Politics Gen XYZ

4,812 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, El Jeffo said:

Yeah, to the EPA, no doubt, after proposing cutting its funding by 31 percent.

 

But who needs clean air and water anyway, right? Let's bring back acid rain (thanks to "clean coal") and rivers catching fire again. Because that's what MAGA is all about, baby! Our rivers burn hotter and brighter than anybody else's!

 

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

 

Ahh, the Cuyahoga River fire...I was there. Good times. Good times.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erdmann said:

Hmm, I didn't know that Trump was trying to compensate for the cuts by donating his salary. Good to know the Democrats think that way. ;)

Anyways, his next quarter will go to some other department. 

 

Nope, he was hoping to score some cheap popularity points but unfortunately he and his advisers didn't seem to have enough common sense not to donate his little band-aid to a cause whose budget he has just slashed to ribbons. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound.

 

I hear his next paycheck is going to the U.N. Family Planning Agency...

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Yeah, to the EPA, no doubt, after proposing cutting its funding by 31 percent.

 

But who needs clean air and water anyway, right? Let's bring back acid rain (thanks to "clean coal") and rivers catching fire again. Because that's what MAGA is all about, baby! Our rivers burn hotter and brighter than anybody else's!

 

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

 

People who are suddenly outraged about some of Turmp's decisions who never raised their voice when Obama did the same or worse have a credibility problem.

 

Politics as usual.  

 

obama_kentucky_clean_coal.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SA618 said:

People who are suddenly outraged about some of Turmp's decisions who never raised their voice when Obama did the same or worse have a credibility problem.

 

Politics as usual.  

 

Are you confusing your apples and oranges or am I missing something?

 

"On February 2, in one of his first acts as Senate majority leader of the 115th Congress, Mitch McConnell ushered through the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule. The Obama-era regulation had taken eight years to write, emerging on the last day of the Obama administration, only to be snuffed out two weeks later. In the so-called War on Coal, this was the first time coal had punched back, drawing cheers from Washington to Appalachia.

“We cannot allow the legacy of the Obama administration to continue damaging our communities.” McConnell wrote in a self-congratulatory op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The Stream Protection Rule, and “a wave of environmental regulations” like it, according to a spokesperson for the American Public Power Association, have long been the source of Republican anger toward Obama-era energy policy, which conservatives contend is the reason 40,000 coal miners have lost their jobs, 11,000 in Kentucky alone, since 2011. That was the year the EPA announced a stricter air standard that had the effect of forcing coal-fired power plants to shift to natural gas at a time when the price of gas had fallen to historic lows. 

“This tragedy in central Appalachia is a direct result of government action,” said former governor of Kentucky, Paul Patton, a Democrat, and currently the chancellor of the University of Pikeville in Pike County, which has lost 80 percent of its coal jobs over the past five years. “I can tell you that we’re paying the price for it.” 

But since that much-ballyhooed vote in early February, this is how many new coal jobs have been created in Appalachia: Zero."

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/the-obama-administration-idea-to-save-coal-country-214885

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it was politically convenient, Barack Obama supported clean coal, and his worshippers had no objections. 

 

The graphic i posted was a mailer sent out by Obama in 2008.  

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, SA618 said:

When it was politically convenient, Barack Obama supported clean coal, and his worshippers had no objections. 

The graphic i posted was a mailer sent out by Obama in 2008.  

 

What you wrote was that Obama had supported the same or worse polices as Trump's cutting the EPA budget . Then you posted a picture of Obama supporting "clean" coal initiatives. Are you trying to tell us that Obama's support for "clean coal" is worse than Trump castrating the EPA? 

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, because Obama appointed an EPA director who spent most of his career suing the EPA.

And cut EPA funding by 31 percent and staffing by 25 percent.

And gutted the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution prevention, which screens and tests endocrine disruptors.

And gutted the federal radon program.

And halved funding for the Clean Air Act.

And all but eliminated the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

 

Yeah, Obama did all those things. Obama bad.

 

Reality check for those who are interested.

 

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@clickety6 - please note this from El Jeffo's quoted post:

 

Let's bring back acid rain (thanks to "clean coal")

 

Simply commenting that "clean coal" was not objectionable when proposed by the Messiah.   

