By on February 17, 2017

Scott Pruitt (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

The Environmental Protection Agency has a new administrator.

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general and President Donald Trump’s first choice for the role, was confirmed today following a 52-46 Senate vote that fell mainly along party lines, with some exceptions.

In an odd twist of fate, the man who once sued the EPA multiple times is now the man running it.

In his role as AG, Pruitt was a staunch defender of his state’s oil and gas industry, frequently taking legal action to protect Oklahoma’s economy from policies he viewed as a threat. There was no love lost between Pruitt and the Obama administration, especially when it came to federal environmental initiatives. Naturally, political opponents and environmentalists see his elevation to EPA head as sign of relaxed regulations to come.

Pruitt’s swearing in should come soon.

Earlier this week, an EPA source told Reuters that the agency is expecting a series of executive orders. There was no word on what the nature of those orders would be. However, given some of Trump’s campaign trail promises, many expect Pruitt to roll back regulations on drilling and mining.

With this in mind, Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted in favor of Pruitt.

Yesterday, a judge ruled that Pruitt must release 3,000 emails sent between the Oklahoma AG’s office and oil and gas companies. The liberal nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy had sued to obtain the release.

While Pruitt’s new role may prove a good thing for miners, automobile manufacturers want to know what he can do for them. A total of 18 automakers with operations in the U.S. sent a letter to the Trump administration asking for the EPA’s midterm review process for fuel economy standards to be reset. To most automakers, the 54.5 mile-per-gallon target is too much to ask for.

Despite having a year left in the review timeline, the EPA pledged its support to keep Obama era fuel economy targets in place with just days remaining in the previous administration.

[Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

362 Comments on “Scott Pruitt Confirmed by Senate to Head EPA...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Great choice by Orange Cheeto Trumpigula!

    Who needs clean drinking water, anyways?

    “Similarly, while the EPA was busy responding to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., Pruitt was busy fighting EPA efforts to protect all drinking water supplies from pollution. He opposed a 2015 rule to ensure that small streams providing drinking water for one in three Americans are protected from pollution. In Pruitt’s view, federal regulators shouldn’t be able to stop polluters from dumping into these streams, even though it impacts millions of Americans’ drinking water.

    Pruitt also blocked efforts to even discuss ways to protect drinking water from coal mining in Appalachia, supported a proposal to bury six miles of river under coal waste, and opposed efforts to strengthen standards protecting streams from surface mining.”

    http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01/ewg-investigates-scott-pruitt-s-war-drinking-water

    Get rid of clean air, clean water, and bring back coal-fired electricity and chimney sweeps like in Dickens’ time!

    Let’s use Whale Oil Lanterns, too!

    Trumpigula Strikes Again!

    http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Napolean-Complex-02.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Kudos, DW.

      Well, I’ve always wanted to go back in time to my youth; since I can’t, at least the air and water will.

      What gets me is –

      Why are they trying so hard to save fetuses so that they can grow up to live in a GOP-generated hellscape?

      At least depressed old people can have access to guns so that they can self-euthanize. It may be the only “retirement” plan left in a little while.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      Drama queen.

    • 0 avatar
      RS

      Surely you can find a better EPA performance than Flint…

      http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/12/epa-stayed-silent-flints-tainted-water/78719620/

      or ‘Colorado Mine’.

      I always like this one: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2014/04/the-2014-iowahawk-earth-week-cruise-in-grand-champion-carbonator.html

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I join in the kudos although I would point out the agency went far beyond full retard some time ago and needs curtailed. Would I prefer it to be without a green light to fracking? Absolutely, but this may have been the price.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Great. Let’s put Josef Mengele in charge of investigating Hitler for war crimes while T rump is at it. Making America “Great” requires poisoning planet? I never thought I would say it but I miss W.

    • 0 avatar
      April S

      DeadWeight, you forgot all the wonderful by-products in the remains of burning coal. The fly ash contains among other things mercury, arsenic and lead.

      At least they can claim it’s all 100% “natural”.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        April S – I hope Pruitt doesn’t read your comment.

        I’m reminded of one of George Carlin’s skits off of “Class Clown”

        America The Beautiful

        “O, Beautiful,
        For smoggy skies
        Insecticided grains
        For strip-mined mountains, majesty
        Above the asphalt plains.
        America, America,
        Man sheds his waste on thee
        And hides the pines
        With billboard signs
        >From sea to oily sea!”

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        Yes, because nuclear waste is so EPA friendly. Or the windfarms block bird migratory patterns. Or because Hydro is so friendly to fish spawning patterns.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Cats and cell towers kill more birds than wind farms.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Daniel J – Hydro – other than flooding of large tracts of land, is one of the least problematic forms of energy production. If you are talking about salmon migration, that is easily mitigated by “fish ladders” and spawning bed enhancement is straight forward. Local fish adapt but can be aided by stream enhancement. Fish hatcheries also help offset spawning problems.

        • 0 avatar
          lon888

          You need lots of regs and policing to ensure another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl doesn’t happen again. Asshat Pruitt wants to get rid of those pesky little regs so that energy corporations can make MOAR PROFITS! I’m a third generation Okie and have no problem saying Pruitt is an idiot and a crook. Good bye clean air water and land. Thanks Tweetenfuhrer.

      • 0 avatar
        Advance_92

        “The fly ash contains among other things mercury, arsenic and lead.
        At least they can claim it’s all 100% “natural”.”

        It could even be declared a vegetable for school lunches.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      Let the housecleaning begin!

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The EPA was created by Richard Nixon to provide cover for California environmental regulations. It has limited usefulness in the rest of the country, and they’ve undermined their own authority by trying to aggressively regulate CO2.

      With minor public investment would could cut CO2 regulations in half, and the handout of public funds would be wildly popular with everyone by the staunchest libertarians and conspiratorial conservatives. Public investment in clean energy (real clean energy, not Solyndra) is never made because the primary purpose of the EPA is to control and regulate people, not to achieve ecological and economic progress.

      • 0 avatar
        Erikstrawn

        Solyndra was an improvement in solar cells, and a mighty big improvement. Unfortunately, as they came to market the Chinese invested heavily in solar cell production and the price per watt plummeted. Solyndra was the right idea at the wrong time, and no matter what, it will bring better solar cells to market.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The fox guarding the hen house. How can this go wrong?

    This is no different than a 15 year old starting smoking cigarettes. I’m fine, how can any harm come of this?

