A thread for Democrats: let's face it, there's no common ground with modern Republicans

[code1211]

So how did removing the safety measures to prevent another BP oil spill have "pros and cons" to it? You got awful quiet when I took you up on your offer to pick a policy removal that can/could cause the most environmental damage.

Don't worry, that's what I expected so I wasn't let down at all.

Sorry, I've been our of town on vacation. I didn't know you'd be taking attendance.

You still have not listed a particular regulation stopped and shown the real world impact of the disasters that rose from that stoppage.

Whatchagot?

 

[Mustachio]

With respect, you STILL have not cited a particular regulation that was rolled back to support your angst. The very broad statements regarding the safety regulations are not really meaningful. Also, the specific reasons to roll them back is not stated. Were they poorly written? Were they overly vague allowing unrestricted interpretation by the zealots enforcing them? Are they duplicates? Are they contradictory? There are a lot of questions.

If the various entities involved had complied with the regulations existing at the time that they violated, would this accident have ever occurred in the first place?

Were additional regulations required? Were the existing, violated regulations sufficient if they had been observed? If regulations are ignored, would additional ignored regulations help?

The source you cite is vague and unspecific.

What was the exact regulation that was "rolled back" and what is the damage that HAS ALREADY RESULTED?

Were there REALLY 80 regulations added as a result of that accident? Were any regulations already in force cancelled in light of the new, improved regulations?

You hate Trump and you wish you had a foundation to support your blind hatred. I get it.

I'm only asking that you provide that foundation AS IT EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD.

If it does not exist, that's fine. You are still free to hate without cause or rationality.

If it DOES exist, you should be able to link to it.

BP, contractors violated safety rules, U.S. inquiry finds - Los Angeles Times

Oh, please, Trump is a puppet for big business and he wins because he elicits hatred and a fear that our country will be taken over by lawless immigrants. I certainly hate that any man would compromise his morality for fame, power, and wealth, but he's far from the first. If he went down, Pence would rise up on the same platform. It doesn't matter - this is by far the most corrupt administration in history. They are so corrupt that they've won lawsuits on the ground that they were vocal about their plans to be corrupt. But if me having a terrible case of TDS (I actually have an auto-immune disease which is much less pleasant) allows you to pin all these wild and accurate facts on that, go ahead. Think less better.

Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems.

-The interior department.

See "safety regulations" and "rules" up there? BP was at fault for the last oil spill because they didn't follow safety regulations. It's true, these are different ones. Different as in better. If Obama's new regulations were followed, we'd be pretty safe. Now, not so much.

But I want to get back to the pros and cons thing you mentioned. You said we can examine what's good about the 80+ rollbacks and elimination of environmental safety protection. What's bad about ensuring we don't have another BP oil spill and what are the "pros" of eliminating these safety measures?

And stop asking me to prove that something (as is the case with some of these rollbacks) that they've been bad for the environment. You can allow people to start overfishing the oceans and it would be catastrophic, but not after two months. So your criterion is irrelevant.

 

[Mustachio]

Sorry, I've been our of town on vacation. I didn't know you'd be taking attendance.

You still have not listed a particular regulation stopped and shown the real world impact of the disasters that rose from that stoppage.

Whatchagot?

That's fine. Thank you for responding. You responded with the same straw man argument, but that's all I can get out of you. You were the one that said let's examine the pros and cons. So stick to your word: what are the pros of eliminating the Obama era safety measures to prevent oil spills?

 

[code1211]

Oh, please, Trump is a puppet for big business and he wins because he elicits hatred and a fear that our country will be taken over by lawless immigrants. I certainly hate that any man would compromise his morality for fame, power, and wealth, but he's far from the first. If he went down, Pence would rise up on the same platform. It doesn't matter - this is by far the most corrupt administration in history. They are so corrupt that they've won lawsuits on the ground that they were vocal about their plans to be corrupt. But if me having a terrible case of TDS (I actually have an auto-immune disease which is much less pleasant) allows you to pin all these wild and accurate facts on that, go ahead. Think less better.


-The interior department.

See "safety regulations" and "rules" up there? BP was at fault for the last oil spill because they didn't follow safety regulations. It's true, these are different ones. Different as in better. If Obama's new regulations were followed, we'd be pretty safe. Now, not so much.

