Let The Dismantling Begin: Climate-Change Denier Scott Pruitt Trump’s Pick For New EPA Chief

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ah, well... time will tell.
What I cannot do is change anything that will happen.
What I will not do is worry about something I cannot change.
 
craig said:
Ah, well... time will tell.
What I cannot do is change anything that will happen.
What I will not do is worry about something I cannot change.
This.
Elections have consequences, which can include reactions in subsequent elections. That's how we got here, not the Russians, not the electoral college, not fake news, not the FBI, not a dozen other excuses the DNC is grasping at.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Elections have consequences, which can include reactions in subsequent elections. That's how we got here, not the Russians, not the electoral college, not fake news, not the FBI, not a dozen other excuses the DNC is grasping at.
Actually, the FBI meddling in the election at the last minute and Russian hacking were probably significant factors that affected the election. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts. Whether they affected it to the extent they tipped the election to Trump, we will never know. Also, we definitely got here because of the electoral college, since Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million votes.
 
I just heard that Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher from New Mexico, has been selected by Trump to head the DEA:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-breaking-bad-snl-trump-20161211-story.html
 
LeftieBiker said:
Trump is worth billions today; the bankruptcies were yesterday. The man knows business, and "the business of America is business".

Trump has gone from enormous business ventures that failed (but that still paid him well, at the expense of the investors) to making large amounts of money simply by selling his name. I'm not sure how this approach is going to translate to improving the lives of most Americans.
Exactly.
 
Stoaty said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Elections have consequences, which can include reactions in subsequent elections. That's how we got here, not the Russians, not the electoral college, not fake news, not the FBI, not a dozen other excuses the DNC is grasping at.
Actually, the FBI meddling in the election at the last minute and Russian hacking were probably significant factors that affected the election. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts. Whether they affected it to the extent they tipped the election to Trump, we will never know. Also, we definitely got here because of the electoral college, since Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million votes.
Exactly so. Quite the mandate to govern.
 
SageBrush said:
Stoaty said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Elections have consequences, which can include reactions in subsequent elections. That's how we got here, not the Russians, not the electoral college, not fake news, not the FBI, not a dozen other excuses the DNC is grasping at.
Actually, the FBI meddling in the election at the last minute and Russian hacking were probably significant factors that affected the election. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts. Whether they affected it to the extent they tipped the election to Trump, we will never know. Also, we definitely got here because of the electoral college, since Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million votes.
Exactly so. Quite the mandate to govern.
Can we please stop with the popular vote babbling. You guys can't be so anti-science as to understand that the behavior of both candidates and the electorate would be different if the rules were different. There's a reason pass plays to the sidelines are called more frequently in a two minute drill.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
You guys can't be so anti-science as to understand that the behavior of both candidates and the electorate would be different if the rules were different.

Exactly. And that would be a good thing. Less than 23% of popular vote could elect a President. Even less with third party candidates.

[edit: I went and checked. I put in 27% based on the largest states. But the smaller states have more impact, so 23%.]
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Can we please stop with the popular vote babbling. You guys can't be so anti-science as to understand that the behavior of both candidates and the electorate would be different if the rules were different.
Sure, behavior would be different, and we can't know what would have happened. But what did happen is the best available basis for estimating what would have happened. 2.8 million votes is a big margin to overcome with a different strategy. Maybe Trump could have done it. Either way, we as a country would be better off, as our president would per force have a popular mandate.

Instead, we have the least legitimate, least democratic, least mandated president ever in the modern era. Second only to George W Bush in 2000.

It is a further stain against the electoral college that of the last 5 elections, 2 have gone against the popular vote, and both for the same party. The effect has clearly been biased. If Clinton had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, then I would be inclined to say, "well, now the two parties are even on that score." But even so, I would still think that the country would be better off if it elected the president by popular vote.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Can we please stop with the popular vote babbling. You guys can't be so anti-science as to understand that the behavior of both candidates and the electorate would be different if the rules were different.
Sure, behavior would be different, and we can't know what would have happened. But what did happen is the best available basis for estimating what would have happened. 2.8 million votes is a big margin to overcome with a different strategy. Maybe Trump could have done it. Either way, we as a country would be better off, as our president would per force have a popular mandate.

Instead, we have the least legitimate, least democratic, least mandated president ever in the modern era. Second only to George W Bush in 2000.