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Next up, Joan Claybrook for CEO of GM. It makes about as much sense.

  • avatar
    Sammy B

    Shoulda been Scott Pruett. I think we can all agree on that.

  • avatar
    healthy skeptic

    Why doesn’t the administration simply try to shut the EPA completely down while they’re at it?

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Who says they’re not?

      http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15/freshman-republican-congressman-reveals-bill-to-abolish-the-epa.html

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Much more fun to neuter it and make it a pet.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        That bill is hilarious, because it doesn’t even try to do anything about all of the (many) parts of the U.S. Code that require or assume the EPA’s existence. All of that would have to be worked out by courts, so the bill should be entitled the Lawyer Enrichment Act of 2017. It’s just too bad the agency involved isn’t the IRS, so that I could be one of the lawyers to be enriched.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          Yes, well, these are the same people who tried to repeal Obamacare for more than half a decade but curiously have no plan for a replacement.

          They’re finding out the answer to “What happens when a dog that’s chasing the car finally catches the car?”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            They’re finding out the answer to “What happens when a dog that’s chasing the car finally catches the car?”

            PitBull/Rottweiler cross catches Miata.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’ll tell you a story. I worked for a major healthcare company in 2011, and in May of that year they pulled all the software dev people into a meeting about the future of the division. They explained Federal, State, and local governments had an interest in keeping every hospital open they could and were essentially forcing weaker ones to join larger networks so they could all remain open. They also explained in rural areas the largest employer was the county/local hospital and in most cases the facility (or network) provided private healthcare for even minimum wage jobs. Therefore, they wanted to tweak the product lines to work better with smaller facilities (most products were designed for 200+ bed facilities in terms of price and volume)

            Looking back this says a few things to me. Number one, gov’t was essentially asking successful hospitals to subsidize smaller/failing ones. Given some branch of gov’t had a big impact on financing hospitals (medicaid/medicare, now obamacare, direct grants, funds for doctor residents, and don’t forget tax exempt status), the facilities had little choice to resist.

            Number two, gov’t privately acknowledged outside of certain major areas there are few real jobs, in my view, because private industry had been significantly curtailed. Even without artificial barriers to industry there still may be an imbalance (look at charts of population growth vs job growth) but the situation has been severely exacerbated in the past ten to fifteen years. Therefore carte blanche is given to health network ABC because they create jobs (from excellent to crappy) in a region, pay private benefits, and provide essential resources to a community to a population who would otherwise be completely on welfare. Number two employer in a fair amount of those regions? State or private college followed by local school system. Now you know why the Feds keep funding school loans with no limits.

    • 0 avatar
      namesakeone

      They sound like they learned from Reagan. They may simply continuously decrease funding for the EPA until it has no way of functioning, and use that lack of functionality to justify shutting it down completely.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    An ecologist friend of mine suggests that this might not end up significantly affecting how much CO2 etc. the US ends up producing, because so many companies have already gone so far down the path of cleaning up their emissions, and they know there’s every likelihood that in four years a Democrat could be back in power and reinstate all the regs that Pruitt and Trump will try to get rid of (and they would be putting themselves in a jam if they halted their efforts today only to find much more stringent standards in place in 2021 that they were unable to meet).

    So, something to hold onto.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      You’re right. Permitting will just be cheaper. I.E. there is no way in hell a paint shop will strip it’s abatement systems. I know of several that are using profitable times to extend life of existing equipment and making systems more energy efficient.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The Democratic Party is on it’s death bed. Decades of incompetent SJW’s has yielded an utterly indifferent constituency who don’t turn out.

      At this point, it’s only the true believers who don’t see their crimes against due diligence and public governance. The only thing keeping them alive was the memory of George W Bush who was dumb enough to expand Medicare AND go to war in Iraq. LBJ Part Deux.

  • avatar
    NickS

    I hope the eventual release of those emails, or some other revelation will taint him enough to cause his resignation (although that would be a much harder task).

    I am really at a loss to explain how they came up with such nominees. It’s one thing to have outsiders and all that, but this is not some little side show, it’s a freaking national bureaucracy. There are tons of highly qualified people in both parties to take on any cabinet position. so de Vos, Pruitt, and billionaires? WTF?

    Christine Todd Whitman was probably one of the saner appointees the GOP had most recently. I am not sure what she thinks of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she was appaled.

    P.S. A little treat for the B&B:
    /watch?v=2pRt4dFBkCA

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “I hope the eventual release of those emails, or some other revelation will taint him enough to cause his resignation”

      Look, he’s already committed multiple OpSec faux-pas at Mar-a-Lago, each of which exceeded Clinton mailserver gaffe. His security advisor’s basically lying about involvement in what might be treason and he (Trump) has already directed a more-than-Benghazi-grade tactical error in the raid on Yemen.

      And from the House and Senate? Crickets. As long as they get their sweet, sweet upper-class tax cuts, they aren’t going to touch the President or his administration. Nixon was impeached for less. Clinton was impeached for far, far less. Trump could, I’m sure, get blown by two interns in front of live cameras in the press gallery and nothing would happen.

      “I am really at a loss to explain how they came up with such nominees.”

      Follow the money.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “rump could, I’m sure get blown by two interns in front of live cameras in the press gallery and nothing would happen.”

        As long as they are female interns!

      • 0 avatar
        NickS

        psarhjinian – I don’t disagree, but a qualified candidate would be amenable to influence by moneyed interests just as well. Someone who knows their craft can deliver what these interests want, and still construct something that doesn’t blow up the stage altogether, or raise the ire of the whole country. The travel ban is a prime example of that. It could have been constructed in a way that would hold up scrutiny, but we all saw the mess that was the result of amateur hour. (And I personally have serious doubts a travel ban would address any substantive security concerns. This is vintage Trump, freestyling it, pandering to the base). So, now, they are trying to redo the whole thing with “the best lawyers in the country” working on it.

      • 0 avatar
        mtmmo

        Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Well said, psar, that is exactly what worries me. Trump has essentially normalized the practice of transparent pathological lying on matters both important and trivial and has unheard of conflicts of interest and potential for corruption and the Republican congress is ignoring it because controlling all three branches is a good way to make stuff happen for them. What he would have to do to be impeached at this point is beyond me. The Mar-a-Lago incident? Russian government tilting the election in his favor as he speaks sweetly of them? Flynn? Appointing an EPA head who is in multiple ongoing lawsuits with the EPA? Jesus, if the Republicans could have been served dirt like that about Obama, they’d have been ecstatic.

