EPA's Science Advisory Board Has Not Met in 6 Months (scientificamerican.com) 212
The U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board has not met in at least six months, and some of its members say it's being sidelined to avoid getting in the way of agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's anti-regulatory agenda, Scientific American reported this week. From the report: Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork. That has prevented the group from meeting because there weren't enough members to make a quorum. The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy. The full board has not met since August, nor has it had any conference calls or votes. In the past, members would have had multiple interactions during that time period, said William Schlesinger, a board member who is an emeritus professor of biogeochemistry at Duke University. "I guess the Science Advisory Board still exists; I guess I'm still on it," he said. "I think the answer is maybe they're giving it what we used to call the 'pocket veto': If you don't meet, then the scientists are not a pain, because they don't have a forum."
The science is settled (Score:4, Insightful)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we all know the dangers of Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Coal . . .
The board, which typically has about 45 members,
. . . now meet the terror and horror of Big Boards! You'll never "settle" anything with that many members.
Whack the size down to 10. Make monthly meetings mandatory . . . otherwise you get booted from the board and lose all the privileges and compensation that goes with it. That would make the board effective in no time.
That, of course, assumes that you want the board to be effective.
Re:The science is settled (Score:5, Insightful)
That, of course, assumes that you want the board to be effective.
Trump doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Given the current president almost exclusively put people in charge of each department who were vocal opponents of the missions of their respective departments, I don’t think this result should be surprising in the least.
Except Ben Carson - I’m not sure he even knew HUD existed prior to 2017. Trump probably just figured he needed a black guy in charge of HUD, given the clientele.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hardly the worst he's done. He hasn't even nominated someone for the post of White House science advisor. More than a year into his administration, it's still vacant.
But why would he want advice from scientists? If God had meant us to think rationally, he would have given us wings!
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you are working for the government, it really doesn't matter if you are a "scientist" or an "expert," because your primary role is that of a bureaucrat. Removing, as much as possible, bureaucracy (and, therefore, inevitably political outcomes), is removing the impediments of doing the proper job of experts and scientists.
Re:And economics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump realizes that the trade war has been on for _decades_, wants to start fighting back.
The two biggest up and coming economies (China and India) are both very protectionist. It's time for that to change.
China and India can't retaliate by imposing tariffs of their own, because those tariffs have been there forever. Apparently having low cost labor isn't enough for them, they also need local ownership rules, high import tariffs and currency pegs. All protectionist laws.
Re: (Score:2)
They already did, 20+ years ago. Revenue stream is long dead, they can only beat a dead horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese machine tools are sloppy junk. They won't even buy them. They prefer German though. Jap hate keeps them from going there. The Germans are making fortunes manufacturing tools in S. Korea for China.
Chinese Cutters (end mills etc) are OK, but that industry is so automated they don't have a _huge_ advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate drumpft in ways that most of you can't imagine beginning to fathom. I am however in favor of tariffs, protectionism is how economies are built and industries fostered. It is what got China so big so quick. We need strategic tariffs to protect our industries. Instead of protecting extractionist and unadvanced industries like chemically based agriculture, we should be protecting and holding on to high-technology and advanced manufacturing. Our current policies are geared toward making us a third-w
Re:And economics? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're trying to change the subject. The EPA is supposed to get advice on both science and economics, and take both of them into account when issuing regulations. The science advisory board is there to advise them about science. But the administration doesn't like the science, so they shut down the advisory board so they don't have to listen to advice about it. You speak as if taking economic effects into account was somehow a replacement for taking science into account. It isn't. You need both, and they're ignoring the science.
But as for your question about the "science" of economics (believe me, it's not a science), yes, they're doing a pretty good job of ignoring that too. If they actually cared about long term economic effects, they'd be seriously worried about the massive costs of not addressing climate change. But their idea of "economics" is doing whatever's best for the companies that donate to their campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
Applying math to a theoretical model does not make something a science. Economics is not science, it has no basis (no laws of physics) other than theories which have been proven false and inapplicable in all meaningful situations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing sex with gender. Educate yourself about the differences, re-read what you wrote, then come back and apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you said is correct.
An embryo has the potential to be a human but as it can't survive on its own, it isn't a human. Also, you aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth. Pro-life people don't want to incarcerate human beings for the thought crime of getting high on "disallowed" drugs.
