Just to start:
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
That's not how it works. This is a slow, grinding process. It is not unusual for it to go on for years. What we have seen is a very tight Mueller ship, with nary a leak in sight. But McConnell blocking protections for the probe is proof some people are scared shitless.
Also my view of the process. Also which side is most responsible for dragging out the process? For instance , how long has Mueller been trying to get Trump to testify? If you don't think that that the Trump team has been pulling out all the stops to avoid a pathological liar, the Donald, to get any questions at all. That is probably what was behind the stunt where they yanked Acosta's press pass. Change the subject. Diversion.
Trump is good at one thing: saying and doing stupid but largely inconsequential shit that gets the attention of the media. He exploits this to make the media talk about random bullshit.
Apart from the lack of decorum, the whiteanting of bloated agencies, hurt liberal sensibilities and a general lack of PC, is the world truely a worse place for Trump? Compared say, to the Angela Merkel, Clinton, Obama legacies?
The Trump administration has hailed its overhaul of federal pollution restrictions on coal-burning power plants as creating new jobs, eliminating burdensome government regulations and ending what President Trump has long described as a “war on coal.”
The administration’s own analysis, however, revealed on Tuesday that the new rules could also lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 from an increase in the extremely fine particulate matter that is linked to heart and lung disease, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days.
Breathing more fine particulate to own the libs :bjarte:
Trump's first legislative act as president was to do away with a bipartisan amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which required oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments. During the Obama administration, the United States led the world in the creation of this sort of policy, inspiring parallel legislation in 30 countries, including Canada, Norway, and European Union nations. The law's aim was to provide transparency to areas such as transnational crime, terrorist financing, and "unhinged economic and environmental crime." Unsurprisingly, it's been opposed since its inception by oil giants like Chevron and then-Rex Tillerson-run ExxonMobil. (Indeed, Tillerson took his post as secretary of state mere days before Trump's decision to scrap the legislation.) In a move that's likely to shelter corporate malfeasance, the administration has whittled down the U.S.'s reputation as a global leader on extractive transparency.
Less control on crime, terrorism and environmental accidents to own the libs. :bjarte:
Rather than protecting U.S. citizens and their lands, many of the administration's policies have lined corporate pockets. Consider how, in November, the U.S. announced its intent to halt its participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, an international measure aimed at providing citizens insight into their government's extractive management. By withdrawing, the president will encourage secrecy in oil, gas, and mining payments on American lands, making it difficult, and perhaps impossible, for Americans to understand what, if anything, they’re receiving in return for their precious natural resources—and the environmental degradation caused by that extraction.
Selling out US lands without any transparency to US citizens to own the libs.
The tax will raise input prices for American businesses, increasing their operational costs and putting pressure on profit margins.This is likely to feed through into weaker wage and employment growth, leading to poorer retail sales and declining economic growth. The Trump boom is already fading: this tax seems likely to hasten its end.
The tax will raise headline CPI inflation. How much inflation will rise depends on the extent to which producers are able and willing to absorb higher costs rather than passing them on to customers.The Fed might respond to rising cost-push inflation by increasing the pace of interest rate rises. This would dampen consumer demand at a time when it was already under pressure because of the wage and employment effects of the tax. Fed interest rate policy has previously accelerated consumer demand slumps, most recently in 2006-7, when the Fed continued to raise interest rates despite rising unemployment, falling house prices and weakening consumer demand. I suppose we might hope that the Fed would act more responsibly this time, but the “mood music” from the Fed these days is increasingly hawkish. I am therefore doubtful that this time would be different.
Starting a trade war and possibly wrecking the US economy to own the libs. :bjarte:
President Trump killed a regulation that would have tightened gun background checks Tuesday, signing a bill to undo one of his predecessor's executive actions following the San Bernardino shootings in 2015.
The Obama administration rule required the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally disabled people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the FBI database used to determine whether someone can buy a firearm under the 1993 Brady Bill.
The rule would have applied to about 75,000 people who were “adjudicated as a mental defective" and who had applied for Social Security benefits, and had a mechanism to notify those affected so they could appeal. But congressional Republicans said the rule could ensnare people who had mental health issues but otherwise were competent to own a gun.
The Social Security Administration finalized the rule last Dec. 19. But under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has 60 legislative days to disapprove of any new regulation on straight majority votes. The vote was 57-43 in the Senate and 235-180 in the House.
Making sure that nutters have access to firearms to own the libs. :bjarte:
Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems.
The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64-page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.
Old housing stock is the biggest risk for lead exposure — and the EPA estimates that 38 million U.S. homes contain lead-based paint.
Environmental groups said the elimination of the two programs, which are focused on training workers in the safe removal of lead-based paint and public education about its risks, would make it harder for the EPA to address the environmental hazard.
Exposing kids to lead to own the libs. :bjarte:
Just for a start.