        Trump is setting a precedent here and I hope to God it backfires so hard on his administration that future ones won’t attempt this kind of alternate reality blitzkrieg again.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        This is because left/right politics is about whether rural culture is better than city culture, not about the issues.

        So, their guy can make all of the really stupid mistakes he wants — but they won’t care, just so long as he panders to them and says mean things about educated city people.

        I want to be wrong, but the fact that they elected Trump in the first place suggests otherwise.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I read an article which suggests the same “city vs rural” argument but aside from it and your post these are the only instances I recall ever seeing anywhere. I think you’ve made a good point I just don’t understand why no one else realizes this.

          Additional: I do wonder if we as a nation/society could avoid such extremes if city planning size capped out at a certain population. I’ve never lived in a significantly overpopulated city but I could see how having literally all swathes of humanity everywhere would help shape my worldview and opinions differently than if say I lived in a wide open place where contact with humanity was more reserved.

          Unless the fall I worked closely with my former employer’s Chinese office, and this experience helped me understand why their society operates as it does. Fundamentally the ordinary people have a somewhat positive view of their society, they for at least for the past hundred years believe they are all part of “one big family” (even pre-Mao). They literally refer to elderly people they don’t know as “uncle” or “aunt”, and despite things like this in their culture the ones I spoke with saw no issue with say executing a corrupt politician after a show trial. Granted, I feel the same way, but I am not indicative of American society. People here have a much different notion to human life I would say than their Chinese counterparts.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            The city versus rural aspect is relevant as long as you factor in other qualifiers. Those who live in large urban centres tend to be exposed to more cultural/social diversity. Education also tends to be higher across the board. Those factors carry more weight in the make up of one’s overall beliefs/ideology.
            For example:
            It is harder to hate gays when you work with them on a daily basis. Same can be said for Muslims or any ethnicity.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      I wonder if he will stoop to using a fake email address to illegally conduct government business like Obama’s EPA head Lisa Jackson?

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Linky?

        From a credible source?

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Luke… 28 Cars is yo daddy, Luke…

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            You typed “illegal”. Not “questionable”. Not “stupid”. Not “inexplicable”. Illegal. Looked for that in 28’s article. Not there. If you’re going to be arrogant and carpet bomb this comment thread with your one-liners, at least get them right.

            If Lisa Jackson’s email behavior offends you on some level, you are going to have a heck of a time during the next 4-8 years.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The truth shall set you free.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “Critics are leaping on private emails from the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency that seem to show her using the alias of “Richard Windsor” to communicate with people outside the government.

        Messages released Wednesday show former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson using the Windsor email account to talk with people who would later serve in the Obama administration.

        During her tenure at the EPA, Jackson occasionally used the secondary email account in correspondence with staff.

        Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who released the emails, claims that Jackson crossed the line by using the account to communicate with outside officials.

        “EPA has shown an absolute disregard for transparency with their email practices, but this one is pretty bizarre,” said Vitter, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.” ”

        http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/297255-former-epa-chief-under-fire-for-new-batch-of-richard-windsor-emails

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          this one is pretty bizarre,” said Vitter, the top Republican ADULTERER on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.” ”

          …missed it by that much.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Any private account used is illegal, as there is no guarantee of transparency or retention.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Wasn’t a private account. It was an another @epa.gov and still under the purview of public record and FOIA. Her publicly listed account on the EPA website received 1.5 million emails a year, so another was chosen for internal agency use. This is nothing new, it happened in the George W Bush administration. The problem is the chosen name was cryptic and bore no resemblance to hers so the opposing party thought it was suspicious. IF it was proven she did it to hide information and escape oversight, then it would have been outside the law.

            Details matter when you claim something is illegal.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Lisa Jackson did not perform her job as prescribed by the law.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I figured you had nothing. You never do. Over 30 comments here so far of B-grade smirk and snark with nothing to back it up.

            I’ll be going back to reflexively skipping over your comments now.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Read and learn, fetcher… it’s all about being in compliance with FOIA:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=8Q9DCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=did+lisa+jackson+break+the+law?&source=bl&ots=QXCGeuF7yV&sig=jiCYCBxZqcn7Cr2vjtOAWkptOis&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP1sOr_ZzSAhXB6iYKHfXvA4IQ6AEINjAH

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Weak. Sauce. Jay Sekulow? Don’t ever accuse someone else of using biased sources again, malaise.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/lisa-jacksons-windsor-knot-084112

            http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/297255-former-epa-chief-under-fire-for-new-batch-of-richard-windsor-emails

            Not a private account. Accused of being illegal by the opposing party but never proven. As I wrote before, if this level of scandal is upsetting to you, the current administration should be rough on your conscience. But of course, you won’t be looking for issues with Trump and won’t believe them if shown to you.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    This affects me on a very personal level. As I have mentioned a few times before, my wife works for EPA. We’ve been in full cash saving mode since the election in anticipation of the job creators creating her right out of her job. This is just one step closer to what is starting to feel like that eventuality.

    A lot of people argue that people in the private sector experience that fear all the time. I recognize that having been in that position my entire career. However the consequences of my losing my job would have far less impact on society and the country than her and her colleagues losing theirs.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Best of luck, Land Ark. My wife is a marine biologist, and while her current position is secure for the next few years, the longer-term forecast for her career is a lot less hopeful than it was six months ago. We’re lucky to be in a position where we don’t really need the income from her side, but an awful lot of good scientists – people with sterling credentials in STEM fields who’ve done everything right their whole lives and wanted to do nothing else other than help our country and our planet – will suffer because of this.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I’m sorry for you and your family because I know this isn’t going to be good.

      I had friends who worked at NRCan labs and StatsCan and their experience under Stephen Harper’s war on science—and Harper looks to have been cakewalk by comparison to this administration

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      “However the consequences of my losing my job would have far less impact on society and the country than her and her colleagues losing theirs.”

      The consequences of her and her colleagues losing their jobs could well be far fewer private sector Americans routinely losing their jobs, far fewer farmers losing their farms, far fewer factories being built in Mexico to avoid the draconian and whimsical rule of unelected bureaucrats, far fewer needed infrastructure projects dying during the approval process, and the potential for our country to have a future.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Todd, we’ve seen environmental problems disregarded in the name of profits before.