Nuclear power is not the best option as its inherent dangers aren't worth the benefit. Solar, wind, water are much better options for power with less greenhouse gasses.
Science has never weighed in in GMOs, only corporati
Re: (Score:2)
An embryo has the potential to be a human but as it can't survive on its own, it isn't a human.
Can a 2-day-old baby survive on its own? If not supported by other humans, they will die 100% of the time. "Can't survive on its own" is not a criteria scientists use to qualify if something is alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Given adequate food, water, love, and safety, yes, it can survive on its own.
Scientists also don't use "my holy book written by a series of half insane ancient jewish guys says so" as the criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Given adequate food, water, love, and safety, yes, it can survive on its own.
Well, now we're adding more conditions.
There are babies born (sometimes through C-section, sometimes due to other trauma) extremely prematurely. The closer we hew to the natural 9-month cycle, the better for the resulting baby, but it's clear that there's no hard-and-fast line.
Scientists also don't use "my holy book written by a series of half insane ancient jewish guys says so" as the criteria.
Sure, but one doesn't have to be religious to have a moral objection to abortion.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Conditions are necessary as they are in any real-life case. All humans require adequate, food, water, and safety for survival. Love seems to be more necessary for the newborns for healthy development though it should be there for optimality at any age.
You're right of course that one doesn't have to be religious to have a moral objection to abortion. One does have to be religious to be batshit insane loco crazy against abortion to the point of being willing to murder or wish death and all s
Re: (Score:2)
There is no difference between the far left or far right when it comes to dealing with science. Both sides have predetermined positions that they will never even think of changing no matter how many facts are presented to debunk their nonsensical view of reality.
The US is sleeping. (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'woke' metaphor is appropriate.
Government is what you get when people get together and decide how they want to live together, beyond just tribal rules.
Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence.
Here's the Extra History take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Science now holds no place at the table with this latest administration. Liberal or conservative, this should not be accepted in ANY form of governance.
Indeed - it shouldn't even be called an actual government anymore. What we have is a largely sleeping body where representation of the United States, it's scientific community, and its ideas should be.
But our current administration has no interest in sharing space of any kind, in communicating ideas, of advancing any but their own narrowest of interests. They'll lavishly communicate with dictators of any kind, but never offer a second to science.
Which is a shame - because they're largely the last place of noteworthy power that baby boomers will hold in this world. This will be their legacy, more than most things.
It's such a shame they spend that power sleeping, while being robbed of everything they used to care about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Government is what you get when people get together and decide how they want to live together, beyond just tribal rules.
Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence."
And what was the key insight of the Founding Fathers in their observations? That governments are made of people, and people are prone to corruption and motivated primarily by self interest. So they built a democratic republic (not a democracy - they
Re: (Score:2)
Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence.
Here's the Extra History take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Dude. Thank you for posting that. Makes me wish they'd taught history differently in school.
Maybe some day the guys who made Avatar: The Legend of Korra will pick that story up and make it a series.
Re:The US is sleeping. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, buddy. Take your meds.
Re:The US is sleeping. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do understand that the laws of physics don't give a flying shit about your particular political ideology, right? You do understand that whether the Trump Administration accepts or ignores science, the physical laws of nature will continue to do what they do. The best any government can do is create policies based upon the best understanding of how the universe functions, and it does not matter even the tiniest bit what that government, the experts it employs, or yes, even the fucking voters think of it. The universe does not care. It doesn't care about socialism, capitalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, or any other fucking -ism. It doesn't care about Federalism, Localism, or any idea great or small.
If something is toxic, it's fucking toxic. If something causes the waters to rise, it causes the waters to rise. If it causes surface temperatures to increase, it causes surface temperatures to increase. Everything you care about is fucking irrelevant at the end of the day. What counts is only what the physical laws of the universe will inevitably cause. If a stream gets poisoned, cutting back on the number of scientists isn't going to make the poisons go away.
Somewhere in your fucking head there must be some neurons that fundamentally can cope with the notion that actually listening to what an expert panel says, as imperfect as that may be, is better than just doing whatever the fuck is profitable at the moment. If not, then why bother having government at all? I dump shit in your water supply, mercury in your food chain, and it won't matter, because somehow magically your political ideology apparently can morph the very laws of nature.