But I want to get back to the pros and cons thing you mentioned. You said we can examine what's good about the 80+ rollbacks and elimination of environmental safety protection. What's bad about ensuring we don't have another BP oil spill and what are the "pros" of eliminating these safety measures?

And stop asking me to prove that something (as is the case with some of these rollbacks) that they've been bad for the environment. You can allow people to start overfishing the oceans and it would be catastrophic, but not after two months. So your criterion is irrelevant.

You're flailing.

 

[code1211]

That's fine. Thank you for responding. You responded with the same straw man argument, but that's all I can get out of you. You were the one that said let's examine the pros and cons. So stick to your word: what are the pros of eliminating the Obama era safety measures to prevent oil spills?

I am not even presenting an argument as you have presented NOTHING against which to argue.

YOU asserted that there have been regulations cancelled that damage the environment.

I have merely asked you to present the cancelled regulation(s) that concern you AND the actual real world damage caused by those cancellations.

You never did it, you refuse to do it and I suspect you can't do it because the damages you imagine are imaginary.

Prove me wrong.

If you never present anything from the REAL world because no evidence exists in the REAL world, the only thing(s) left is your imagined issue.

Find & Share Quotes with Friends

Sign in with FacebookSign in
options




​

[h=2]Richard Brinsley Sheridan > Quotes > Quotable Quote[/h][h=1]“The right honorable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts.”[/h]
― Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Sheridaniana: Or, Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan

 

[Mustachio]

I am not even presenting an argument as you have presented NOTHING against which to argue.

YOU asserted that there have been regulations cancelled that damage the environment.

I have merely asked you to present the cancelled regulation(s) that concern you AND the actual real world damage caused by those cancellations.

You never did it, you refuse to do it and I suspect you can't do it because the damages you imagine are imaginary.

Prove me wrong.

If you never present anything from the REAL world because no evidence exists in the REAL world, the only thing(s) left is your imagined issue.

Find & Share Quotes with Friends

Sign in with FacebookSign in
options




​

[h=2]Richard Brinsley Sheridan > Quotes > Quotable Quote[/h][h=1]“The right honorable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts.”[/h]
― Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Sheridaniana: Or, Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan

So what you're saying, in effect, if we elect a Democrat who decides we will no longer stand will Israel, you'll be fine with that unless you start seeing that no longer standing with Israel is harming America? Because you sound like a professional shill. It's a compliment, it's almost hard to continue responding to me after continually acting like Buster Keaton in a wind storm in this thread. But you effortlessly pull it off.

But you WANTED to examine the pros and cons of these rollbacks. I went with one, because I started with 6 or 7 I think (do you remember that?) and you had no response. You said we'd examine the pros and cons. I did so. Pros: oil companies make a little more money. Cons: may create enormous environmental disaster. I think 99% of people would agree with me that the pros aren't worth it. But you won't touch that, because shills don't respond to questions they know will destroy their prior arguments. You've got a little Stephen Miller in you, if you were 55 years younger you'd have quite the future. Joking, joking.

 

[D_NATURED]

There is an old debate saying--If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the theory on your side, pound the theory. If you have neither facts nor theory, pound the podium. I see you are an old had with a shoe on the podium.

You forgot the last part:

If you're Donald Trump, pound some chick who's not your wife and lie about it.

 

[Jay59]

You forgot the last part: If you're Donald Trump, pound some chick who's not your wife and lie about it.

I did not forget and you are more than a little bit twisted.

 

[Jay59]

So what you're saying, in effect, if we elect a Democrat who decides we will no longer stand will Israel, you'll be fine with that unless you start seeing that no longer standing with Israel is harming America? Because you sound like a professional shill. It's a compliment, it's almost hard to continue responding to me after continually acting like Buster Keaton in a wind storm in this thread. But you effortlessly pull it off.

But you WANTED to examine the pros and cons of these rollbacks. I went with one, because I started with 6 or 7 I think (do you remember that?) and you had no response. You said we'd examine the pros and cons. I did so. Pros: oil companies make a little more money. Cons: may create enormous environmental disaster. I think 99% of people would agree with me that the pros aren't worth it. But you won't touch that, because shills don't respond to questions they know will destroy their prior arguments. You've got a little Stephen Miller in you, if you were 55 years younger you'd have quite the future. Joking, joking.