        Let’s set the global warming debate aside. I’m talking about things like acid rain, stream pollution, smog, and scores of other environmental problems. We’ve experienced all of that here, in our country, and in our lifetimes. And we know the kind of human toll those environmental problems takes. If you’d like to put it in monetary terms, fine – it costs Lord knows how many billions of dollars to treat all the health problems pollution causes.

        And we also know that many companies will pollute with impunity unless there’s someone keeping them in line, and punishing them when they don’t behave properly. There’s no disputing that. It’s historical fact.

        Walking back environmental regulations in the name of profit is a risky move. It’s backfired on us before. The next person it could backfire on is you. Now, if that happens, will your focus be on a) corporate profits, or b) protecting the people you care about?

        We need to be careful, Todd.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “If you’d like to put it in monetary terms, fine – costs Lord knows how many billions of dollars to treat all the health problems pollution causes.”

          what’s wrong with that? they’re OK with healthcare being a profit-generating enterprise, and I’m sure whatever diseases are caused by everything Todd wants will be treatable by the latest generic drug which has just had its price jacked up 3000%.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, Jim, they make a joke of it because they think none of this will happen to them, or anyone they care about.

            Until it does.

            Then it’ll be an issue.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Then they’ll go through myriad contortions to show how it’s “different.”

            like Medicare and Social Security. Point out that those fit the definition of “socialist” policy, and they’ll say “no no NO, I’m just getting back the money I paid into it!”

            As if the government has had bundles of cash sitting for decades in a box somewhere with their name on it. Impossible to convince them that the money they put in was spent years ago, and the payments they’re receiving now are coming out of *my* pocket.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, they’re right, Jim, if they pay into SS they have the right to get paid out. People who don’t pay in don’t get as much retirement benefits.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        “The consequences of her and her colleagues losing their jobs could well be far fewer private sector Americans routinely losing their jobs, far fewer farmers losing their farms, far fewer factories being built in Mexico to avoid the draconian and whimsical rule of unelected bureaucrats, far fewer needed infrastructure projects dying during the approval process, and the potential for our country to have a future.”

        A lot of truth there, Todd. Common sense protection vs. political activism and, in some cases, a hatred of capitalism.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The United States Federal Government has been losing at least $500B for the last 8 years, despite higher tax rates than during Clinton’s second term. Her job was doomed long before this election, regardless of bureaucratic groupthink to the contrary.

      Your wife’s employment prospects will be improved significantly by any president who can at least stabilize the debt.

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    Grab a posse!

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Remember kids, the Baruth Boys love them some Trump Policies & Appointees (as well as the emperor god-child, himself).

    DRAIN THAT SWAMP! (by back-filling it with Goldman Sachs alumn as well as environmental regressives).

    Abolish the EPA, Dept of Education (Betsy DeVos – brilliant!) , Dept of Energy (Rick Perry – brilliant!), and many, many more “needless” agencies!

    Make American Charles Dickens Era Great Again!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “When you choose a puppet, you’re looking for a sweet spot,” one source close to Putin said. “You want to choose someone who’s dumb enough to be manipulated, but not so dumb that he can’t find the light switches.”

      • 0 avatar
        NickS

        @Lou, you may not know this, but someone failed to strike the right balance there:

        “Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. […] In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, …”

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=0

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Lou, an unnamed source and Russia finger pointing, has someone been binge-watching CNN?

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          gtemnykh: and we know that nothing emanates from Russia without the express permission of its leader. It is no longer a one party state, it is a one person dictatorship.

          Even Khrushchev and Brezhnev had those within the Party who would question their decisions.

          And they did not resort to assassinating their opponents who were already in exile.

          As we all know, the Russian government would never lie to their citizens or the rest of the world.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            What in God’s name are you on about?

            I’ve yet to see a single credible piece of direct evidence of this bizarre conspiracy theory that the left is cooking about Trump being some sort of puppet installed by Russia. It sounds totally insane, because it is.

            All these “unnamed sources” and “multiple sources” are as credible as the National Enquirer. Put up or shut up as they say.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            yes, because some guy on the internet is privy to all of the evidence.

            “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.”

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Trump doesn’t have to be a puppet to be useful to Putin. He just has to be gullible and not terribly bright.

            The close ties between Russia and multiple people close to Trump (Bannon, Flynn, Manafort, Carter Page), as well as Trump’s own deep financial ties to Russian banks, are well documented without any reliance on anonymous sources. That doesn’t mean Russia is controlling those folks. But it does mean that they are likely to give the Putin point of view a more sympathetic reception than has been the norm in American politics, especially on the R side.

            How much of this is because of financial interests and how much is because of ideological sympathy is a totally open question, and one that even the congressional Rs who remain stridently anti-Russia seem uninterested in answering. They will stretch themselves a very long way to get those upper-income and investment tax cuts.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            gtemnykh: Trump publicly claimed years ago that he had business dealings in Russia and with Russian nationals. Fact.

            Rex Tillerson has extensive and long standing ties with Russian oligarchs. Fact.

            General Flynn spoke with Russian diplomats. Then he either lied about it to V-P Pence or took the fall when it was discovered. The first is a fact, the 2nd conjecture.

            Russia is a dictatorship. Run by a man trained by the KGB. No business is conducted without his permission. Facts.

            The President would not release his tax returns. Unlike previous Presidents. Fact.

            6 of the President’s proposed appointments failed their national security checks. Fact.

            These have been widely reported by credible sources.

            http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

            http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/donald-trump-cabinet-picks-russia/

            That is what is called credible evidence. ‘Putting up’ as it were.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Arthur my first statement focused on the total nonsense from LouBC about Trump being some sort of hand-picked puppet. You’re just regurgitating CNN verbal diarrhea without addressing my point.

            You want to look at some shady dealings, take a look at the dirty Middle Eastern money pouring into the Clinton foundation (millions), the very direct correlation between handsome donations and then shortly after that meetings set up with H. Clinton while she was Sec. State.

            dal, in regards to this:

            “especially on the R side.”

            Did you happen to totally miss the Republican Primaries this year? Trump was basically the only guy advocating NOT to start shooting down Russian aircraft over Syria. Clinton’s position matched that of the neocons for what that’s worth.

            How quickly Dems have turned into McCain-esque Cold Warriors is incredible. Keep shoveling in that propaganda, maybe we’ll start seeing people jump out of windows screaming about “the Russian are coming!”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Nice facts, I was unaware of the final one.

