Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
feeder wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.
:sigh:
Keep that up... Trump will be re-elected.
You need a safe space?
Deplorables are a real thing, they held a conference shouting "Hail Trump", are committing hate crimes, and are actually racist homophobes who want to MAGA by banning all Muslims. We shouldn't have to refrain from pointing them out because non-deplorables are ashamed that they are in the same party or voted for the same guy.
Calling out hateful white nationalist and acknowledging that voting Trump doesn't automatically make you one of them is no different than calling out violent religious extremists and acknowledging that being Muslim doesn't automatically make you one.
To quote a favorite slogan of white Americans: "where are the leaders of the white community condemning their actions?"
feeder wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.
:sigh:
Keep that up... Trump will be re-elected.
Are you of the opinion there are no deplorables among the 60ish million Americans who voted for Trump?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Just Tony wrote: Are you of the opinion that there are no deplorables amongst the Democrat voter pool?
I wouldn't say none (because there are always exceptions), but I can say with a pretty firm degree of confidence that the sexists, Islamophobes, ect. voted far more for Trump than Clinton.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
d-usa wrote: Deplorables are a real thing, they held a conference shouting "Hail Trump", are committing hate crimes, and are actually racist homophobes who want to MAGA by banning all Muslims.
I typically think of the presence of seig heiling Nazis as deplorable. I mean, hell, I'm pretty tolerant. I can have a civil conversation with terrorists over a beer. But Nazis? Something about them rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it was all those films from the war department as a child.
Oh, Disney, what fun you had in the 40's...
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Just Tony wrote: Are you of the opinion that there are no deplorables amongst the Democrat voter pool?
I wouldn't say none (because there are always exceptions), but I can say with a pretty firm degree of confidence that the sexists, Islamophobes, ect. voted far more for Trump than Clinton.
I doubt that given a large portion of Hillary voters wanted to specifically see a female president. Which is the very definition of sexist. Even Hillary herself said it would be great to have a female president.
Of course not all people voted for that reason and not many for that reason alone... but first female president was brought up a lot during the election. To say one side is sexist when the other side used sexism as part of it's campaign is ridiculous. Anybody with half a brain can see this in the voter interviews, speeches and news articles on the matter.
If you happen to lean sexist towards women I can see how one might not notice, but if you are neutral then it's pretty clear one side is just as sexist as the other at least (hint, the one who used sexism as part of the campaign).
"I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime." Is a quote directly from her. Sexism right there.
Again blatant sexism (really common mainstream too, not random huffer whales on obscure blogs).
Please, stop being silly. It's clear both sides have their cringe elements, to pretend one holds the majority is just a biased statement.
Claims like "Nazis loved Trump" are fine, but then groups as disgusting as communists also loved Hillary. Obviously the extremes of both sides come out to support the most mainstream things closest to "their side". You just tolerate say sexists towards women more than sexists towards men or communists more than you do Nazis. To say one side is worse is literally lying unless you sympathize with the extremes of your side.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 01:52:00
The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:15:40
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
ulgurstasta wrote: She is a warhawk and part of the warhawk faction in US politics. She has consistently voted for more aggressive US foreign policy and she has even been instrumental in the planning of at least 1 intervention. What does she have to do pass as a warhawk for you?
At the simplest definition of the term, for Clinton to be a warhawk she would have to be more aggressive than most US politicians. The easiest way to test this would be to pick the most hawkish half of congress, and see if she was more of a hawk than them. I invite you to name a Republican in congress who is more of a dove than Clinton. Don't have one? Because I can start naming Democrats who are way more hawkish than Clinton, guys like Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer, and that's just the senate off the top of my head.
The more complex test would be to take the definition of a warhawk as someone who has as a key part of their ideology and policy set a belief in US engagement overseas to meet some national objective. Such as the neo-cons, who believed in reshaping the world in a vision of US democracy, and using US military conquest to meet that aim. That's hawkish. Similarly, there are hawks right now who believe in containment of Iran as a key national objective, and are willing to threaten and use US military action to meet that aim. That's hawkish.
On the other hand, Clinton's foreign interventionism really comes in two forms, the first is by the old school 'USA world police', where she is willing to act in the event of a humanitarian disaster. This can be observed in the case of Libya, where US engagement was finally triggered only when a massacre by Gaddafi appeared imminent. The second kind is basically political convenience - she is happy to go along with a war if it is popular with the public, and this really is less of a comment on her war policy, and more on her overall political character.
So using the same descriptor for someone like Clinton, and for people who actually believe in US engagement to expand US power and influence is just making a nonsense of political terminology. But of course this isn't about political terminology or accuracy, is it?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
No, it is not sexist to ask women to vote for someone who understands their issues rather than someone who is their issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:19:27
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
No, it is not sexist to ask women to vote for someone who understands their issues rather than someone who is their issues.