Fuck me, there some intensely stupid people out there, and a lot of them seem to post here.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly correct
Re: (Score:2)
What toxic substance is not being regulated by the EPA that was authorized by law to be regulated? The laws of physics do not care about how you classify CO2. The law sure as shit does though. Can the EPA, within the current law, redefine CO2 as a pollutant to be regulated? Can the EPA within the existing law regulate your breathing hole?
I am sorry but the existing law didn't regulate CO2. The EPA redefining it as a pollutant is an overreach. How to regulate is a contentious issue that should not be left to
Re: (Score:2)
The universe doesn't care about the US Constitution either.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Non of the solutions for global warming would stop anything so why bother. At least then we wouldn't have to hear your sanctimonious opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are solutions. Stop puking CO2 into the atmosphere. But that's where science and technology hit politics and economics, and so long as it is more convenient for politicians to either kick the can down the road or outright deny there is even a problem, those emissions will continue, perhaps being reduced somewhat, but not enough. But yes, there's a bloody solution to the problem, but it would require honesty and accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Honesty and accountability... But you just said the universe doesn't care about the law, which is concerned about those things. Now you are using the law to try and stop the inevitable. Here's a thought, when it comes to the law how things are done is important.
Re:The US is sleeping. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice work. You've defined a new -ism. Scienceism. I suppose we should let you appoint the 'scientists' to be the rulers under this new -ism.
I suppose you think what you've written is somehow intelligent? You're wrong. You can't argue with science like you can't argue with a bullet flying in your direction. He's not saying you have to do what the scientists say. He's saying that ignoring a scientific problem won't make it go away. The new conservatives believe in denying reality because it would inconvenience their opinions, and that is exactly why I stopped being a conservative. Reality just doesn't care about your ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't argue with science like you can't argue with a bullet flying in your direction.... He's saying that ignoring a scientific problem won't make it go away.
We are going to hit our Paris accord goals without being in the accord. What scientific problem are we ignoring? The politics of science isn't about the definition of the problem (although it can be). It's about the solution. Can the EPA redefine CO2 to be a pollutant within the existing law? I don't think it can and Congress is the one to act on the science. They are the ones that require consensus. When they do come to consensus the direction of the EPA won't change on the next administration.
Re:The US is sleeping. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that isn't the scientific process. That sort of describes peer review, but science is not a debate society. Debate .at be part of it, but it isn't by ant measure the entirety of the methodology. What you're describing is modern conservatism's strawman of science.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect I have more knowledge of science in my left testicle that you do in your entire body.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just like to add, Kuhn has been heavily misrepresented, and even he admitted that his view of science was a bit distorted from how science actually happens. Most science really doesn't happen as paradigm shifts, but simply as the slow march of advancement as more knowledge is gained and better techniques developed. There really aren't that many gotcha moments in science. It's a much more mundane set of disciplines than that.
Re: (Score:2)
And Jesus Fucking Christ! The whole scientific process involves 'arguing with science' and doing so vigorously, at all times. Question everything, believe nothing whole-cloth.
Part of the scientific process involves gathering and examining evidence. Debate does occur but that is not the totality of the process. For example, plenty of debate occurred when Einstein proposed General Relativity as it was fundamentally ground breaking in understanding the nature of the universe. It was not until evidence started to appear that General Relativity was generally accepted. Even now scientists know that General Relativity is inadequate to describe aspects of the known universe like what ha
Re: (Score:2)
I really do enjoy how eagerly you guys offer yourselves up as examples of just how stupid the posters here have become.
I suppose we should let you appoint the 'scientists' to be the rulers under this new -ism.
GP said we should listen to the people who study these things for a living because our actions have consequences and ignoring them doesn't make them disappear. This is a profoundly basic lesson that many of our children grasp early on, but still somehow manages to elude you. You should really be embarrassed signing your name to such retarded arguments, lord knows I'm embarr
Re: (Score:3)
Some scientists and engineers in government would be a great idea. That's not some made up boogeyman called scienceism. That is common sense. And if those domain experts aren't in office, second best is to have a formal procedure in place to get some input from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but unfortunately we are living in an alternate reality that closely mirrors Idiocracy and/or Back to the Future 2.
Re: (Score:3)
'Science' is not a political ratchet to tighten around people whose actions you oppose.
Who is tightening what? In the some areas like climate change, warning the world that polluting the air with emissions is having a disastrous effect might trigger you but that's your problem if you can't handle someone telling you the truth.
