|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:
The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption.
And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'.
This is why I think Trump may try to put up Patrick Wyrick. He would be Pruitt for SCOTUS. He's an extreme pick though so he shouldn't be able to, but I'm not holding out hope for Democrats to be able to convince anyone to stop him. Maybe he goes with a more 'moderate' choice though to avoid the potential to lose.
|
On July 04 2018 09:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:15 kollin wrote:On July 04 2018 09:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 08:53 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. like GH i simply dont buy this "minimum wage hurts restaurants who were providing great tips." the solution is very simple: prohibit tips and incorporate wages into the price of food. this is a simple problem of net cash flow but you make it sound like complicated social problem where business owners are forced to pay superfluous extra wages on top of whatever accumulated tips there are/were. But if the goal is to have the workers make more money how does that help? 15 dollars an hour is much less then they currently make and no owner of a restaurant is going to pay their servers much more then minimum wage. The goal isn't make restaurant servers better off. The goal is ensure that everyone can make enough to live as a citizen from their job alone. If servers take a hit in how much they earn (though, in my opinion, I don't think tips and a $15 min wage are incompatible - tips will just no longer be expected) that is unfortunate but okay. You're basically never going to achieve that goal through minimum wage, purely on the basis that living wage is such a varied number across so many areas. Even across cities that comprise a single metropolitan area. And allowing municipal governments to control minimum wage in their cities seems like a can of worms.
Highly varying costs of living within cities is a problem of inequality that, while it affects the idea of living wage, should be solved in its own right. The alternative to a living wage, which is government assistance, results in large transfers of taxpayer money directly to landlords and indirectly to corporations, because the people working at Walmart are subsidised by the government because they aren't paid a living wage (the indirect transfer), and then spend that subsidy in Walmart which constitutes a direct transfer. If anything, this worsens cost of living. Living wage and cost of living are two issues which are linked but have to be understood and dealt with in their own right, and I don't think it's right to put off the imperative of fair remuneration for work because of the huge inequalities that exist within a society - those inequalities have to be tackled in and of themselves.
|
On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'.
On that front, he is doing his job.
On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing).
Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles.
|
On July 04 2018 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. This is why I think Trump may try to put up Patrick Wyrick. He would be Pruitt for SCOTUS. He's an extreme pick though so he shouldn't be able to, but I'm not holding out hope for Democrats to be able to convince anyone to stop him. Maybe he goes with a more 'moderate' choice though to avoid the potential to lose.
Let's be real here, trump isn't thinking any of that. The nomination will almost certainly be decided by the last person to speak to trump before he has to nominate one, and the only thing going on in that orange skull is along the lines of "I wonder how many mcfish delights I can eat today, and how mad would melania REALLY get if I boned ivanka just once?" I'm pretty sure the nomination for gorsuch was not his idea or plan either but that of one of his advisers. I think if trump does pick the nominee he will literally go through the list of judges he was given and pick one at random or look to see if one of them maybe ever said something nice about him.
|
On July 04 2018 10:12 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. This is why I think Trump may try to put up Patrick Wyrick. He would be Pruitt for SCOTUS. He's an extreme pick though so he shouldn't be able to, but I'm not holding out hope for Democrats to be able to convince anyone to stop him. Maybe he goes with a more 'moderate' choice though to avoid the potential to lose. Let's be real here, trump isn't thinking any of that. The nomination will almost certainly be decided by the last person to speak to trump before he has to nominate one, and the only thing going on in that orange skull is along the lines of "I wonder how many mcfish delights I can eat today, and how mad would melania REALLY get if I boned ivanka just once?" I'm pretty sure the nomination for gorsuch was not his idea or plan either but that of one of his advisers. I think if trump does pick the nominee he will literally go through the list of judges he was given and pick one at random or look to see if one of them maybe ever said something nice about him.