It is a further stain against the electoral college that of the last 5 elections, 2 have gone against the popular vote, and both for the same party. The effect has clearly been biased. If Clinton had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, then I would be inclined to say, "well, now the two parties are even on that score." But even so, I would still think that the country would be better off if it elected the president by popular vote.

Cheers, Wayne
So election night rolls around and the state of Florida reports there were 200 million write in votes for Ted Cruz. The first liar wouldn't stand a chance.

There's a lack of understanding that our system of representation is the reason we have a United States in the first place. The people in Wyoming don"t want their lives run by the people of California (the most extreme example), metaphorically that's how we got them to sign up for the deal in the first place.
 
Back On-topic.

It is now clear that ignorance and poor reasoning skills are the primary qualifications required for all high-ranking Trump appointees with responsibilities to form and implement climate policies.

Trump's transition: sceptics guide every agency dealing with climate change

With at least nine senior members of transition team denying basic scientific understanding, president-elect’s choices demonstrate pro-fossil fuels agenda


The heads of Donald Trump’s transition teams for Nasa, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy, as well as his nominees to lead the EPA and the Department of the Interior, all question the science of human-caused climate change, in a signal of the president-elect’s determination to embark upon an aggressively pro-fossil fuels agenda.

Trump has assembled a transition team in which at least nine senior members deny basic scientific understanding that the planet is warming due to the burning of carbon and other human activity. These include the transition heads of all the key agencies responsible for either monitoring or dealing with climate change. None of these transition heads have any background in climate science...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/12/donald-trump-environment-climate-change-skeptics

And we can expect more of the same, in the future:


Rick Perry could be Trump pick for energy, department he couldn't name


Ex-Texas governor failed to name department in 2011 debate ‘oops’ moment
Appointment would swell ranks of climate change deniers in Trump cabinet


...Perry’s proposal to scrap the energy department caused what has gone down in history as his “oops” moment, during a November 2011 Republican debate.

“It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone,” he said. “Commerce, education and the, um, what’s the third one there? Let’s see.”...

An appointment of Perry, a known climate change denier, would be further indication that the incoming Trump administration may be friendly toward the fossil fuel industry....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/rick-perry-donald-trump-energy-department
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
There's a lack of understanding that our system of representation is the reason we have a United States in the first place. The people in Wyoming don"t want their lives run by the people of California (the most extreme example), metaphorically that's how we got them to sign up for the deal in the first place.
Oh, I get that, and the Constitution has plenty of mechanisms to overweight the less populous states, obviously foremost the Senate. The presidential election is the only election in the US that violates "one person, one vote". It is undemocratic that a Wyoming voter has almost 4 times the power of a California voter (in terms of population per elector). It is undemocratic that the "winner takes all" system of awarding electors means that in most presidential elections, only the votes in a handful of swing states matter.

Cheers, Wayne
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
There's a lack of understanding that our system of representation is the reason we have a United States in the first place. The people in Wyoming don"t want their lives run by the people of California (the most extreme example), metaphorically that's how we got them to sign up for the deal in the first place.

Instead we have the people in California having their lives run by the People of Wyoming. That is so much better. :roll: 23% of the voters can overrule the rest.

The reason why we have an electoral college is to give power to slave owners, along with the 3/5th rule.
 
="edatoakrun"Back On-topic.

It is now clear that ignorance and poor reasoning skills are the primary qualifications required for all high-ranking Trump appointees with responsibilities to form and implement climate policies.

Trump's transition: sceptics guide every agency dealing with climate change

With at least nine senior members of transition team denying basic scientific understanding, president-elect’s choices demonstrate pro-fossil fuels agenda
...

And that rationality and competence may be disqualifying behavior for lower level employees under trumpism, as planning to implement purges of lower-level federal employees may be in the works:

Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings


Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.

The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”

Trump and his team have vowed to dismantle specific aspects of Obama’s climate policies, and Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. The questionnaire, which one Energy Department official described as unusually “intrusive” and a matter for departmental lawyers, has raised concern that the Trump transition team is trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.16d1caef136f&wpisrc=nl_p1most-partner-1&wpmm=1
 
WetEV said:
Rick Perry to head the Energy Department. The department Rick Perry wanted to abolish, but couldn't remember the name.
Perhaps he won't show up for work... he may not remember what department he is heading. ;)
 
Back
Top