Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 170: The Title Doesn't Matter

(+) Yeah! (+)

In fact, the Trump DOJ has even produced not one, but two damning assessments indicating that the FBI took improper actions during the 2016 campaign that hurt Hillary Clinton thus directly contradicting the favored GOP deep state narrative that imagines an entire federal law-enforcement bureaucracy united against Trump in 2016.

I hope the author of this article is prepared for Trumper death threats
---

Heres one for your sig

I dont disagree with Seph...

...about Rosenstein. I have no issues at all with how he has handled things.

I also am glad Sessions recused himself but really really really have so many other ethical issues with him that I cannot say overall that I am glad he is AG.

If forced to choose I might take Trump as President over Sessions as AG. I dunno. Id really have to think about it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

In fact, the Trump DOJ has even produced not one, but two damning assessments indicating that the FBI took improper actions during the 2016 campaign that hurt Hillary Clinton thus directly contradicting the favored GOP deep state narrative that imagines an entire federal law-enforcement bureaucracy united against Trump in 2016.

I hope the author of this article is prepared for Trumper death threats

David French most certainly gets them daily
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I also am glad Sessions recused himself but really really really have so many other ethical issues with him that I cannot say overall that I am glad he is AG.

I think you are underestimating how badly it sucks to have a boss that undermines you and belittles you publicly (and probably worse in private), yet still persisting despite that because you know the next nominee would likely be a stooge. He's quite literally a martyr for the Constitution.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

yet still persisting despite that because you know the next nominee would likely be a stooge.

Somehow I doubt this

Unless you think Sessions joined the Trump campaign from the start as a check on his idiocy
---

punished sessions
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

yet still persisting despite that because you know the next nominee would likely be a stooge.

Somehow I doubt this

Unless you think Sessions joined the Trump campaign from the start as a check on his idiocy

I don't think he foresaw Trump throwing the entire justice department under the bus for some petty personal shit. And Sessions has dedicated his entire career to the legal system. You can tell he legitimately respects the position.
---

I mean Sessions has to figure his career is over after this. That's reason enough to stick around in something that won't last forever anyway.
---

kevwaffles posted...

I mean Sessions has to figure his career is over after this. That's reason enough to stick around in something that won't last forever anyway.

He can retire a millionaire from doing FoxNews panels once a week until he dies. There is no way constant beratement from Trump is anything but a miserable professional experience.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I don't think he foresaw Trump throwing the entire justice department under the bus for some petty personal s***.

Trump made it pretty clear on the campaign trail that he expected them to be his attack dogs for petty personal shit.
---

I totally forgot about the Arizona election tonight,

Voter registration leans heavily republican (unlike conor lamb's district), and early voting was huge for the republican candidate, so it looks like a clear win for the republicans. Bigger story will be the margin. If dems are within 8 or so, it's another huge gain for them. We'll see.
---

Straight up pay to play from Mick Mulvaney:
https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/988936064952946688
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Straight up pay to play from Mick Mulvaney:
https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/988936064952946688

Fucking what.

Like we knew it was the case, but these dumbasses wouldn't shut the hell up about the "pay for play" accusation bullshit.
---

this isn't news, bribery is legal in the US, everyone knows that

https://twitter.com/cnni/status/988516825825619968?s=21

US President Donald Trump is increasingly relying on his personal cell phone to contact outside advisers, multiple sources inside and outside the White House tell CNN cnn.it/2Jk2a8B

What could go wrong
---

someone call sean!!!
---

I dont know why we even bother to have a national security apparatus with these dumb shits in charge
---

Nothing wrong with Trumps apparatus, he assured us
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/daca-dreamers-trump.html

Judge John D. Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said the governments decision to end the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was predicated on the virtually unexplained grounds that the program was unlawful.

The judge stayed his decision for 90 days, giving the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for canceling the program.

The department, the judge wrote in his decision, must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.

Thank goodness for the judicial branch
---

John D. Bates sounds like a made up name for a judge from a 70s educational cartoon
---

Seph just peaked.
---

AZ-8 special election:
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/988977134088720384
---

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/988983350265372672?s=19

More on that, but yes, very bad for republicans.
---

Consistent theme in what I'm reading from polling data people:
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/988983231428157440
---

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/988982288322060288?s=19

More thoughts from another stats/polls reporter.
---

Lord also knows who to follow on election nights, Lulz
---

He didn't become Lord of the Morons by following the wrong people on twitter.
---

He used to be Duke of the Morons... but then he started following the right people on Twitter and really began going places in life.
---

Lord of the morons feels like a good alias for a Twitter Lord tbh
---

Dems can ALWAYS snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Dems can ALWAYS snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Unfortunately.
---

As a scientist this makes me furious:
https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions

Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself
---

Pruitt honestly might be the worst part of this whole administration and that's really saying something.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

As a scientist this makes me furious:
https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions

Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself

I can only imagine having to show evidence of findings publicly and allowing the possibility of it being proven right or wrong such a travesty to you as a scientist.

What a silly thing to be upset about.

It isn't like how many things in life already haven't been thought to have been correlated to something and it turns out that was later wrong due to further studies.

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/preventive-care/article/are-eggs-bad-your-heart

Just one such example.