Nice work. You've defined a new -ism. Scienceism. I suppose we should let you appoint the 'scientists' to be the rulers under this new -ism.
And which rulers are those? How many of the world leaders are scientists again? Very few. Most of them are lawyers. Does that destroy your world view?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if we want to go beyond biogeochemist, I would love to know how hyper-leftist/Marxist physics differs from rightist/Conservative physics, or if we really get down to basics, how hyper-leftist/Marxist mathematics differs from rightist/Conservative mathematics.
And is there a centrist biogeochemistry/physics/mathematics that differs t
Re: (Score:2)
how exactly does hyper-leftist/Marxist biogeochemistry differ from (say) rightist/Conservative biogeochemistry
Solutions. What is the proper role of government. If the current law is unable to deal with a particular biogeochemistry problem then what should happen; Can the government loosely reinterpret the law to get what you want?
Re:The US is sleeping. (Score:4, Interesting)
As it states in the linked Scientific American article;
The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy.
I can't comment on treating a 'farm drainage ditch be treated like a "navigable waterway"', as you don't cite any reference (and, as I say, I'm a foregner so if it is commonly cited in the US National News I wouldn't be aware of it), but if there is dodgy science behind it, then I would expect the Advisory Board to have an opinion (i.e. 'evaluate').
But then I suppose in a way you're correct when you say 'The EPA has had little to do with science in a long time.'. Well, at least six months according to the article!
Re: The US is sleeping. (Score:2, Insightful)
Holy shit if you think Obama was hyper leftist or Marxist you are like maximum level retard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yay! I found another moron to "foe"
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly one mentioning a difference between the sexes:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteoporosis/causes/ [www.nhs.uk]
And a couple making specific references to ethnic groups (and differences between them):
https://www.blood.co.uk/why-give-blood/the-need-for-blood/black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-communities/ [blood.co.uk]
https://www.blood.co.uk/why-give-blood/the-need-for-blood/ [blood.co.uk]
biogeochemistry (Score:2, Offtopic)
biogeochemistry
I read that as:
bigegochemistry
Like 10 times till I got it right :l
Re: (Score:2)
Both are right.
Just a vacation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe our Norwegian friends might stop by...
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they feel like going slumming
Get over it (Score:2, Funny)
Trump won and Science lost, so get over it, snowflakes.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump won and Science lost
We lost a lot more than Science.
Didn't you know (Score:2)
Didn't you now science is now owned by The Pres and his party ?
The Roman Catholic Church use to define science based upon the scripture until I think the 19th or 18th century.
So we (US) have been moving slowly back to that time period, where real provable science is fake and real science is just entertainment :)
Strange times we live in, many people running the US rejects Science were Roman Catholic Church seems to be a leader in science.
FTFY (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy fix... just meet! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If only it were that easy! No, they can't just get together on their own. That is not an official meeting of the scientific advisory board. They can't officially consider any EPA business or issue any official advice.
Notice the agency's excuse. "Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork." And a bit later in the article. "He blamed the delay on the government's bureaucratic human resources process and said the official start date for many new me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These boards are a pain in the ass (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been on them. They are always for show and politically correct. One member from this place. One member from there. One Black. One Hispanic. Equality for women. One union rep, one from academia, one from the public sector. And every single person there has a political agenda to push, something they want done in the name of "justice" for their cause. Everyone tries one upmanship and grandstanding and thinks they can control the agency from their chair around the table. Advisory committees are not worth the cost the agency must pay for their lunches. It looks good on a resume and is a great excuse for a junket away from work so your employer thinks you're "contributing to the public good." and putting a feather in your oranization's cap as well as your own. It's a waste of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of hate, no evidence. Sounds familiar.
Blue Ribbon Panel (Score:2)
We need a blue ribbon panel of agency experts to investigate the problem and advise the president. Oh wait, Hillary lost.
Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not governance in any political affiliation. This is treason and abdication of duty. Prison can't come soon enough for these fools.
Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.
Prison time usually requires the commission of a crime. At this point, we have no direct evidence Trump committed any crimes here. We have a lot of theories about possible crimes being investigated, but being investigated isn't evidence of a crime. No crimes are in evidence and Treason isn't really possible at this point so I think you are rattling on about nothing but wild conspiracy theories for now..
Can we at least wait until the evidence comes out before we make wildly unlikely charges like Treason?
No? Ok.. Then stay with the partisan political craziness that drives all this pointless wrangling...