            “they did not resort to assassinating their opponents who were already in exile.”

            Ah, but Stalin did in 1940.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            I always hit “car enthusiast” sites – HA! – when I want to read leftwing crackpot conspiracy theories. Go TTAC! Go TTAC!

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @gtemnykh

            You do ***NOT*** need to be a Cold War hawk to know that having a country that’s simultaneously f**king with our elections and pointing thousands of nuclear weapons at us is flat out dangerous.

            McCain’s right. The Republicans and Democrats who agree with him are right. The Republicans who are downplaying this…well, the only question I have is why. And that’s not a hard question to answer.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Greg, there’s a difference.

            Hillary Clinton isn’t president.

            you can bet your arse had she won, this Congress would be investigating the s**t out of her. Hell, there’s a couple House reps who are still trying.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            I wish someone in IRS, a True Patriot would release Trumps full tax returns. Show how beholden he is to the Russian government. It would be the end of 45.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @gtemnykh – truth be damned when putinspotus lied 17 times in 77 minutes in a room full of journalists with cameras rolling.

          Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats.

          Russia chooses not to retaliate.

          Cheetopotus denies Russian involvement then changes story, now downplays it.

          National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigns.

          Plausible deniability or just plausible?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You know what concerns me, Lou?

            It’s not the whole “Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate” thing. I doubt they helped him to “own” him.

            They helped him because they knew he’s an incompetent blowhard, surrounded by ideologue morons. This has caused a power vacuum that Putin is more than happy to fill.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “simultaneously f**king with our elections and pointing thousands of nuclear weapons at us is flat out dangerous.”

            Pot meet kettle.

            img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1996/1101960715_400.jpg

            And I’d argue the claimed Russian involvement (leaking of DNC documents to public exposing all sorts of unsavory things) is significantly less than that which happened in Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse on behalf of various American groups.

            If you think McCain and Co (Graham and Rubio, etc) are right, then you must also think that deposing Assad and allowing fundamentalist Islamists to take power is the right thing as well. Beyond insane. How many times can people step on the same rakes?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Here’s the article you posted:

            http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136204,00.html

            Take a moment to read it and you’ll find that US political experts helped Yeltsin with running his campaign, which involved things like setting up focus groups, doing PR, creating advertising, etc. Why? Because Yeltsin ***requested the help***. None of what these people did was even remotely illegal. What Russia did WAS illegal. And dangerous.

            And as far as Assad is concerned, there’s more than one way to get rid of him, you know…and if you asked most Americans whether they’d want to do that by having Russia illegally hack our country, I’m gonna guess about 99.6% would say “no.”

            Sorry, your arguments make no sense. What Russia did was wrong. All Americans need to stand against it.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “helped Yeltsin with running his campaign, which involved things like setting up focus groups, doing PR, creating advertising, etc. ”

            And massive amounts of money thrown behind him, something that is incredibly illegal here in the US, and is nothing if not exerting influence over the internal politics of another country.

            The “hacking” amounted to idiot Podesta getting phished for his email password. That the DNC’s sleazy inner workings and collusion with media figures turned off so many people is another matter.

            In regards to Assad how about you lay out your proposed plan then? There are many ways to get rid of him, the question is what happens afterwards. Don’t forget that much touted democratic elections in Egypt (after we flipped on our guy Mubarak and let him get sacked) it was the Muslim Brotherhood that prevailed. Egypt’s Army stepped in with a coup and now we have Sisi, a guy not dissimilar to Mubarak except they no longer trust the US, and have in fact turned to Russia. Do you want another Libya/Iraq in Syria? Because I guarantee you that’s what you will get. Easily the strongest forces opposing Assad’s govt. are violent jihadists, and even the more “moderate” groups want to establish an Islamic republic/state.

    • 0 avatar
      April S

      @DeadWeight

      “Make American Charles Dickens Era Great Again!”

      I was thinking Make America Safe for Robber Barons Again!

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Remember kids, the Baruth Boys love them some Trump Policies & Appointees (as well as the emperor god-child, himself).

      DRAIN THAT SWAMP! (by back-filling it with Goldman Sachs alumn as well as environmental regressives).”

      well, doesn’t surprise me since they seem to believe we all work 60 hour work weeks for less pay (and no overtime) simply because women had the nerve to enter the workforce.

      the cognitive dissonance is amazing, isn’t it? We work longer hours for less money, income inequality is growing, so… let’s support and elect a guy who is surrounding himself with people intent on perpetuating that.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Dig deeper. I know thinking is hard but you’ve got to try.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          would you please just go f**k yourself already.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Wow strong words from such a pussy. I think if you violate my safe space I can have you arrested, or something.

            In sincerity, although you sound like a fool I don’t think you are a fool. Try breaking down your ranted thoughts to find the real truth instead of spewing mindless hate. The most impotent thing to remember is you’ve been lied to your entire life for various reasons. Media, teachers, classmates, friends, even parents. Given this, what is the truth and how can I find it? For example:

            “by back-filling it with Goldman Sachs alumn [sic]”

            They own the gov’t.

            “environmental regressives”

            Carbon tax for you, not them.

            “they seem to believe we all work 60 hour work weeks for less pay (and no overtime)”

            Correct, you are a tax donkey.

            “simply because women had the nerve to enter the workforce.”

            Additional tax revenue, theoretical increased production, bonus destruction of nuclear family.

            “We work longer hours for less money, income inequality is growing,”

            Fed and inflation.

            “let’s support and elect a guy who is surrounding himself with people intent on perpetuating that.”

            You had no choice in the matter.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            28: There have been many lies, told on both sides. For example:
            Trickle down economics works
            Growing income disparity is not a problem
            All unions are bad
            Unions drove the jobs away
            Those darn immigrants are stealing your jobs
            Government should be run like a business
            Medical care should be private
            Making firearms easier to purchase will make you safer
            Afghanistan was a threat to the USA
            Iraq was a threat to the USA
            Foreign terrorism is a great threat to normal citizens of the USA
            I did not have sexual relations with that woman
            I am not a crook

            All untrue.

            The worst is that for over a 100 years, the elite have been using racism and prejudice to keep the working classes feuding with each other rather than watching who was really taking advantage of them.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ


            Wow strong words from such a pussy. I think if you violate my safe space I can have you arrested, or something.

