fossil fuels. (Actually, there’s a good case that the reverse is true, that the EIA has historically been too pessimistic about renewable growth.) For example, here’s question #13 in the memo: There are studies that show that your high resource and technology case for oil and gas represents the shale gas and oil renaissance far better than your reference case. Why has EIA not put those assumptions in your reference case? This looks a lot like a political takeover of what is meant to be independent scientific data. The Trump administration will produce whatever studies it wants to justify its policy initiatives. Link to comment
funhusker Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I was only asking about LA in the 1970s, because I don't know what it was like Like Knapp said - not as bad as some of the Chinese cities are now but in comparison to today - pretty bad. Part of LA's problem can be blamed on the geography - mtns to the east can trap the smog from being pushed out by winds from the west. Calm days, and high smog was a bad mix. Speaking of the EPA, Trump might be doubling down with the Interior Secretary pick. So if you had a stoke with Pruitt, you'll have a major heart attack with this one. I don't know anything about her except what is reported below http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Oil-Drilling-Advocate-McMorris-Rodgers/2016/12/09/id/763128/ U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is expected to pick U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a strong advocate of increased oil and gas development who is skeptical about climate change, to run the Department of the Interior, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters on Friday. The appointment could mean easier access for industry to more than a quarter of America's territory, ranging from national parks to tribal lands stretching from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico, where energy companies have been eager to drill and mine. McMorris Rodgers, the fourth most senior member of the House leadership, has been a supporter of efforts to expand the U.S. energy industry. She voted for the Native American Energy Act, a bill that was vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2015, that would have made it easier to drill on tribal territories. On her website, she also touts her support of the recent repeal of the decades old ban on oil exports, and for a bill to reject the EPA's Waters of the United States Act as some of her key achievements on energy and environment She has also expressed skepticism about climate change, consistently opposing Obama's measures to combat it, and once arguing that former Vice President Al Gore, a longtime advocate for steps to combat global warming, deserves an "F" in science and an "A" in creative writing. The League of Conservation Voters, which publishes a score card ranking the environmental record of each member of Congress, gave McMorris Rodgers a zero in its most recent ratings. McMorris Rodgers has been a member of the House/Senate energy conference committee working to pass bipartisan energy legislation that included provisions to boost hydropower and update forest policy. In her role as interior secretary, she would oversee over 70,000 employees TG I know you hold your faith near and dear to your heart. I like that about you. To the bolded: maybe that is God's way of saying, "look at what you're doing! Maybe if you have to live in it for a while you'll change!" Guess what? We did. Edit: This post isn't necessarily pointed at you, TG. It is at every "religious" conservative that wants to see big government get out of the way of industry. Maybe Trump's picks will keep the best interests of the environment in mind, but their resumes and stated goals tend to say otherwise... Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 There is a lot of money to be gained from thinking climate change isn't caused by humans or pretending to, if you're in a position of power and do things to act on it. For the latter, I don't know how they sleep at night. And when they make these changes, if they go through congress, it will be difficult to reverse them since the Democrats won't have the House for at least 6 years if not longer. Kinda wish we humans would just kill each other off fast so the animals and plants can go on without us before half or more of them go extinct. Link to comment
funhusker Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 There is a lot of money to be gained from thinking climate change isn't caused by humans or pretending to, if you're in a position of power and do things to act on it. For the latter, I don't know how they sleep at night. And when they make these changes, if they go through congress, it will be difficult to reverse them since the Democrats won't have the House for at least 6 years if not longer. Kinda wish we humans would just kill each other off fast so the animals and plants can go on without us before half or more of them go extinct. On a possibly too basic level, I compare it to this: I'm walking down the street drinking a soda. When it's gone I try to find a trash can or possibly even a recycling bin. It would be much easier and more efficient for me to toss it into the gutter and keep walking. But I don't. Why? Because I would be looked at as a "dirty person" or "evil litterer" by ANYONE that saw. That used bottle would do far less damage than industrial waste, why don't we demand the same sort of care in industry that we ask for after Husker games? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Another guy with strong Putin ties. I wish I was kidding, but Putin gave him Russia's Order of Friendship. I'm sure in some corner of the world Trump fan is all fired up about all these rich folks getting cabinet spots with the logic "Now they're working for us, just like Donnie said he would! They're going to make US rich now!" I'm no enemy of American businesses, but he's filling up his cabinet exclusively with generals and heads of corporations. There's no representation for the little guy there whatsoever. There's a crony capitalism element to it as well: Just another bad joke at this point. Our government is beginning to look suspiciously similar to the one in Disturbed's Land of Confusion video: Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Saw this on Twitter. Looks like he went with the Exxon Mobil guy: Awesome. Make Russia Great Again! Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 John Bolton as Deputy SOS: I'm not trying to be hyperbolic when I say this guy may be the biggest neocon warhawk on the face of the Earth. He was one of the first ones to start touting non-existent WMDs to get us into Iraq. Don't like to be fear-mongery "be scared" guy, but these picks are scary bad. I have a hard time imagining two worse candidates to represent us on a world stage, besides perhaps if Giuliani had been given the reigns. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 Yes Bolton is a neo-con and I was hoping Trump would steer away from anyone like that. Esp since he touted he was against the Iraq war. Regarding the Exxon guy - trump is now tripling down. There is no balance here whatsoever. I'm getting mighty concerned about big corporations now having control of the govt - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rex-tillerson-exxon-mobil-expected-be-named-trump-s-secretary-n694371 5 Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 It should have been utterly clear to everyone that Trump didn't give a fig about the Iraq War at the time. 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 It aint over until it is over. Repubs in the senate are revolting to the idea of the Exxon CEO as SOS (good for them). Now Fiorina is the flavor of the day. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Trump-Fiorina-Secretary-State-Tillerson/2016/12/12/id/763448/ Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 The Hewlett-Packard CEO with no public office or foreign experience? Seriously. When it comes to Commander in Chief and America's Top Diplomat, what are the criteria for Republicans? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 #hirethebestpeople It should have been utterly clear to everyone that Trump didn't give a fig about the Iraq War at the time. "I was for the Iraq war before I was against it." Haven't we heard that before? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 If Donald Trump, the genius behind "take the oil" who was totally against the invasion of Iraq and is so smart he doesn't require intel briefings, can pass as CiC, do qualifications for any other post even matter? Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 #hirethebestpeople It should have been utterly clear to everyone that Trump didn't give a fig about the Iraq War at the time. "I was for the Iraq war before I was against it." Haven't we heard that before? See, if he had just said that, that would have been fine. He *was* basically OK with it. A lot of people were. That was both the climate and the information offered (rather forcefully) by the administration at the time. But time passes, we see how the war unfolds, we don't find the WMDs and one's past support -- if offered -- SHOULD come into question. That would be honesty. If you once held a position you no longer believe, own up to it and explain what happened. Don't just pretend and insist you were never that way! Link to comment
Recommended Posts