It is not limiting science. It is making it transparent to the public what is behind decisions and allowing ability to further research it.

You can't be behind transparency in the government and be against transparency in the EPA. Those are contradictory stances. I get the article tells you it is anti-science so you latch onto that, but you should look further into your beliefs regarding it.

If we started bombing Syria tomorrow, would you want to know why? Then you are for transparency.

If we recommend or ban or encourage products or shift policies in regards to things, people should know why and see why.
---

Did you read the article? It makes it so a peer reviewed scientific study is no longer good enough to qualify as evidence.

If any of the subjects of the study have their medical information protected via any kind of anonymity then it doesn't count as 'transparent'.

This is apparently a common enough thing that the most transparent aspect of this policy is to work around the pesky "science" that says fucking up the environment causes the humans living in it to be hurt.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Did you read the article? It makes it so a peer reviewed scientific study is no longer good enough to qualify as evidence.

If any of the subjects of the study have their medical information protected via any kind of anonymity then it doesn't count as 'transparent'.

This is apparently a common enough thing that the most transparent aspect of this policy is to work around the pesky "science" that says fucking up the environment causes the humans living in it to be hurt.

I did read the article. It does not allow data that is not publicly accessible to be used to make policy. That is how transparency works. Too many times have things been made policy in regards to health that ended up being incorrect or shortsighted or not able to be shown correlated by future studies.

This creates myths, as shown above, that are incorrect and affect people for not just years but even generations.

Edit: If you want to ban something or so on, you need to be able to show public proof so that it can be understood by the public and also able to be challenged openly.

"Trust us, we are the government" might work for someone like me most the time, but it does not fly for most Americans.
---

The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.

Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.

But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.

It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.

Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.

.

.

If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.

On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.

But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.

Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.

But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.

It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.

Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.

.

.

If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.

On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.

But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.

It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Did you read the article? It makes it so a peer reviewed scientific study is no longer good enough to qualify as evidence.

If being peer reviewed is the only criterion in question then this is 100% good policy. You can't get medications approved on the basis of a peer-reviewed study alone, for example.
---

Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA is like putting a Nazi in charge of the Anti-Defamation League.
---

Ashethan posted...

Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA is like putting a Nazi in charge of the Anti-Defamation League.

for transparency's sake all jews must now publish their full names and home addresses
---

Ashethan posted...

Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA is like putting a Nazi in charge of the Anti-Defamation League.

The reasoning for a lot of Trump's appointments was to put people who had negative views of the departments in charge of them to fix them to what they are supposed to be. Limiting overreach and excessive regulation.
---

Corrik posted...

The reasoning for a lot of Trump's appointments was to put people who had negative views of the departments in charge of them to fix them to what they are supposed to be. Limiting overreach and excessive regulation.

The EPA's stated goal is to literally PROTECT the environment.

NOT to destroy it like Scott Pruitt wants to do. And that's not to mention all the favors he's been getting from lobbyists. Literally defending a swamp monster. That's not surprising though. Republicans LOVE Swamp Monsters. As long as they have an R next to their name.
---

Corrik posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.

Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.

But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.

It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.

Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.

.

.

If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.

On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.

But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.

It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.

Says the middle class white man.
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.

Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.

But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.

It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.

Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.

.

.

If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.

On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.

But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.

It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.

Says the middle class white man.

Has zero bearing.
---

Ashethan posted...

Corrik posted...

The reasoning for a lot of Trump's appointments was to put people who had negative views of the departments in charge of them to fix them to what they are supposed to be. Limiting overreach and excessive regulation.

The EPA's stated goal is to literally PROTECT the environment.

NOT to destroy it like Scott Pruitt wants to do. And that's not to mention all the favors he's been getting from lobbyists. Literally defending a swamp monster. That's not surprising though. Republicans LOVE Swamp Monsters. As long as they have an R next to their name.

Pruitt is probably going to get canned for his stuff going on surrounding his time there. However, the EPA being supposed to protect the environment also doesn't mean to go overboard in it when it does not have to.

Whether you agree with Pruitt's job as head of the EPA or not, he has done exactly what Trump appointed him to do. Rein it in and reduce regulations and oversight.

That was his purpose. That is what he has done.

If you disagree with that fundamentally, then sure you won't like the job Pruitt has done. It is what he was appointed to do however.
---

Corrik posted...

That is what he has done.

If you truly believe that, you're a moron.

He has abused his position and the government funds that come along with it, to line his pockets and grant himself undue privileges and benefits.

Conservatives should despise him. Small government should not be defined by mass corruption. He isn't reining in the agency, he's utilizing it for his own personal benefit.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

If you truly believe that, you're a moron.

he's actually a moron regardless but your point is well taken
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.

Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.

But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.

It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.

Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.

.

.

If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.

On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.

But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.

It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.

Says the middle class white man.

Has zero bearing.

It actually has quite a bit of bearing. Your demographic isnt the one for whom obtaining an ID is made difficult, so your assessment that obtaining one requires virtually no effort is colored by your own ease of experience.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

As a scientist this makes me furious:
https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions

Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself

Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws.

Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.

Wow, this sounds fucking awful.

So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick.

Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."
---