He's right. You are flailing.

For example, you admit that BP did not follow the rules in place when they had the big spill. A valid argument would be to fault the Obama administration for not enforcing the regulations. You claim that new rules would prevent the spill. Logically, it makes no difference which rules are being ignored, because the rules are not a part of the problem. Yet you accuse him of straw arguments.

 

[code1211]

So what you're saying, in effect, if we elect a Democrat who decides we will no longer stand will Israel, you'll be fine with that unless you start seeing that no longer standing with Israel is harming America? Because you sound like a professional shill. It's a compliment, it's almost hard to continue responding to me after continually acting like Buster Keaton in a wind storm in this thread. But you effortlessly pull it off.

But you WANTED to examine the pros and cons of these rollbacks. I went with one, because I started with 6 or 7 I think (do you remember that?) and you had no response. You said we'd examine the pros and cons. I did so. Pros: oil companies make a little more money. Cons: may create enormous environmental disaster. I think 99% of people would agree with me that the pros aren't worth it. But you won't touch that, because shills don't respond to questions they know will destroy their prior arguments. You've got a little Stephen Miller in you, if you were 55 years younger you'd have quite the future. Joking, joking.

Cite one particular regulation that was cancelled and the negative environmental impact that resulted. You say the example exists. Cite it.

I'm not asking for anything beyond actual, real world evidence of your ravings.

You continue to dodge.

I'll wait for you to actually present something other than your own unsupported opinions.

There are STILL 65,000 pages of regulation that are enforceable by nameless zealots who hate you yearning to limit your freedoms. This should provide you with great comfort.

To help put this into perspective, the pages of the Federal Registry printed on normal copy paper and stacked vertically used to be used to be about 30 feet tall. Now it's down to about 20 feet tall.

Pictured below is the average businessman planning the installation of a single window in his own privately owned building on his own privately owned property.

 

[Mustachio]

He's right. You are flailing.

For example, you admit that BP did not follow the rules in place when they had the big spill. A valid argument would be to fault the Obama administration for not enforcing the regulations. You claim that new rules would prevent the spill. Logically, it makes no difference which rules are being ignored, because the rules are not a part of the problem. Yet you accuse him of straw arguments.

After the BP oil spill Obama had a study conducted to determine the cause and recommend new oversight rules. He then, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management enacted “the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history.” The new rules and regulations were revoked by Trump on June 20th of last year.

Is that an acceptable argument? Allow me to address his use of straw men.

He continually claims that the only way I can show that 80+ and counting environmental rollbacks are not inherently bad for the environment unless I can show studies that prove these rollbacks have caused problems. So let's look at this:

On September 14, 2017, the Pruitt EPA announced that it would be reconsidering its Coal Ash Disposal Rule, the first federal rule governing disposal of coal ash, the by-product created from burning coal. Coal ash (also called coal combustion residuals) contains toxic pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium that can leach into groundwater, surface water, or air and threaten health and the environment without proper disposal controls.

And the end result (it's actually not the end, further rollbacks are anticipated in 2020):

Industry officials petitioned the Trump administration last year to reconsider existing standards for the fine powder and sludge — which contains mercury, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals — and the new regulation expands on the proposal then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued in March.
Wheeler worked for several years as a lobbyist for Murray Energy, which supported reconsideration of the coal ash rule, before joining the administration this spring. He said in an interview with The Washington Post this month that he has not lobbied EPA directly for several years, though he lobbied other government departments since President Trump took office.

So states can now allow coal ash to seep into waterways if they determine that there is no risk to the public. But you can see from above that policy is being dictated by industry and for its purpose, not the purpose of the public. Is this rollback detrimental to the environment? Allowing arsenic to be in waterways that may get into your drinking water? It is absolutely a straw man to say that we can't predict whether or not this will be bad for the environment unless I can prove that it has caused harm. By definition, its intention is to allow harm in order to save money in oversight costs and give more leeway to coal plants in their storage of toxic waste. But according to code, there are no studies proving it has harmed the environment, so nothing short of a peer reviewed study into a specific site in which this rollback caused harm (this would take many years of course) will convince him that it is bad for the environment. That's simply a false premise.

 

[Mustachio]

Cite one particular regulation that was cancelled and the negative environmental impact that resulted. You say the example exists. Cite it.