 

I am not a fan of fracking even though it has made natural gas cheap.    In my opinion, the US should keep its options open in order to strive toward energy independence.   

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clickety6 said:

Nope, he was hoping to score some cheap popularity points 

 

Nope, he declared during the election campaign that he'd be donating his salary if he were to be the president. A president who sticks to his words, and the crowd goes wild.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SA618 said:

 

Simply commenting that "clean coal" was not objectionable when proposed by the Messiah.   

 

Lucky nobody protested against it

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/nyregion/new-york-city-climate-change-march.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/global.warming.protest/

 

And lucky it was a unanimous senate who voted against findings that carbon pollution is not a good thing

 

http://grist.org/article/2010-06-10-murkowski-resolution-goes-down-to-defeat-in-stupid-episode/

 

But if you say Obama got a free ride when supporting clean coal, I'm sure you're right. 

 

(Personally, I think Obama was wrong and that clean coal is still an oxymoron that science hasn't fixed. But to equate Trump's disdain of environmental protection and his climate change denialism to Obama's support for clean coal is hardly a balanced comparison).

 

 

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

Nope, he declared during the election campaign that he'd be donating his salary if he were to be the president. A president who sticks to his words, and the crowd goes wild.

 

He also said he wouldn't go on vacation as president (which would mean a lot more taxpayer money saved on his frivolous Mar-a-Lago weekend jaunts than his meagre salary donation).

 

And he hasn't reinstated torture and waterboarding yet, either. Gotta love that one!

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama switched his position after the campaign.    His position was never an issue with his supporters because they were starstruck.  

 

To be clear, my opinion is that coal pollutes, but every energy source has drawbacks.    Coal mining and coal fired plants should be reduced, but not completely phased out.    Coal fired plants have mostly been replaced by gas fired plants due to the increase in fracking which has its own set of problems.   

 

Your links refer to general protests about climate change and carbon and not specifically about coal or clean coal.     They were not protests about Obama's position on clean coal.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, clickety6 said:

 

He also said he wouldn't go on vacation as president (which would mean a lot more taxpayer money saved on his frivolous Mar-a-Lago weekend jaunts than his meagre salary donation).

 

And he hasn't reinstated torture and waterboarding yet, either. Gotta love that one!

 

 

How's a weekend visit, a "Vacation"?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SA618 said:

Obama switched his position after the campaign.    His position was never an issue with his supporters because they were starstruck.  

 

You'll need to give a few more details than that. What was his stated position before the campaign? How did that change? The coal companies were not happy with Obama's "War on Coal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_coal). Are you saying he suddenly became a coal supporter after he was elected, as I can't find evidence of such a complete shift. Not of his supporters turning a blind eye to his sudden love of coal-fired plants.

 

34 minutes ago, SA618 said:

To be clear, my opinion is that coal pollutes, but every energy source has drawbacks.    Coal mining and coal fired plants should be reduced, but not completely phased out.    Coal fired plants have mostly been replaced by gas fired plants due to the increase in fracking which has its own set of problems.   

 

 

I think we're in agreement here. I hope that the richer nations can invest more in finding cleaner power sources instead of finding ways of sucking ever more out of the polluting sources out of the ground.

 

34 minutes ago, SA618 said:

 

Your links refer to general protests about climate change and carbon and not specifically about coal or clean coal.     They were not protests about Obama's position on clean coal.  

 

These were people who might normally be regarded as Obama supporters protesting that not enough was being done to stop the use of coal. No, they didn't necessarily single out Obama, but as the protests took place in the US during his presidency and as some of the related interviews did mention the use of coal burning power stations in the US, it seemed to me that they indicated that not all Obama supporters were for his position, as you asserted at the top of the post. 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

How's a weekend visit, a "Vacation"?

 

I'm not sure what gave me that idea... 

 

Mar-a-Lago Resort, Florida

resort -  a place that is frequented for holidays or recreation or for a particular purpose

holiday (US vacation) - a time when someone does not go to work or school but is free to do what they want, such as travel or relax

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, clickety6 said:

Mar-a-Lago Resort, Florida

resort -  a place that is frequented for a particular purpose

 

I'll take this as a loophole. :D happy to let him use the tax money for it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, perfectly okay. Every president has used the privilege some or the other way.

Wonder how much hospital bills the country has saved by not electing Hillary. :rolleyes:

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now