Just because I am a man does not mean I understand the issues men face. If I said "im a dude, vote for me because I know male problems" then that would be sexist. I would never say that because it's a stupid thing to say and frankly it would be sexist. I know nothing of what, say, a homosexual suffers despite being the same gender.
Sexism through and through. You just happen to agree with the sexism, which is fine as long as you dont attack the other side for their version of sexism (if there is any).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:20:59
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
Going "A woman is more likely to understand the needs and challenges of women," doesn't fit the definition. It would be sexist if they went "Don't vote for Donald Trump, he's a man". Sexism requires discrimination based on sex, not the mere mention of sex.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
Going "A woman is more likely to understand the needs and challenges of women," doesn't fit the definition. It would be sexist if they went "Don't vote for Donald Trump, he's a man". Sexism requires discrimination based on sex, not the mere mention of sex.
Dont vote for a man, we have a women running.
Still sounds sexist dude.
Its possible to bring up issues without making the gender of the person the issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:22:38
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
Going "A woman is more likely to understand the needs and challenges of women," doesn't fit the definition. It would be sexist if they went "Don't vote for Donald Trump, he's a man". Sexism requires discrimination based on sex, not the mere mention of sex.
Dont vote for a man, we have a women running.
Still sounds sexist dude.
Try and actually read what I wrote.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:34:16
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
Going "A woman is more likely to understand the needs and challenges of women," doesn't fit the definition. It would be sexist if they went "Don't vote for Donald Trump, he's a man". Sexism requires discrimination based on sex, not the mere mention of sex.
Dont vote for a man, we have a women running.
Still sounds sexist dude.
Try and actually read what I wrote.
Fair enough, misread. My mistake. I still think that mind set, is "deplorable".
I do wonder, if Trump said, "vote for me I am a man" would you guys be so forgiving?
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
No, it is not sexist to ask women to vote for someone who understands their issues rather than someone who is their issues.
Just because I am a man does not mean I understand the issues men face. If I said "im a dude, vote for me because I know male problems" then that would be sexist. I would never say that because it's a stupid thing to say and frankly it would be sexist. I know nothing of what, say, a homosexual suffers despite being the same gender.
Sexism through and through. You just happen to agree with the sexism, which is fine as long as you dont attack the other side for their version of sexism (if there is any).
Well it is a good thing they didn't just say "Vote for Hillary because she's a woman and therefore will know about womens struggles" then. They also included her experiences in life which have given her those insights.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
feeder wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.
:sigh:
Keep that up... Trump will be re-elected.
You need a safe space?
Deplorables are a real thing, they held a conference shouting "Hail Trump", are committing hate crimes, and are actually racist homophobes who want to MAGA by banning all Muslims. We shouldn't have to refrain from pointing them out because non-deplorables are ashamed that they are in the same party or voted for the same guy.
Calling out hateful white nationalist and acknowledging that voting Trump doesn't automatically make you one of them is no different than calling out violent religious extremists and acknowledging that being Muslim doesn't automatically make you one.
To quote a favorite slogan of white Americans: "where are the leaders of the white community condemning their actions?"
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
No, it is not sexist to ask women to vote for someone who understands their issues rather than someone who is their issues.
Just because I am a man does not mean I understand the issues men face. If I said "im a dude, vote for me because I know male problems" then that would be sexist. I would never say that because it's a stupid thing to say and frankly it would be sexist. I know nothing of what, say, a homosexual suffers despite being the same gender.
Sexism through and through. You just happen to agree with the sexism, which is fine as long as you dont attack the other side for their version of sexism (if there is any).
Well it is a good thing they didn't just say "Vote for Hillary because she's a woman and therefore will know about womens struggles" then. They also included her experiences in life which have given her those insights.
So? Then just list the experiences then? My problem is, the average person would see the statement "vote for me im a women and..." and think that's horrid. Yet the people saying this sit there calling others deplorable (not all I know but a lot) while sitting there thinking stuff like this and worse.
Keeping up this way of thought just makes the average person, like me (and most people I know) confused and eventually you will lose support. In fact it's why many think Trump won (even if you think it's a silly reason, but hypocrisy is usually a big deal for people).
I was wrong about sexism (but come on, using your naughty bits as a reason to lead is silly, even if you elaborate on the fact). Then attacking the other side while your side has the support the one of the most horrid ideologies in the world is mind blowing. No wonder Trump won if this thread showcases the alternative to him.
No wonder the USA is described as divisive. It's ok to support one gender but not to dislike one gender? It's ok to have communist support but no Nazi support? It's ok make fun of a mans junk but not to call a women a fat pig? and so on and so on.
Keep calling one side deplorable while acting like you have moral high ground (when you dont) and Trump will just win again.
