• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
And honestly DJ, trying to re-read your post, I have no idea what you're after here. What "position" am I too defend? A random-ass global warming position? And why would I do that, when that isn't anywhere close to what the conversation was about?

Think you need to re-read what was being discussed and what my comment was geared towards.
 
Was there an argument in here about degrees of being a Nazi? All Nazis aren't bad or something like that? Are there sections of the Nazis who aren't in it for the racism and uber-nationalism? People who say, "I'm a Nazi, but only for their views on healthcare and strong system of white intramural leagues."?

Those are mostly legit questions.
 
Was there an argument in here about degrees of being a Nazi? All Nazis aren't bad or something like that? Are there sections of the Nazis who aren't in it for the racism and uber-nationalism? People who say, "I'm a Nazi, but only for their views on healthcare and strong system of white intramural leagues."?

Those are mostly legit questions.
People are trying to explain the differences in the factions on the right.

Ill post a video explaining it if i can find time
 
Last edited:
What do you think @The Oi, goose-stepping with a swastika chanting "blood and soil" and "down with the Jews."

Nazis or just some kids out for a stroll?
 
What are you talking about.

He's taking an absolutist position that cutting into the EPA = wanting dirty water and you chime in with a whole post about global warming and people who think it's a hoax.

Just flying all over the place now.

Literally, the guy says Trump wants to kill the EPA and cutting EPA power/funding isn't a partisan issue (meaning it's a moral one, that's what people mean when they say that. It's not a political issue because it's a right/wrong moral one) because we all need clean water, and you stroll in talking about global warming and hoaxes.
Please, let's argue the nuts and bolts. What specific policy actions has the EPA taken under the Trump administration that will result in a net positive for the people they serve?
 
Please, let's argue the nuts and bolts. What specific policy actions has the EPA taken under the Trump administration that will result in a net positive for the people they serve?

You first.

If you're claiming it's going to destroy the air and water, thus taking it above the fray of normal politics, explain.

If you march on the streets of America carrying a nazi flag you are a terrorist. There is no place for that.

No.

We've tried this before. It didn't work well. Caused Oliver Wendell Holmes to write the worst decision of his career that he spent the next decade trying to pretend he didn't write.

Carrying a flag does not make you a terrorist.

And this is a side rant, but Wendell Holmes often gets cited as the greatest Supreme Court Justice ever. He wrote the majority decision of Schenk, a case that upheld the sedition act passed under Wilson that saw a man thrown in jail for distributing anti-capitalist, anti-military draft fliers.

He then had one of the worst lines ever in his majority decision in Buck v. Bell, a case over the constitutionality of a state law that allowed state agents to forcibly sterilize the mentally challenged, against their will, preventing them from having children. Writing his opinion to uphold the law, Holmes stated "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

So there's my anti- Oliver Wendell Holmes rant.
 
Last edited:
You first.

If you're claiming it's going to destroy the air and water, thus taking it above the fray of normal politics, explain.
Sure, I'll start with the NY Times article I linked in my original post:
His aides recently asked career employees to make major changes in a rule regulating water quality in the United States — without any records of the changes they were being ordered to make.
...
The rule, known as Waters of the United States, and enacted by the Obama administration, was designed to take existing federal protections on large water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River and expand them to include the wetlands and small tributaries that flow into those larger waters.

It was fiercely opposed by farmers, rural landowners and real estate developers.

The original estimate concluded that the water protections would indeed come at an economic cost to those groups — between $236 million and $465 million annually.

But it also concluded, in an 87-page analysis, that the economic benefits of preventing water pollution would be greater: between $555 million and $572 million.

From another NY Times article:
Flint, Mich., is still reeling from its tainted water crisis, and unsafe levels of lead have turned up in tap water in city after city. Still, the E.P.A. is looking to decrease grants that help states monitor public water systems by almost a third, to $71 million from $102 million, according to an internal agency memo first obtained by The Washington Post.

That Washington Post article referenced has a whole lot more information:
Ken Kopocis, who headed EPA’s Office of Water in 2014 and 2015, said in an interview that the $165 million proposed cut to the agency’s nonpoint source pollution program would deprive farmers of critical funds to help curb agricultural runoff.
The latest EPA budget plan would abolish programs that study known environmental hazards including lead, poor indoor air quality, and radiation.

Others programs that help protect Americans from cancer would also face the axe — including the $ 1.34 million indoor air radon program which works to protect the public against the invisible gas that is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. Radon kills 21,000 people annually, according to the EPA.

The EPA’s radiation program, currently funded at $2.34 million, which sets standards for safe levels of ionizing radiation in the environment caused by radioactive elements such as uranium, is also slated for elimination — but it is unclear how fully eliminating its activities is possible.

The document also recommends a $28.9 million cut in the enforcement of clean up projects for Superfund sites, places where hazardous materials require long-term response plans.

Even more from the Washington Post:
The Trump administration is aiming a half-billion-dollar cut at the main U.S. hub for renewable energy research — 25 percent of the agency’s budget, and that’s just for the final five months of this federal fiscal year.
...
President Trump’s energy policy is focused on domestic fossil fuels with no mention of wind, solar, or renewables.

His proposed budget would cut previously uncontroversial energy efficiency programs, like the EPA’s Energy Star and the Weatherization Assistance Program (which EERE operates), and discard entirely innovative clean energy research programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, also part of the Energy Department.
 
This was Trumps opportunity. This was his moment. And he freaking blew it.

He could have become President today. He could have condemned this act, white supremacy and the far right movement. But he didn't. He simply refuses to be President for the entire country.

This is going to be a defining moment for him. I was actually pulling for him leading up to his presser. I thought this would be his moment where he turned babyface. First KJU makes him look like an unhinged lunatic, and now this. It's not been a good vacation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top