I'm not asking for anything beyond actual, real world evidence of your ravings.

You continue to dodge.

I'll wait for you to actually present something other than your own unsupported opinions.

There are STILL 65,000 pages of regulation that are enforceable by nameless zealots who hate you yearning to limit your freedoms. This should provide you with great comfort.

To help put this into perspective, the pages of the Federal Registry printed on normal copy paper and stacked vertically used to be used to be about 30 feet tall. Now it's down to about 20 feet tall.

Pictured below is the average businessman planning the installation of a single window in his own privately owned building on his own privately owned property.

Pick one of the rollbacks and tell me why it isn't bad for the environment.

 

[Jay59]

After the BP oil spill Obama had a study conducted to determine the cause and recommend new oversight rules. He then, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management enacted “the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history.” The new rules and regulations were revoked by Trump on June 20th of last year.

Is that an acceptable argument? Allow me to address his use of straw men.

He continually claims that the only way I can show that 80+ and counting environmental rollbacks are not inherently bad for the environment unless I can show studies that prove these rollbacks have caused problems. So let's look at this:

And the end result (it's actually not the end, further rollbacks are anticipated in 2020):


So states can now allow coal ash to seep into waterways if they determine that there is no risk to the public. But you can see from above that policy is being dictated by industry and for its purpose, not the purpose of the public. Is this rollback detrimental to the environment? Allowing arsenic to be in waterways that may get into your drinking water? It is absolutely a straw man to say that we can't predict whether or not this will be bad for the environment unless I can prove that it has caused harm. By definition, its intention is to allow harm in order to save money in oversight costs and give more leeway to coal plants in their storage of toxic waste. But according to code, there are no studies proving it has harmed the environment, so nothing short of a peer reviewed study into a specific site in which this rollback caused harm (this would take many years of course) will convince him that it is bad for the environment. That's simply a false premise.

You evade the question and not very smoothly. This is a lot of verbiage on what the right regulations should be when compliance is the real issue. Perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored.

 

[Mustachio]

You evade the question and not very smoothly. This is a lot of verbiage on what the right regulations should be when compliance is the real issue. Perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored.

That's why the EPA's job should be, in part, ensuring the regulations aren't being ignored. That was part of what Obama's administration was doing (poorly) and overhauled the system to ramp up regulations. Trump sought to have oil companies ignore regulations to cut costs. You can't ignore something that is being enforced, correct?

When you say perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored, then we shouldn't ignore them, right? Trump's rollbacks expressly give states the right to ignore them. How can you defend that?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's why the EPA's job should be, in part, ensuring the regulations aren't being ignored. That was part of what Obama's administration was doing (poorly) and overhauled the system to ramp up regulations. Trump sought to have oil companies ignore regulations to cut costs. You can't ignore something that is being enforced, correct?

When you say perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored, then we shouldn't ignore them, right? Trump's rollbacks expressly give states the right to ignore them. How can you defend that?

The EPA is now fully under regulatory capture.

 

[Mustachio]

The EPA is now fully under regulatory capture.

It is. It's astonishing that Trump actually said in the beginning of his presidency that you there should be a 5 year waiting period between working in any capacity for the government and lobbying. Who is his cabinet wasn't a lobbyist/advisor/on the board of directors for a corporation? And the only members of his staff who have left have become lobbyists or are on the board of directors for a corporation. Trump making that comment about the revolving door between lobbying and bureaucracy when his administration is the biggest offender of that phenomenon, perhaps the biggest offender of any administration in history. It's like him saying we need to make sure that Presidents don't tweet. It's just strange, like nobody's going to notice?

But I've been posting about the EPA and Wheeler and this is terrifying stuff. But nobody else is talking about it. Not a single one of the candidates in the Democratic primary have made this a central issue and it needs to be. Cutting costs in favor of allowing arsenic to seep into water? Somewhere there's a coal plant next to a Gatorade factory and we'll have a Jonestown X 10k on our hands.

 

[Mustachio]

You evade the question and not very smoothly. This is a lot of verbiage on what the right regulations should be when compliance is the real issue. Perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored.

I can follow your lead and actually evade the question by simply not responding. Maybe you went back to sleep after a nice tall glass of Brawndo.