            In sincerity, although you sound like a fool I don’t think you are a fool. Try breaking down your ranted thoughts to find the real truth instead of spewing mindless hate. The most impotent thing to remember is you’ve been lied to your entire life for various reasons. Media, teachers, classmates, friends, even parents. Given this, what is the truth and how can I find it? For example:

            “by back-filling it with Goldman Sachs alumn [sic]”

            They own the gov’t.

            “environmental regressives”

            Carbon tax for you, not them.

            “they seem to believe we all work 60 hour work weeks for less pay (and no overtime)”

            Correct, you are a tax donkey.

            “simply because women had the nerve to enter the workforce.”

            Additional tax revenue, theoretical increased production, bonus destruction of nuclear family.

            “We work longer hours for less money, income inequality is growing,”

            Fed and inflation.

            “let’s support and elect a guy who is surrounding himself with people intent on perpetuating that.”

            You had no choice in the matter.”

            cool story bro

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            As someone recently said, you can only believe what you hear directly from your President. Everything else is fake news.

            After all, look at how well that works for North Korea.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I heard North Korea is best Korea. Now that I think about it though it was a short fat Korean guy with a perm who was yelling it from a late 70s Mercedes.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “by back-filling it with Goldman Sachs alumn [sic]”

            They own the gov’t.

            *Yes…Them and others.*

            “environmental regressives”
            Carbon tax for you, not them.

            *Like those who smoke, it won’t affect you now but give it 40 years! I actually can’t recall a recent winter where I actually had really cold weather.*

            “they seem to believe we all work 60 hour work weeks for less pay (and no overtime)”
            Correct, you are a tax donkey.

            *They don’t care, as long as you spend your money on the sh!t they sell you!*

            “simply because women had the nerve to enter the workforce.”
            Additional tax revenue, theoretical increased production”

            *They don’t care, as long as you spend your money on the sh!t they sell you!*

            “bonus destruction of nuclear family.”

            *Had to separate that one out – Broken families are less wealthy and less educated. That means easier to manipulate and fall for Great Trumpkin rhetoric. Makes it easier to draft cannon fodder for profitable military conflicts. “They draft the white trash first,’round here anyway”*

            “We work longer hours for less money, income inequality is growing,”
            Fed and inflation.
            **They don’t care, as long as you spend your money on the sh!t they sell you!*

            “let’s support and elect a guy who is surrounding himself with people intent on perpetuating that.”
            You had no choice in the matter.

            *Yes, there was a choice, if you call Hillary Clinton a choice…….well, on second thoughts…..

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lou

            This is an excellent point:

            “Broken families are less wealthy and less educated. That means easier to manipulate and fall for Great Trumpkin rhetoric. Makes it easier to draft cannon fodder for profitable military conflicts.”

            “Yes, there was a choice, if you call Hillary Clinton a choice…….well, on second thoughts…..”

            Austin-Fitts had an interesting viewpoint:

            youtu.be/Bx9_paDhpQs?t=931

            “Like those who smoke, it won’t affect you now but give it 40 years!”

            The planet is going to do what it is going to do. This doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on improved methods of generating energy to reduce pollution, but some of this environazi stuff is just unrealistic. Reminds me of co-founder Dr. Moore’s reasons for leaving Greenpeace:

            https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/why-i-left-greenpeace

            The elephant in the room is simply this, if you want to have less pollution, you need fewer people worldwide. In my more anarchistic moods, I highly endorse this concept. The only other way I can see environment improving is if humanity expands into space in a serious way with the excess population.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            As a general rule, the person who sees the elephant in the room is the one hallucinating, not the one who can’t see the elephant.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          “Dig deeper. I know thinking is hard but you’ve got to try.”

          They’ll have to pry that shovel from his cold, dead fingers!

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            …The elephant in the room is simply this, if you want to have less pollution, you need fewer people worldwide….

            That might be true, but how about each person using less? This does not have to mean living in a cave and driving an Echo, but clearly there is loads of low hanging fruit to be exploited to save energy. I just look out my office window and see massive buildings with all the lights on and empty offices. That’s just a start.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            This is an excellent point, I’m just not bullish on such a thing actually happening on a large enough scale. The Third World wants to live like the First and there simply are not enough resources.

            To your point on simple ideas of saving energy, I absolutely agree. Waste not want not.

      • 0 avatar
        April S

        Lou_BC, I hate to be the President in 2020 who has to clean up the mess Trump and his corrupt cronies will leave behind.

        It will be 2008 all over again.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          they’ll still be blaming Obama in 2050.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Not much chance of that happening, April.

        • 0 avatar
          Snooder

          2020?

          At this rate, he’ll be impeached in 2018.

          What I’m most afraid of is getting a second Carter in 2020. We don’t need the needle swinging too far back the other way.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          I’m ok with 2008. Bush’s policies didn’t create the economic mess. My insurance rates didn’t double under Bush. Locally, under Bush, I didn’t see quiet the small business collapse I’m seeing now. Some of this is healthcare related, but overall I think much of Obama’s policies were anti-small business.

          Folks on both sides of the aisle are assuming that this will be “such” a mess, but it hasn’t occured yet and little proof.

          If things do go pear shaped, so what? In Science, there isn’t anything wrong with a failed experiment. Corporate elitists in DC? Let’s see how it goes. We’ve had nothing but political elitists in DC for years, and things haven’t gone all that well either.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      “THEY TOLD ME IF DONALD TRUMP TOOK POWER, FASCIST VIOLENCE WOULD THREATEN CIVIL GOVERNANCE. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Betsy DeVos being guarded by U.S. Marshals Service. “The last Cabinet member protected by marshals was a director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.”

      So, basically, taking on the Education Cartel is as dangerous as taking on the Drug Cartels? Well, the former has more money and jobs at stake. . . .”

      https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/257726/

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      They can’t control their emotions. Democrats are all for diversity, as long as you agree with them. Being “bi-partisan” in their world is going along with everything they want to perpetrate.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Your endorsement of the OECD’s worst bureaucracies is puzzling. Are you uninformed or unwilling to recognize the failure of our federal departments?

  • avatar
    tonycd

    I have strongly held opinions on this event. But I’m not going to express them here, except for this one:

    This story doesn’t belong on TTAC.