That's why Pruitt is there in the first place. Pruitt is just a shill for O&G and Wyrick would be their pick. Trump's role is just ignoring the moderate Republican advisers telling him to pick someone less extreme.
|
On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. On that front, he is doing his job. On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing). Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles.
Clean water, air and tracking the weather does suck a whole lot. And superfund to help rural communities with toxic clean up.
I always wonder if not super rich conservatives know they are just screwing over rural American but gutting the EPA? Blue states like MA and CA can stand up for themselves and sue the shit out of polluters. It’s small poor states with mostly rural area that need the federal governments help. The only people who benefit from gutting the EPA are billionaires and share holders.
|
On July 04 2018 09:57 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 04 2018 09:15 kollin wrote:On July 04 2018 09:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 08:53 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there.
Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system?
I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you.
My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. like GH i simply dont buy this "minimum wage hurts restaurants who were providing great tips." the solution is very simple: prohibit tips and incorporate wages into the price of food. this is a simple problem of net cash flow but you make it sound like complicated social problem where business owners are forced to pay superfluous extra wages on top of whatever accumulated tips there are/were. But if the goal is to have the workers make more money how does that help? 15 dollars an hour is much less then they currently make and no owner of a restaurant is going to pay their servers much more then minimum wage. The goal isn't make restaurant servers better off. The goal is ensure that everyone can make enough to live as a citizen from their job alone. If servers take a hit in how much they earn (though, in my opinion, I don't think tips and a $15 min wage are incompatible - tips will just no longer be expected) that is unfortunate but okay. You're basically never going to achieve that goal through minimum wage, purely on the basis that living wage is such a varied number across so many areas. Even across cities that comprise a single metropolitan area. And allowing municipal governments to control minimum wage in their cities seems like a can of worms. Highly varying costs of living within cities is a problem of inequality that, while it affects the idea of living wage, should be solved in its own right. The alternative to a living wage, which is government assistance, results in large transfers of taxpayer money directly to landlords and indirectly to corporations, because the people working at Walmart are subsidised by the government because they aren't paid a living wage (the indirect transfer), and then spend that subsidy in Walmart which constitutes a direct transfer. If anything, this worsens cost of living. Living wage and cost of living are two issues which are linked but have to be understood and dealt with in their own right, and I don't think it's right to put off the imperative of fair remuneration for work because of the huge inequalities that exist within a society - those inequalities have to be tackled in and of themselves.
So, like, what you trying to suggest here then? A flat minimum wage to match a single estimated living wage across an entire state, and then corrective legislation to flatten the cost of living in that state?
And what exactly is fair remuneration for work that isn't based on cost of living?
|
On July 04 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. On that front, he is doing his job. On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing). Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles. Clean water, air and tracking the weather does suck a whole lot. And superfund to help rural communities with toxic clean up. I always wonder if not super rich conservatives know they are just screwing over rural American but gutting the EPA? Blue states like MA and CA can stand up for themselves and sue the shit out of polluters. It’s small poor states with mostly rural area that need the federal governments help. The only people who benefit from gutting the EPA are billionaires and share holders.
That's the error of judging the book on the cover. You like clean air and water, but maybe you're less into polluted rivers and the deaths of small business and the impingement of individual liberties. Like Scalia said, they'd call everything airborne from Frisbees to flatulence an airborne pollutant if the conclusion furthers their aims.
|
On July 04 2018 11:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. On that front, he is doing his job. On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing). Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles. Clean water, air and tracking the weather does suck a whole lot. And superfund to help rural communities with toxic clean up. I always wonder if not super rich conservatives know they are just screwing over rural American but gutting the EPA? Blue states like MA and CA can stand up for themselves and sue the shit out of polluters. It’s small poor states with mostly rural area that need the federal governments help. The only people who benefit from gutting the EPA are billionaires and share holders. That's the error of judging the book on the cover. You like clean air and water, but maybe you're less into polluted rivers and the deaths of small business and the impingement of individual liberties. Like Scalia said, they'd call everything airborne from Frisbees to flatulence an airborne pollutant if the conclusion furthers their aims.
