Republican legislatures want to jam through more voting restrictions ahead of 2022 midterms

[code1211]

Trump EPA Proposes to Scrap Protections for Children From Pesticide Linked to Birth Defects, Cancer

The Trump administration proposed today to reapprove the pesticide atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide that castrates frogs and is linked to birth defects and cancer in people. It has been banned or is being phased out in more than 35 countries. Today’s proposal weakens safeguards for...

biologicaldiversity.org

E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide (Published 2017)

E.P.A. scientists had concluded that exposure to the chemical, chlorpyrifos, which has been in use since 1965, was potentially causing significant health consequences.

www.nytimes.com

Trump's EPA undoes effort to ban pesticide linked to nervous system damage in kids

The U.S.

www.latimes.com

I believe that chlorpyrifos had been withdrawn from use for study under Obama. This shouldn't surprise. Early in his administration, Trump also eliminated a requirement that a company's record of injuries and deaths on the job be considered when granting a government contract. In my view, Trump's regulations in this area went beyond standard GOP policies favoring management over workers interests.

You said that actual real world illnesses had occurred in actual real world children following actions by Trump as he lifted existing regulatory bans .

I did not find reports of these actual real world illnesses in your links that occurred in children following the lifting of the regulatory bans.

Might it be possible to cut and paste the nuggets that support your assertion?

 

[Nickyjo]

You said that actual real world illnesses had occurred in actual real world children following actions by Trump as he lifted existing regulatory bans .

I did not find reports of these actual real world illnesses in your links that occurred in children following the lifting of the regulatory bans.

Might it be possible to cut and paste the nuggets that support your assertion?

Science said that the pesticides were dangerous, would cause birth defects. One of the poisons was banned in dozens of countries. I assume the scientists there and here experimented on animals, not children. Trump was catering to business interests, just as he did with worker safety regulations. It’s not as if he pointed out the absence of kids’ corpses as a reason. Why do you think Obama’s administration was studying the pesticides?

 

[code1211]

Science said that the pesticides were dangerous, would cause birth defects. One of the poisons was banned in dozens of countries. I assume the scientists there and here experimented on animals, not children. Trump was catering to business interests, just as he did with worker safety regulations. It’s not as if he pointed out the absence of kids’ corpses as a reason. Why do you think Obama’s administration was studying the pesticides?

Again, you said that Trump reversed regulations that had been previously in force and that those reversals resulted in illnesses in children.

This is either true or it is not true.

I am only asking that you provide the evidence of the specific regulations reversed, the real world occurrences you claimed exist and document your assertions with actual, real world facts.

 

[Nickyjo]

Again, you said that Trump reversed regulations that had been previously in force and that those reversals resulted in illnesses in children.

This is either true or it is not true.

I am only asking that you provide the evidence of the specific regulations reversed, the real world occurrences you claimed exist and document your assertions with actual, real world facts.

I don’t know if illnesses resulted. The recommendations of experts were either for bans or for further study of the poisons because they thought they were dangerous for specific reasons. I assume it’s too early to study birth defects, miscarriages, et al., and assign responsibility for them to the loosening of the regs. What Obama was proposing was responsible based on the studies that existed. What Trump did was irresponsible, conforming to his pattern of other labor and environmental regulation changes. You seem to suggest that the proper approach would be: “Let’s disregard the advice of scientists, allow the pesticide use even tho others are available, and count the corpses we can attribute to our action. Do you think clear evidence of deaths linked to the pesticides would have changed Trump’s administration’s mind?

 

[code1211]

I don’t know if illnesses resulted. The recommendations of experts were either for bans or for further study of the poisons because they thought they were dangerous for specific reasons. I assume it’s too early to study birth defects, miscarriages, et al., and assign responsibility for them to the loosening of the regs. What Obama was proposing was responsible based on the studies that existed. What Trump did was irresponsible, conforming to his pattern of other labor and environmental regulation changes. You seem to suggest that the proper approach would be: “Let’s disregard the advice of scientists, allow the pesticide use even tho others are available, and count the corpses we can attribute to our action. Do you think clear evidence of deaths linked to the pesticides would have changed Trump’s administration’s mind?

Clear Evidence sounds like a good thing when we are dealing with what is presented as science.