    Yes, I know the way the EPA enforces pollution and fuel economy standards is relevant to the auto industry, but this is just trolling. I’m saddened in recent weeks that I’m gradually finding less and less reason to keep checking in to this site. It’s becoming just another clickbait site, about as connected to cars as Playboy is to “lifestyle.”

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      The extreme, primitive tribalism of the Forces of Feudalism today ascendant in American politics is so absolutely divisive to our present society that *any* mention of their activities is open to the charge of trolling.

      You must want news to just plain go away and let’s all obediently trust in the Men that God has seen fit (finally!) to lead us back to righteousness.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        As a famous leader repeatedly wrote: “Sad”

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        Pants, I’ve read a lot of your other posts, and I respect your intellect.

        No, I’m not pathologically avoiding news. Nor am I religiously motivated. In fact, I read a number of political news sites daily. I read this site too, but not as one of them.

        Do you apply this same standard – and the same severe judgment toward those would feel as I do – to a nature site, or an entertainment industry site, or a wildlife site, or any of the other various topics whose affairs are affected by the affairs of the federal government? Do you feel all of them should now be dominated by news of the federal government?

        Without getting into the merits of the positions involved, this is the president who has chosen an enemy of public schools as Secretary of Education, an enemy of labor unions as first choice to be Secretary of Labor, and someone whom he knew had surreptitious and improper contact with our nation’s foremost nuclear-armed enemy as our National Security Advisor. Is anyone who’s paying attention the slightest bit surprised by the anti-environmentalist stance of this administration’s choice to run the Environmental Protection Agency? Does anyone who’s paying attention need to visit TheTruthAboutCars.com in order to find this out? Forgive me, but I have my doubts.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          Tony, I apologize for ascribing religious motivation to you. That was low-down dirty.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            No worries, Pants.

            I see we’re up to 197 replies to this post now. Obviously, despite my view, we will be seeing more like it — the people have spoken.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          ” Is anyone who’s paying attention the slightest bit surprised by the anti-environmentalist stance of this administration’s choice to run the Environmental Protection Agency? ”

          Surprised? There are plenty of people here who are *elated*!

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Even the stupid, morally bankrupt have a right to their opinion…how else do you explain the election of The Narcissistic Baby? Yeah, voting for her did not thrill me. But seeing what is happening now might have convinced me to campaign for her.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “The extreme, primitive tribalism of the Forces of Feudalism today ascendant in American politics is so absolutely divisive to our present society that *any* mention of their activities is open to the charge of trolling.”

        Damn, OldManPants, I love it when you talk dirty ;)

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      I agree with tonycd. I can’t find a strong automotive connection involving Scott Pruitt other than the EPA 54.5 mpg fuel economy rules. Scott Pruitt’s lawsuits were mostly related to EPA rules for electric power plants and state vs. federal jurisdiction over water pollution. Regarding CAFE, the actual passed by congress law, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, directs the Department of Transportation, not the EPA, to establish and enforce fuel economy standards. Elaine Chao was confirmed Secretary of Transportation 93 to 6.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “This story doesn’t belong on TTAC.”

      oh Jesus Christ, yes it does. the EPA has a huge effect on the automotive industry. The leanings of the newly appointed head of that agency are extremely relevant. Start your own f**king site if you want content perfectly curated to your desires.

  • avatar
    April S

    Hopefully some of those emails he was forced to release when he was Oklahoma AG will be so inflammatory he will need to resign.

    P.S. If he needs to bail we do not want him back as Oklahoma State Attorney General. He is a Homophobe and Transphobe. Not a nice person.

    • 0 avatar
      mason

      “He is a Homophobe and Transphobe. Not a nice person.”

      Does that automatically qualify someone as a bad or “not nice” person, regardless of other beliefs, views, religion, etc.?

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        mason: if true it makes him someone who is not fit to hold public office or make public policy as in that role he has to represent all citizens, fairly and equally.

        • 0 avatar
          April S

          @Arthur Dailey, Exactly. When his agenda was to discount the rights of upwards of 10% of Oklahomans (who are taxpayers) it’s not too much of a leap that he would discount the rights of 100% of the nation’s population to have clean air and water.

          So it seems to me.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Over 10% of Oklahoma’s population is gay or transgender? News to me!

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            gtemnykh, when you take into account roughly 5% of the adult population are gay or lesbian, about 3% are Trans and maybe 2-3% are bi.

            While some of these categories overlap (being lesbian or gay or bi and Trans) altogether we are close to that 10% figure.

            P.S. Since Oklahoma is a very red state we tend to keep a low profile.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            April, recent studies suggest that your numbers are quite a ways off:

            “Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].”

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            gtemnkh, 1%? I guess you have never been to a Pride Festival.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            April, I’m just sharing some hard numbers from a reputable source that seem to counter your earlier claims. No I’ve never been to a Pride festival.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “Does that automatically qualify someone as a bad or “not nice” person, regardless of other beliefs, views, religion, etc.?”

        April didn’t say “bad.” She said “not nice.” And the answer, for “not nice,” is yes. “Bad” is too vague and loaded to be meaningful.

        As an example, a person can have a religiously based view that homosexuality is wrong without taking homophobic actions. Pruitt didn’t manage to do that.

        Although, as Arthur Dailey points out, the presence of such a view, by itself, is reason to question whether the person can fairly execute their duties as a U.S. public official, which include observing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @dal20402 – I used to sit squarely on the right, especially when it came to things like homosexuality. What got me to reconsider was when I found out I was going to be a dad. My wife asked me, “would you love him the same if he was gay?”

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “What got me to reconsider..”

            My eye-opener was when a gay friend of my wife had a brief conversation on the topic with me:

            Gay: “How old were you when you started drooling over tits?”

            Me: “Uh.. Eight?”

            Gay: “OK, now imagine that from then to now you had to keep that a secret from the entire world and fake an interest only in men.”

            Me: “F*ck, I’d have killed myself before I was 20. Or become a priest.