 

[Craig234]

It's astonishing that Trump actually said in the beginning of his presidency that you there should be a 5 year waiting period between working in any capacity for the government and lobbying.

He said a lot of lies about being against corruption. He's a con man.

 

[Mustachio]

He said a lot of lies about being against corruption. He's a con man.

Of that I am aware, it's just one of the more bizarre lies because his schtick was he was going to run the government like a business, so the anti-corporatism stance was meant to appeal to who? The right elected him on the basis of their acceptance of regressive, corporate stances and invoking hatred towards immigrants, liberals, and of course, his frenemy Ted Cruz.

 

[Joel]

You do know Trump won the INDEPENDENT vote....

Right?

But his Republican Party lost that INDEPENDENT vote in the midterms

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

 

[Jay59]

That's why the EPA's job should be, in part, ensuring the regulations aren't being ignored. That was part of what Obama's administration was doing (poorly) and overhauled the system to ramp up regulations. Trump sought to have oil companies ignore regulations to cut costs. You can't ignore something that is being enforced, correct? When you say perfect regulations will not work if they are ignored, then we shouldn't ignore them, right? Trump's rollbacks expressly give states the right to ignore them. How can you defend that?

Is it the EPA? I don't know who the agency is or how well they are doing their job. You have presented nothing but speculation and assumption.

I can follow your lead and actually evade the question by simply not responding. Maybe you went back to sleep after a nice tall glass of Brawndo.

You did follow my lead and finally found the point. Now, if you could back it up, it would be a novel experience for all of us.

 

[Craig234]

Of that I am aware, it's just one of the more bizarre lies because his schtick was he was going to run the government like a business, so the anti-corporatism stance was meant to appeal to who? The right elected him on the basis of their acceptance of regressive, corporate stances and invoking hatred towards immigrants, liberals, and of course, his frenemy Ted Cruz.

That 'run the government like a business' is an old Republican con every candidate with a business background uses - Bush was the 'first MBA president'. The anti-corporatism schtick appealed to the many Americans who resent our move to plutocracy and corruption.

 

[Mustachio]

That 'run the government like a business' is an old Republican con every candidate with a business background uses - Bush was the 'first MBA president'. The anti-corporatism schtick appealed to the many Americans who resent our move to plutocracy and corruption.

Draining the swamp. I get it. But why does it take the younger generation to realize who the swamp really is? Bless those my age and even younger who have had the courage to try to defeat this monster. The anti-environment lobby won't die, but you have to do everything possible to keep it from literally killing us.

 

[Craig234]

Draining the swamp. I get it. But why does it take the younger generation to realize who the swamp really is? Bless those my age and even younger who have had the courage to try to defeat this monster. The anti-environment lobby won't die, but you have to do everything possible to keep it from literally killing us.

This is a real mystery. Older voters are the only ones who experienced 'real presidents' and less inequality, but it's the younger voters who haven't who seem to especially reject the plutocracy and corruption. It kind of worries me actually, since it doesn't seem to be our national culture or education that has led to the support of democracy. But, let's be glad they do seem to support better policies.

But when I see a 'mass movement' with unclear roots, it's a big worrisome, because who's to say whether it might be the next generation of militarists, or a generation of trumpistas and far-right cult members?

We don't do great at helping older cult members, so what would we do to help young ones?

It seems haphazard. Maybe the strength of some of our institutions has helped come through and educate younger people, who, for example, tend to believe the science on the climate.

 

[Mustachio]

Is it the EPA? I don't know who the agency is or how well they are doing their job. You have presented nothing but speculation and assumption.

You did follow my lead and finally found the point. Now, if you could back it up, it would be a novel experience for all of us.

It is the EPA. What point do you want me to back up? It's very clear. Wheeler, a lobbyist for coal, takes over the EPA and cuts back coal regulations which allows states to potentially get arsenic in their water (because the EPA rollbacks don't allow for the oversight needed to prevent it) which is good for nobody except the coal industry. The EPA under Trump is a revolving door of people working to get the government to roll back oversight - you could call it "keeping the environment and people safe." What's to prove? That the environment will be harmed. That's what the rollbacks expressly do. They allow states to pollute the air, the Earth and the water. If that's their intention, proof will come when it's to late to do any good arguing about policy. Read my exchange in this thread regarding El Paso's air quality.

This is the swamp and they're putting arsenic in it now.