Re: Donald Trump is a pure traitor. (Score:2, Informative)
Letâ(TM)s see.
- Many of Trumpâ(TM)s campaign associates have either admitted to or are being prosecuted for crimes
- He gave classified information to Russians
- he ask the FBI Director to go easy on the associate that has admitted to a crime. Then fired him when he did not comply.
- He canâ(TM)t criticize Putin or enforce sanctions that a both Republicans and Democrats think are necessary.
- he wonâ(TM)t taking any action to protect the mid-term election
- He brought his son-in-law in the
Re: (Score:2)
You are toting a huge conspiracy theory there AC...
Most of what you point to either couldn't be a crime because Trump is president and has the legal right to do what you claim is a crime... Some things really are not a crime when you consider the actual known facts. The rest are not crimes by Trump no matter how you slice it.
I get the feeling you are just pushing hard to make these claims because you are just upset with Trump having the gall to get elected...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. (Score:5, Insightful)
Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.
Trump's action may not amount to the legal definition of treason, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that Trump has betrayed the trust of the American people, and has been negligent in his duties as president...
Some people get fired up and claim it's treason, but it's really what Trump denounced to get elected, good old corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By plenty of evidence, you mean anonymously sourced or unsourced media stories that cannot be corroborated, and are quickly forgotten even when the facts eventually come to light because the media is on to the next faux scandal they cannot support. This is what we have accused Fox News of for years, and now that all media outlets are culpable you become credulous of their claims.
So no, there is no evidence of treason, no evidence of corruption, no evidence of negligence. You are living in a fantasy land i
Re: (Score:2)
Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.
Trump's action may not amount to the legal definition of treason, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that Trump has betrayed the trust of the American people, and has been negligent in his duties as president...
Some people get fired up and claim it's treason, but it's really what Trump denounced to get elected, good old corruption.
So can we admit that this is NOT a question of crimes or treason then? That those who make such claims are not being helpful?
IF you really believe that Trump has betrayed the country, then you will have a chance in 2020 to get somebody else elected. I'm going to offer one bit of advice... It MIGHT be a good idea to save your attacks for the election. At this point, attacking Trump relentlessly about unproven theories will only strengthen his ability to defend himself during the campaign... "They've been
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, attacking Trump relentlessly about unproven theories will only strengthen his ability to defend himself during the campaign... "They've been attacking me on this since day one, where is their proof after 4 years? There isn't any. This is all they got, but I've got these results..." The only reason for keeping this up now is to stymie Trump's efforts to make things better because you are afraid they might actually work..
Trump's a born liar, he's going to make the argument that everything bad that anyone says about him is lies no matter what anyone does. It'll either be "they've been complaining for years about me" or "suddenly they have complaints about me because it's election time". Knowing Trump, he might actually say both of those in the same sentence. How about we just try to offer and accept honest criticism where it's due? Not everything Trump does is bad, but I'm hard pressed to come up with many examples where
Re: (Score:2)
So you are afraid that Trump's actions might actually work then... It's not about all the supposed crimes he's accused of committing, you admitted that... Maybe you just don't like him? No?
But you cannot bring yourself to say anything nice here? The tax cuts? The elimination of the ACA mandate? His massive reductions in the burdensome regulations his administration has been undoing? Nothing?
I suggest you actually go take a look at what he's really accomplished here. Not what the talking heads are say
Re: (Score:2)
So you are afraid that Trump's actions might actually work then... It's not about all the supposed crimes he's accused of committing, you admitted that... Maybe you just don't like him? No?
You just don't understand people, do you? People aren't afraid that Trump's actions will work, they're afraid that they will fail spectacularly and everyone else will be left paying the bills for Trump's failures.
But you cannot bring yourself to say anything nice here?
Nope, when has Trump ever done anything nice?
The tax cuts?
Primarily going to the people who need the tax relief the least. It'll likely be popular but it's poor fiscal policy, America's children will be paying off the debt this tax break is going to incur for generations. It's yet another example of how the
Some signs (Score:2)
Firing Comey is entirely likely to result in an obstruction of justice charge, regardless of the results of the probe. I think that at the moment, the odds are against conviction. I would like to think that a charge of treason would be impossible regardless of any actions taken, given that we are not in a declared war, but apparently we have a bad history of ignoring that provision.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. It was entirely within Trump's lawful right as President to fire the Director of the FBI. Not to mention all of the howls from the left demanding Obama fire him when he was in office.