Again, yes I was wrong about sexism, it's not sexism it's just stupidity.
d-usa wrote: So I guess that settles that everyone who voted for Trump is a nationalist racist sexist because they voted for a white American male?
That's what social media and liberal reporting are trying to teach me, that and electors voting for John Kasich despite their district having voted for Trump. They are teaching me more than that, but I can only be indoctrinated so much at a time.
"Deplorable" or not, their votes got Trump into office and kept Clinton out of it. Deplorable or not, she needed those votes as much as non deplorable voters.
And when you need someone's vote, browbeating and shaming voters is not an effective way to persuade them to change their mind and their vote, its just going to provoke a "feth you!" response.
A more conciliatory approach is needed. Clinton showed that shaming voters does not work, you need to inspire them like Obama did. Didn't work for the Remain campaign in the UK Ind. referendum either.
No, she really didn't. The margins that she lost electoral votes in states she needed isn't nearly enough to claim she "needed" the minority of racist, sexist, donkey-caves she called out on the campaign trail. As we have discussed numerous times, the actual "deplorables" quote was about reaching out to all of non-donkey-caves that were thinking about voting for Trump, which were the actual handful of votes she needed to win. But politics being politics, it was spun a different way (on top of being a dumb thing to say to begin with, solely because she had to have know how people would take it).
That your hostile attitude to Republican voters was counter productive.
Are you speaking directly to me or just at me? I don't have a hostile attitude toward Republican voters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 02:58:31
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
d-usa wrote: So I guess that settles that everyone who voted for Trump is a nationalist racist sexist because they voted for a white American male?
That's what social media and liberal reporting are trying to teach me, that and electors voting for John Kasich despite their district having voted for Trump. They are teaching me more than that, but I can only be indoctrinated so much at a time.
You must not be paying much attention then, given the fact that the candidate that much of the social media and liberal reporting favored was (shock! horror!) a white male.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
She should have tried to get the racist/sexist/Islamophobic vote? The are a minority of Trump's voters, and virtually impossible for her to get them. That is a bad argument.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
No, she didn't need them because those voters were never going to support her. The misogynists, white supremacists, etc, that were labeled "deplorables" were committed to Trump and the republican party in general. The point of the "deplorables" comment was not to change their minds, but to tell the not-deplorable republican voters "hey, something is wrong here, you're better than this" and convince them to break away from the deplorables. Those were the votes Clinton had a realistic chance of getting, and she didn't insult them.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
No, she didn't need them because those voters were never going to support her. The misogynists, white supremacists, etc, that were labeled "deplorables" were committed to Trump and the republican party in general. The point of the "deplorables" comment was not to change their minds, but to tell the not-deplorable republican voters "hey, something is wrong here, you're better than this" and convince them to break away from the deplorables. Those were the votes Clinton had a realistic chance of getting, and she didn't insult them.
Yes, that's what she was trying to do... especially wooing the #NeverTrumpers.
However, her delivery was just awful and it forced pundits to defend it, and *they* were fething it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: She should have tried to get the racist/sexist/Islamophobic vote? The are a minority of Trump's voters, and virtually impossible for her to get them. That is a bad argument.
No, she was trying to go after the Republican #NeverTrumpers.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 03:12:14
No, she really didn't. The margins that she lost electoral votes in states she needed isn't nearly enough to claim she "needed" the minority of racist, sexist, donkey-caves she called out on the campaign trail. As we have discussed numerous times, the actual "deplorables" quote was about reaching out to all of non-donkey-caves that were thinking about voting for Trump, which were the actual handful of votes she needed to win. But politics being politics, it was spun a different way (on top of being a dumb thing to say to begin with, solely because she had to have know how people would take it).
So she wrote them off as a lost cause? Didn't make any effort to, I don't know, persuade them to change their minds? Or at least avoid pissing them off so much that it guarantees a high turnout from them? You can't afford to be picky about who votes for you. Writing off big swathes of the electorate because you don't like them ain't gonna negate their votes.
That your hostile attitude to Republican voters was counter productive.
Are you speaking directly to me or just at me? I don't have a hostile attitude toward Republican voters.
Says the person ranting about how sexist, racist and homophobic the supporters of the opposing sides candidate are. Whether accurate or not, its pretty damn hostile.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clinton and Remain have showed that politically correct negative campaigning simply doesn't work anymore. People everywhere are becoming immune to being shamed into voting for the Left and are increasingly responding to political correctness with a "feth you!". It only ended up helping Trump/Leave in the end.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 03:15:08
President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate Scott Pruitt, the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma and a frequent legal adversary to President Obama, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a transition official told The Hill.
If confirmed by the Senate to oversee the 15,000-employee agency, Pruitt would take the lead on dismantling the EPA regulations that Trump targeted throughout his campaign as job killers that restrict economic growth.