What do you view as the aims of the EPA?
|
On July 04 2018 11:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. On that front, he is doing his job. On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing). Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles. Clean water, air and tracking the weather does suck a whole lot. And superfund to help rural communities with toxic clean up. I always wonder if not super rich conservatives know they are just screwing over rural American but gutting the EPA? Blue states like MA and CA can stand up for themselves and sue the shit out of polluters. It’s small poor states with mostly rural area that need the federal governments help. The only people who benefit from gutting the EPA are billionaires and share holders. That's the error of judging the book on the cover. You like clean air and water, but maybe you're less into polluted rivers and the deaths of small business and the impingement of individual liberties. Like Scalia said, they'd call everything airborne from Frisbees to flatulence an airborne pollutant if the conclusion furthers their aims.
Coming from a family that ran a small business for like 5 decades, the EPA was never really a problem. And we made plastic and did injection molding. It turns out it is pretty easy not to pollute. However, my father never really liked being used as a shield to protect bigger, shitter companies from regulation. Because when you are a small, peice work factory you learn to fucking larger companies who only care about price and not quality.
Think bout, how will you personally ever benefit from the EPA being gutted? What individual liberties will you exercise once it is gone? Is there going to be this massive explosion of industry in the US? Or is it just that billionaires that it would be way more profitable for them if they did need to worry about ground water and oil leaks?
|
Maybe he invests in Nestle?
Yeah I don't get it either. At least some conservatives who enjoy hunting and fishing here in Oregon can find common ground with environmentalists and conservation groups. I suppose that's a far cry from say Oklahoma, where the governor instituted a Oilfield Prayer Day though. On the other hand, we have the cattle industry which damages the ecosystem and our Democratic governor "Cattle Baron Kate" who continues to order the killing of our grey wolves.
|
On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. On that front, he is doing his job. On the other front, the petty corruption and venality he exudes is enough to justify his firing. The Washington Examiner is reporting today that President Trump is "souring" on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Trump does not pick the best people. His TV persona of "You're Fired" is a producer creation; he's not good at firing people. The bipartisan criticism directed at Pruitt is just and Pruitt has not learned from the pushback on his behavior (reported many meetings for ethical dilemmas in the west wing). Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles.
You say that, but hasn't Trump 'been souring' on Pruitt for a year or so now? It's not like the guy wasted any time in demonstrating what a fucknugget he is.
I mean, the other people Trump fired, he fired after a tenth of the nonsense Pruitt has done, but the little goblin is still there dancing around the burning fire of the EPA and taking liberties. At this point I think we have to agree that Trump must like the guy and just doens't want to fire him.
|
Happy Birthday USA! Thx for giving Canada the great standard of living we have by buying all the stuff we make and consuming every natural resource we have! Also Thx for protecting Canada's borders... because we don't have a military capable of doing so!
Onto an interesting poll whose results match with my perception of Americans in their late teens and 20s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.bc76d256bd4f
42% support capitalism. 33% support socialism.
Thing is... Americans 18 to 29 did not experience the economic boom times of the Reagan era and the Clinton era. Typically, since 2007, the economy has been weak. No wonder so few young Americans believe in capitalism. Its sad that young americans have never experienced an economic boom.
I hope Trump can make America's economy great again.
|
On July 04 2018 10:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:43 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building. He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence. His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'. Others can take his place. The EPA is almost universally hated in conservative circles.
And this is why much of the rest of the world thinks US conservatives are ------------------------------------- (be creative).