Re: (Score:2)
That's crazy...
Legally, Trump CAN fire Comey for any reason INCLUDING refusing to stop an investigation he doesn't like. It's happened in the past, no obstruction of justice charges where made at the time. Trump is NOT saying he fired Comey to stop an investigation and gave other reasons which you obviously don't believe, but are plausible. You try to invent something by tying two separate events together, but it is entirely possible they are unrelated and you cannot prove they are.
So, there can be NO
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, it's not relevant whether the act was legal, as long as it had the effect of impeding the investigation, or was done with that motivation. Obstruction of justice charges were brought against Clinton under circumstances which were at least as dubious. I'm not actually suggesting any claims other than that charges will likely be presented; it's just as likely as not that this will be done by one of the Congressional probes if it's not a direct result of the Mueller investigation. Whether the charge w
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was a smart thing to do, but Trump CAN effectively fire Muller by firing people until he comes up with somebody who will do what he wants. As you point out, it would not go unnoticed and Congress has the ability to deal with such abuses though the impeachment process.
Comey's firing WAS within Trump's direct purview. The Director of the FBI serves at the president's pleasure and can be let go for ANY reason, including for not following an order to stop an investigation. This would NOT be
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop ascribing positions to me.
Again, whether the action is authorized is irrelevant to whether or not it can be considered obstruction.
I think that your predictions are mostly good, except that they neglect the scenario in which Trump is actually guilty of something. I'm sure it's an oversight. However, I also suspect that someone on the D team will find it politically expedient to attempt impeachment regardless of the results of either the elections or the Mueller investigation.
Uranium One (Score:2)
Clinton did not have any authority to deny that trade deal. Uranium One isn't even an American company. For a couple years, some uranium was exported to Canada for processing, and returned to the US. Due to how that works [uranium.info], it can technically be said that some uranium mined in the US in that brief period was exported to Japan and western Europe. No one in the US sold a damn thing.
You are a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to ask for an increase in your meds. Also, please ask someone to hold your guns if the voices keep coming.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you'll continue with the smug attitude when your children blame you for the horror drumpf will have visited upon their future. Sadly, drumpf won't finish his term and the much more focusedly evil penis breath pence will.
HIllary lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hear you and I agree.
The EPA is one of those necessary evil parts of what should be the smallest government we can manage. I think the issue has been the liberal's approach of making government agencies so they have authority of law to pass "regulations" which carry the force of law and using that ability to further their political, social, and economic views. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and this stuff is getting rolled back by the other party, they are coming unglued. This shouldn't happen
Re:Carpenters Like Hammers (Score:5, Insightful)
Your metaphor is wrong. The advisory board is full of scientists. They apply science to issues. Science is not a single instrument, but it is a way to address issues methodically and rational to avoid anecdotal "facts" which can lead you in the wrong way. Presently, you are losing your government. You will end up in feudalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The current Us government is weakening the ability of the state. Therefore, it cannot act on the behalf of the people. What you need is a powerful state and a lot of democratic control and checks and balances. For example, the parliament should be the place where laws are made. The president should only have executive powers. The main goal of the main state should be supporting social and technical standards, provide security when this cannot be done by each federal state etc. For example, the federal gover
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for posting this. I was too demotivated by the volume of ignorance to reply to the idiotic rightist AC poster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We are way beyond "regulatory capture" now. It is a full-on hostile takeover.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it when the little red LED next to a user's name gets confirmed with their new posts... It cuts out ambiguity.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I have a crippling illness but you just lifted my spirits. It's always important to remember there are others worse off.
Re: (Score:2)
I am happy to have lifted your spirits. Hope you are doing well.
Remember that many of us are in support of people with crippling illnesses getting the help they need and are happy to pay taxes toward those ends. Same as we are happy to help support those who are in less-than-fortunate economic circumstances through the bad choice they made in being born to non-wealthy parents, or having been caught up in the racist legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that many of us are in support of people with crippling illnesses getting the help they need and are happy to pay taxes toward those ends.
As a point of pride I have never taken a government handout or public charity. Instead of taxes perhaps you might think about giving to one of the many community organizations that are much more efficient at helping those in need.
Re: Are we blaming this on Trump (Score:2)
Your particular situation or views doesn't change mine. Best wishes!
Re: (Score:2)
Brave words from an AC