The simple truth of the matter is that many regulations are duplicated redundancies that are sometimes overkill while other regulations are contradictory between local, state and Federal. Confusion reigns and pencil necks revel.

When Trump took office, the Federal Register which lists Federal Regulations reduced its pages from just under 100 thousand to just over 60 thousand.

Loading…

cei.org

 

[jpevans]

If one result is to require that all ballots counted were cast ONLY by people who proved they are qualified to vote, this is a good thing.

Why would it NOT be a good thing?

I proved I was qualified 30+ years ago when I moved to the outskirts of town, I just returned my town census form proving my wife & I still reside here. All I've ever been asked is my name & address.
When I move or die I'll let them know.

 

[jotathought]

Looks like more scare tactics to help drive participation in the upcoming 2022 elections. Reading through the article, it is clearly biased, and some of the provisions mentioned won't prevent or discourage people from voting. These leads me to believe some of these claims are exaggerated. It doesn't even provide detail on the many claims it is making.

• Eliminating vote-county machines and counting by hand
• Mail voting does not prevent voting
• Time limitations on mail-in ballots do not prevent voting
• Voter purges - don't prevent people from voting. There are provisional ballots to cover this for eligible voters

We used to have this thing called election day, and the attempt, like the 2020 election, is to turn it into election month. Democrats are trying to push legislation that would put the control of election in unelected bureaucrats to make decisions and take that power away from states ... and minimize the need for identification ... and many other provisions to open voting up for fraud.

 

[Nickyjo]

Clear Evidence sounds like a good thing when we are dealing with what is presented as science.

The simple truth of the matter is that many regulations are duplicated redundancies that are sometimes overkill while other regulations are contradictory between local, state and Federal. Confusion reigns and pencil necks revel.

When Trump took office, the Federal Register which lists Federal Regulations reduced its pages from just under 100 thousand to just over 60 thousand.

Loading…

cei.org

The two regulations mentioned were I’ll-advised if one cares about safety of workers. Trump doesn’t.

 

[Ikari]

Republican legislatures want to jam through more voting restrictions ahead of 2022 midterms

Primarily intended to restrict voting by African-Americans and Latinos in red states, these laws will eventually also disenfranchise white voters.

The GOP will be able to pick and choose which votes will get counted. And don't expect the majority conservative Supreme Court to protect democracy.

Well it's all designed to reduce voter turnout.

I still state that any State that hasn't adopted Colorado's mail-in system or a similar system is stupid.

 

[HangLow]

Looks like more scare tactics to help drive participation in the upcoming 2022 elections. Reading through the article, it is clearly biased, and some of the provisions mentioned won't prevent or discourage people from voting. These leads me to believe some of these claims are exaggerated. It doesn't even provide detail on the many claims it is making.

• Eliminating vote-county machines and counting by hand
• Mail voting does not prevent voting
• Time limitations on mail-in ballots do not prevent voting
• Voter purges - don't prevent people from voting. There are provisional ballots to cover this for eligible voters

We used to have this thing called election day, and the attempt, like the 2020 election, is to turn it into election month. Democrats are trying to push legislation that would put the control of election in unelected bureaucrats to make decisions and take that power away from states ... and minimize the need for identification ... and many other provisions to open voting up for fraud.

​

 

[Michael Cole]

His comment is vary common in business. He was demonstrating that the vote was a very small percent and that the small margin was small.

That's some painful shit you've been peddlin' there einstein.

The epitome of all that is stupid.

Nothing more or less was stated or implied.

What vacant, mindless drivel.

Nothing more or less...

Who the **** says that? Why? Idiotic.

What you infer and what he implied are worlds apart.

Nothing, more or less, makes less sense than this arrogant display of faux intellectualism.

 

[jotathought]

View attachment 67371525​

Do any of those vote politicians into office?

 

[Linc]

Thanks to shitty liberal turnout since 1994 allowed Gingrich’s contract ON america to take hold, this nazified cake has been baked. Freedom ends in 2025, when freedumb and libertaryanism takes over.

 

[code1211]

I proved I was qualified 30+ years ago when I moved to the outskirts of town, I just returned my town census form proving my wife & I still reside here. All I've ever been asked is my name & address.
When I move or die I'll let them know.

By what method does what you just described prove anything about any ballot cast in 2020?

 

[code1211]

The two regulations mentioned were I’ll-advised if one cares about safety of workers. Trump doesn’t.