Reuters first reported the news Tuesday.
Pruitt has been a legal opponent of President Obama over nearly every major regulation and executive action, not only on environmental issues but also ObamaCare, immigration and bathroom use by transgender people.
Pruitt has led litigation against Obama’s landmark climate rule for power plants, as well as water regulations and standards for ground-level ozone pollution, haze, methane and more.
As EPA head, Pruitt would help carry out Trump’s campaign promises to repeal Obama’s entire executive climate change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan, which the president-elect said he will target in his first 100 days in office.
Democrats and enviromentalists are already gearing up to fight his nomination.
“We’re certainly going to draw a line in the sand,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee.
“This is the worst-case scenario when it comes to clean air and clean water, to nominate a climate denier to the agency charged with protecting our natural resources.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an EPW member, said he will “vigorously” oppose Pruitt, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said “there will be a fight” over his nomination.
“I think he has a record and it will scrutinized, and there will be opposition there as a result.”
Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway told reporters Wednesday that the transition team is used to criticism.
"We're very accustomed to the naysayers and the critics," she said, according to pool reports. "Attorney General Pruitt has great qualifications and a good record as AG of Oklahoma, and there were a number of qualified candidates for that particular position that the president-elect interviewed. We look forward to the confirmation hearings."
Trump wants to repeal the Clean Water Rule, roll back rules on fossil fuel production, review all existing regulations for potential repeal, put a moratorium on nearly all new regulations and require that two rules be repealed for every new rule put in place.
The Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of Obama’s climate push, ordering a 32 percent cut in the energy sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.
Trump sees the plan as part of a “war on coal” by Obama.
“We’re going to get those miners back to work,” Trump said at a campaign rally.
Pruitt has taken a lead role among Republican attorneys general challenging the plan and has argued it would shut down numerous coal-fired power plants in Oklahoma and raise electricity prices.
“This is an effort that I think is extraordinary in cost, extraordinary in scope, and I think extraordinary as it relates to the intrusion into the sovereignty of the states,” Pruitt said in September about the regulation.
He charged that the rule “coerces” states to reorganize their electricity systems and “commandeers” state resources to do that, in violation of the Constitution.
“It’s an invasion ... of the state regulatory domain, and it’s something that is unique and breathtaking as it relates to the kind of rulemaking the EPA has engaged in historically,” he said.
Pruitt and his fellow GOP attorneys general succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court to put an unprecedented pause on the rule earlier this year.
Pruitt has also been a key figure in fighting the Clean Water Rule, also known as Waters of the United States, which asserts federal jurisdiction over small waterways like wetlands and streams.
“This regulation usurps the state’s authority over its land and water use, and triggers numerous and costly obligations under the [Clean Water] Act for the state and its citizens,” he wrote last year in a court filing.
States and companies challenging the water rule also succeeded in convincing a federal court to block its implementation while it is litigated.
The president-elect has also said he’s strongly committed to protecting clean air and water and stopping drinking water contamination crises like in Flint, Mich., situations Trump calls “real environmental challenges.”
Pruitt’s opinion on climate change aligns with that of Trump, who repeatedly has dismissed global warming as a hoax, in conflict with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity through greenhouse gas emissions is the primary cause of changes in the climate.
He co-authored a piece in the Tulsa World in May that said the debate over climate “is far from settled” and that “scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”
“Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do,” he said in a March statement with another conservative attorney general.
Trump’s choice of a climate change skeptic for the EPA comes despite reports that his daughter Ivanka wants to take on fighting climate change as one of her priorities as first daughter.
Trump and his daughter also met earlier this week with former vice president and climate advocate Al Gore, a meeting Gore described as “very productive” and “extremely interesting.”
Pruitt has been Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2011. He’s a close ally of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the chamber’s most outspoken climate change skeptic.
Pruitt previously served eight years in Oklahoma’s Senate, where he was elected to GOP leadership. He’s been a private lawyer, an owner of a minor league baseball team and ran for the U.S. House of Representatives unsuccessfully in 2002.
He has a solidly pro-fossil fuel record.
Pruitt was implicated in a December 2014 New York Times investigation, which found that he sent a letter to the EPA complaining about the agency’s measurements of pollution that was secretly written by an oil and natural gas company, part of a “secretive alliance” between Republican attorneys general and energy companies.
Pruitt has received more than $300,000 in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests, according to the National Institute on State Money in Politics.
You can thank Harry Reid for nuking the filibuster... Democrats can't stop Trump's pick...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clinton and Remain have showed that politically correct negative campaigning simply doesn't work anymore. People everywhere are becoming immune to being shamed into voting for the Left and are increasingly responding to political correctness with a "feth you!". It only ended up helping Trump/Leave in the end.
Indeed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 03:20:02