There's no second fucking planet we can all hop along to, you don't get a second life once you die from poison or cancer. The only reason an anti-EPA priority makes any sense is because the people funding the Republican party are old and rich enough to avoid the consequences of their destruction of the environment for a wee bit more "economic freedom". The rest of the world suffers for this fuckery more directly than any other, it's sick.
|
On July 04 2018 18:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Happy Birthday USA! Thx for giving Canada the great standard of living we have by buying all the stuff we make and consuming every natural resource we have! Also Thx for protecting Canada's borders... because we don't have a military capable of doing so! Onto an interesting poll whose results match with my perception of Americans in their late teens and 20s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.bc76d256bd4f42% support capitalism. 33% support socialism. Thing is... Americans 18 to 29 did not experience the economic boom times of the Reagan era and the Clinton era. Typically, since 2007, the economy has been weak. No wonder so few young Americans believe in capitalism. Its sad that young americans have never experienced an economic boom. I hope Trump can make America's economy great again.
He already has, provided you're a millionaire. That's who the system's set up to reward anyway.
|
Hating the EPA should be a good clue you're indoctrinated. It's an agency that oversees protection of the environment. Um... It's about as basic, common-sense and necessary as any government institution imaginable. The only reactionary opposition to the agency as a whole should be coming straight from the actual polluters. If you aren't a coal-executive or a very major shareholder, you have no sane reason to "hate" the EPA.
On July 04 2018 18:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Happy Birthday USA! Thx for giving Canada the great standard of living we have by buying all the stuff we make and consuming every natural resource we have! Also Thx for protecting Canada's borders... because we don't have a military capable of doing so! Onto an interesting poll whose results match with my perception of Americans in their late teens and 20s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_term=.bc76d256bd4f42% support capitalism. 33% support socialism. Thing is... Americans 18 to 29 did not experience the economic boom times of the Reagan era and the Clinton era. Typically, since 2007, the economy has been weak. No wonder so few young Americans believe in capitalism. Its sad that young americans have never experienced an economic boom. I hope Trump can make America's economy great again.
You're painting a very rosy picture of what was essentially a robbery of the treasury, most notably during the Reagan "boom". You cut the income tax in half, deplete gov't revenue in the process and begin the national debt trend that we're enduring to this day -- well of course you'd better have one hell of a "boom". If Reagan didn't have any "boom", then all we could say is he just burned trillions of dollars and pushed our country towards mountains of debt for nothing. But no, the economy "boomed" for a little while until the free-lunch wore off.
Clinton had the Internet.
Neither of them deserve any credit due to good economic policy. One was disgusting reverse-welfare that put a huge liability onto the backs of future generations, the other was just circumstance of a landmark private innovation.
It's like congratulating someone for taking out a massive loan from a bank without much clue as to how they'll pay it back, while opining that future customers should be so lucky. Well, they won't be so lucky. They're the ones that're unfairly going to have to pay for the previous customer's ignorance.
With Reagan and Clinton -- you're talking about Baby Boomers -- people who received the world on a golden platter. The biggest, strongest, sturdiest middle-class workforce ever. The generation that was given everything, and took it for granted.
They're the reverse of the Greatest Generation, in my opinion. They didn't build the middle-class -- rather, they robbed it into near-extinction, while patting themselves on the back over their "economic booms". And Donald Trump is the last bit of their legacy. A spit in the face of everything the Greatest Generation stood for.
|
On July 04 2018 18:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Thing is... Americans 18 to 29 did not experience the economic boom times of the Reagan era and the Clinton era. Typically, since 2007, the economy has been weak. No wonder so few young Americans believe in capitalism. Its sad that young americans have never experienced an economic boom.
It's not just "sad", it's part of the design.
|
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Kind of like "abolish the EPA" is. But those on the left take it further... There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!"
|
On July 04 2018 22:22 Introvert wrote:
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Just like "abolish the EPA" is. There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!"
Conservatives have control of the EPA currently, and they are taking the slash and burn approach rather than putting different regulations in place so I think it’s safe to say what they actually want is the slash and burn approach.
Also ICE is a garbage agency and it’s objectively a good idea to abolish it. I don’t support open borders, and abolishing ICE doesn’t mean we will have open boarders, but having open borders would be preferable to an unaccountable secret police force with no regard for the rule of law.
|
Don't you still have a Border Patrol on top of ICE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