What have been the real world negative impacts that you care to list?

Link?

 

[HangLow]

Do any of those vote politicians into office?

weak

 

[code1211]

That's some painful shit you've been peddlin' there einstein.

The epitome of all that is stupid.

What vacant, mindless drivel.

Nothing more or less...

Who the **** says that? Why? Idiotic.

Nothing, more or less, makes less sense than this arrogant display of faux intellectualism.

Your stupid and idiotic analysis is what it is.

 

[Michael Cole]

Your stupid and idiotic analysis is what it is.

Hey code. I don't like getting like that, but reading through the drivel you post, I was amazed at @Nickyjo ability to compose himself. I just had to say something.

Your posts ain't all that. They ain't shit. Belligerent, arrogant, ignorant nonsensical mumbo jumbo. Good politician. Good politician. Sit!

 

[Nickyjo]

What have been the real world negative impacts that you care to list?

Link?

I suppose that if the science on the pesticide is correct, more farm workers would get sick. Ditto more danger in the workplace if the rate of injuries and deaths wont cost an employer a government contract. You can do the extensive research required to answer if you like. But why do you think Trump would permit use of a pesticide that Obama’s administration had under study due to what other countries had done in prohibiting it and despite the available evidence? I think that Trump’s move here and with job safety regs reflected his indifference to the danger to workers based on his ideology. What’s your theory?

 

[jotathought]

weak

Your strawman list isn't worth arguing -- they are unrelated to voting a politician into office, can be replaced or addressed if / when fraud occurs. It's apples and oranges.

 

[HangLow]

Your strawman list isn't worth arguing --
they are unrelated to voting a politician into office,
can be replaced or addressed if / when fraud occurs.
It's apples and oranges.

just as weak

 

[code1211]

Hey code. I don't like getting like that, but reading through the drivel you post, I was amazed at @Nickyjo ability to compose himself. I just had to say something.

Your posts ain't all that. They ain't shit. Belligerent, arrogant, ignorant nonsensical mumbo jumbo. Good politician. Good politician. Sit!

I appreciate your efforts.

 

[code1211]

I suppose that if the science on the pesticide is correct, more farm workers would get sick. Ditto more danger in the workplace if the rate of injuries and deaths wont cost an employer a government contract. You can do the extensive research required to answer if you like. But why do you think Trump would permit use of a pesticide that Obama’s administration had under study due to what other countries had done in prohibiting it and despite the available evidence? I think that Trump’s move here and with job safety regs reflected his indifference to the danger to workers based on his ideology. What’s your theory?

My theory is that you are parroting talking points from propagandists.

I asked you to support the talking points with real world facts. You provided none.

 

[Michael Cole]

I appreciate your efforts.

When you appreciate rational discourse, give a holler. Heck, forget that, just give it a try. Surprise me.

 

[Nickyjo]

My theory is that you are parroting talking points from propagandists.

I asked you to support the talking points with real world facts. You provided none.

Your request is absurd. I do not have the time to contact physicians, convince them to send me confidential data about their farmworker patients, find out where they worked and if and when those farms used the pesticides mentioned, compare the rate of disease before and after they were permitted, find out how many miscarriages or birth defects occurred and trace that, etc. Nor do I have the ability to look up which firms contracted with the government and if their freedom from the burden of running a safer workplace caused a greater number of injuries. That sort of research and evaluation was Trump's job. And what propagandists are you talking about? The sources that come up with a quick search are Yale and Reuters.

Hard hats are required at construction sites. If they are banned, I think it is logical to assume that head injuries will increase without us having to count the resulting split skulls. I wore one when I worked for Bethlehem Steel loading and unloading I-beams, angles, and other metal from trucks. Walking in the plant, I got hit in the back of the head by a heavy metal hook attached to the end of the chains as it swung too close. No harm, no foul. I am gonna go out on a limb and say that if I wasn't wearing the helmet I might have been hurt.

When I worked with farmworkers, old-timers told stories of being sprayed by airplanes while they worked. We no longer do that. Parathion is a pesticide which after used in an orchard - as I recall the regulations - the govt banned someone from entering it for 21 days. Story was that a drop of the pure poison on your skin could kill. The government cared about workers. Obama did. Trump didn't. I would have kept the ban at least for further study. What would you have done?