[citation needed] That number for Obama looks awfully low.
That said, it’s rather infuriating to see all those howling about the security costs for Obama suddenly claim that it’s a-ok when Trump does the exact same thing…and far more.
In related news, Chaffetz just announced another investigation into Clinton’s emails yesterday.
No, that’s not a headline pulled from The Onion. Because there’s nothing else more important going on…
EDIT: I was going to try and do multiple one-word posts and say “Here, maybe this will help the post count”. Apparently that’s not allowed…good to know.
Chaffetz working on legislation requiring future presidents to undergo physical and mental exam from Navy doctors. From the article:
Recent remarks from Chaffetz before The Washington Post editorial board left fellow lawmakers with the impression that the legislation would specifically include a requirement that presidential candidates undergo a mental health exam.
“If you’re going to have your hands on the nuclear codes, you should probably know what kind of mental state you’re in,” Chaffetz said.
Two thoughts:
1. Any chance we could make this retroactive?
2. Now? Now you’re suddenly worried about this for future presidents?!
I’m reserving and and all optimism until I see what sort of offensive line we put on the field. Until then, all bets are off.
One of the things I really like is that if you uncheck a category here (i.e. politics), you won’t see entire pages of posts disappear. That always bugged me at UFN.
you do realize that the legisltaion regarding coal mines and streams was a new piece of legistation that the Obama Admin put in place right before Trump came into office. So your statement about allowing the dumping of coal polition into streams is way overblown. The EPA rules for streams are still in place like they have been all along and the water won’t be any more polluted than it has been throughout all of Obama’s administration.
I’m fully aware of that, thanks. Here’s the article I was going to post which has significantly more detail, but figured it would get entirely ignored because anything not from Fox News is “fake news”.
You’ve seen what Trump is currently doing to the EPA, right? Including the bill that was just submitted to dismantle it entirely? You’ll have to forgive me if claiming that those regulations will protect the waterways isn’t very reassuring.
Referring to the endangered species legisltion; it hasn’t even been brought up for a vote in the House(btw it has to pass both houses of congress) and yet you are talking about it like its a done deal and Trump snuck another by us. Dude, at least read the article and don’t get sucked into the hype. Btw this was not a Faux News article. Check your sources. Oh, and is taking time to analize the economic impact of the species act really that terrible. I bet you would feel differently if it ment the elimnation of your job or business.
I’m supposed to believe that the House will somehow not push it through as well? LOL, ok.
When dealing with species that are becoming extinct, time is rather of the essence. So yes, rolling back protections while they “analyze the impact” is kind of a big deal. And I wonder what side those analyses will come out on: the side of protecting the environment, or the side of animals/environment-be-damned-there’s-a-buck-to-make? Gee, I wonder…
You’re correct, it was a Fox affiliate. My mistake.
Isn’t 50 laboratories of democracy preferable to this circus?
In some ways, yes. In lots of other ways, no. When each state starts deciding their own set of things like environmental regulations or safety standards or financial regulations without any sort of national commonality, you’re just begging for a disaster. In states with very small minority populations, who protects the civil rights of these minorities when the majority feels they are of little importance? Living as a non-LDS person in Utah, the prospect of this state establishing a completely independent set of regulations and laws is utterly terrifying.
It’s never as simple as “States Good, Federal Bad” or vice versa, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Side note: I find it amusing that the board censors “p iss”, but not “shitshow”. 🙂
You claim that they sneaked around everyone’s back with these actions but overturning onerous regulations was a flat out promise from Trump himself. He is doing EXACTLY what he said he was going to do and calling his bluff would be a huge mistake at this point.
Passing potentially controversial legislation while the attention is focused elsewhere is quite different than “sneaking around everyone’s back”. One is a political tactic that both sides use (one that seems to be working especially effectively right now) and the other implies something illegal or borderline unethical. I claimed the former, and make no assumptions to the latter. I just wonder how long Trump will continue to be useful in that regard.
Kinda sad that we’ve gotten to the point where not dumping mining waste directly into rivers and streams and protecting wildlife from extinction is considered to be “onerous regulation”. Anything for the almighty dollar, I suppose.
Rate your excitement level for Utah Men's Basketball playing in the NIT
Total Voters: 101
© Copyright 2015-2024
Website and Mobile App by Tony Korologos