            Gay: “Yeah”.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            “I used to sit squarely on the right, especially when it came to things like homosexuality. What got me to reconsider was when I found out I was going to be a dad. My wife asked me, “would you love him the same if he was gay?” ”

            Your take on what/how the majority of “the Right” feel about gay people is disconnected from reality. Which would tend to indicate the same may hold true for other issues.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            And what is “the reality,” at least, how you see it?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Well, I believe people should be free to love who and “marry” who (singular) they want to, but the government should not force a private business (e.g., a bakery) to support same same sex marriage or force churches to provide their facilities for same. That’s my take on separation of church and state and infringement on religious principles.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Personally I wanted the entire construct to be redefined as a simple business contract (i.e. no diff than a business partnership) and eliminate all of the wasteful family courts. I also wanted the ability to take on multiple wives from the legal perspective because that’s what a mistress really is and it’s something already practiced quite often. But well we can’t have sense, and of course I’m an enemy of the Chekist state anyway so its not like my voice would ever be heard.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            GeneralMalaise –
            – Baking a cake, that old argument. It is a stupid thing to refuse since the person baking it isn’t taking part in the ceremony. That is like saying you can’t sell a gun because the buyer might go out and shoot somebody.

            – Forcing churches to marry gays.
            In that case it needs to be examined within an ethical framework. We have conflicting rights.
            Gays have the right to not be discriminated against and religions have the right to have their beliefs respected.
            It has to be examined case by case since there is disagreement even within the same religion.

            “Your take on what/how the majority of “the Right” feel about gay people is disconnected from reality.”

            The vast majority of those I have known PERSONALLY from the “religious right” are anti-gay. I was part of the religious right. 12 years of Christian school in the “good old days” of residential schools means I’m very familiar with the mind set. The only gay I know that is “on the right” is our friend John Taurus.
            We are seeing shifts in the acceptance of LGBT.
            “Support for gay marriage has steadily grown, and opposition has steadily dropped: As of 2014, 52 percent of Americans favored allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry. Among millennials, the ascendant consumer class, the number was 67 percent, and among Gen-Xers, 53 percent. White mainline Protestants and Catholics supported gay marriage at rates of 60 and 57 percent, respectively; both numbers were the highest on record for each denomination. Among the unaffiliated, black and white Protestants, Catholics, and evangelicals, only evangelical support for gay marriage was found to have dropped between 2013 and 2014, from 23 percent to 21. Evangelicals remain the only demographic group surveyed to remain staunchly opposed to same sex marriage.”

            “The Christian Right has not only moved from the fringes to become the main strain of the Republican Party; it is the Republican Party. These radicals continually surprise us for the fact casual political observers mistakenly believe they represent the far-right fringe. You cannot sugarcoat the fact that a majority of Republicans in Arizona’s House, and also a majority of Republicans in Arizona’s Senate voted for this anti-gay law. Likewise a majority of Republicans in Kansas’ House voted for a similar bill. They voted for it because they want the freedom to discriminate against individuals they claim the Bible finds abhorrent.”

            “GOP support for marriage equality is also getting stronger. A Pew Research poll from last year showed about 25 percent of Republicans favoring it, while a Public Religion Research Institute poll, also from 2011, found an astounding 37 percent of Republicans favoring same-sex marriage.”

            Sorry for using facts. Does that make me an enemy of the people?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Well, Lou, I know a half dozen independents who leaned left that had a Road to Damascus type of moment that changed their politics. That was when they watched bakeries who had cheerfully served gay customers over the years but drew the line at baking wedding cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies put out of business by the government for adhering to their religious beliefs and principles. You may call it stupid, but that says more about you than anything.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Um, evidence they were “put out of business by the government?”

            ‘cos that sounds like a conveniently made up “alternative fact.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @GeneralMalaise – you are claiming that you know multiple bakery owners that were closed down because they refused to bake cakes for gay weddings?

            I’ll store that information in the same file as that Bowling Green Massacre and recent Terror attack in Sweden that #altrealitypotus talked about.

            I don’t recall ANYWHERE in the bible where it says, “Thou shalt not bake cakes for gay weddings.”

            Can you post a link to that biblical reference?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            No, Lou, focus, please… I did not say I knew the owners of bakeries, I said I know the people described who were repulsed by government overreach instances of fining bakeries (some, over $100K, which effectively put them out of business) for not being willing to bake a goddamed wedding cake for a same sex marriage… repulsed by that action taken by government enough to go in a different political direction.

            BTW… here’s a link to the transcript of Trump’s comments regarding what you say was a terror attack that in Sweden… no more of your fake news please: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/257791/

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @GEneral Malaise –
            “Mr. Trump did not state, per se, that a terrorist attack had taken place in Sweden. But the context of his remarks — he mentioned Sweden right after he chastised Germany, a destination for refugees and asylum seekers fleeing war and deprivation — suggested that he thought it might have.

            “Sweden,” Mr. Trump said. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

            He then invoked the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris in 2015 and in Brussels and Nice, France, last year, to make an argument for tightening scrutiny of travelers and asylum seekers. “We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country, and there was no way to vet those people,” he said. “There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”

            “Breitbart News, the right-wing website once led by Stephen K. Bannon, now Mr. Trump’s senior strategist, has published numerous stories alleging that migrants have been responsible for a surge in crime and for a wave of sexual assaults. Swedish officials have said that their statistics do not justify such sweeping assertions, and that the country has a high number of sexual assault reports relative to other European countries because more victims come forward, not because there is more violence.”

            While we are at it:
            “U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is citing the Sunday terrorist attack on Muslims at a mosque in Quebec City as an example of why his own anti-terror policies are needed — though those policies have targeted Muslims and though the accused killer is not Muslim.

            “We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant, and why the president is taking steps to be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,” press secretary Sean Spicer said at his daily briefing on Monday.”

            That attack was carried out by a ultra-nationalist white supremacist against Muslims.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Mason, let me make my position here 100% clear.

        Anyone who says *my* kid needs to ride the back of the bus because she likes girls is going to have a very rowdy disagreement with me. Any such person who runs for office is going to get a very rowdy political disagreement from me.

        And Trump himself may not be “about” this, but his administration is full of people who are. They’re screwing with *my kid*.

        Want to make people mad? That’s a real good way to do it.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          @ FreedMike I’m sorry if I gave you the impression I was at all interested in YOUR view on this matter. Unless of course your walking in April’s shoes, which I doubt you are if you have a child (maybe you were a Michelle at one time?) Serious question/observation based on your screen name.

          Regardless, I really don’t care what you do with your life or anyone elses. I’m a live and let live kind of guy. Don’t force your $hit down my throat and I won’t force mine down yours. I merely asked a question based on several of April’s comments I’ve seen lately. That is all.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Geez its been three days, can the irrational hate be canned until the staff get orders from VerticalScope to troll all of you again?

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          Trump is the only President and Presidential candidate to support gay marriage while he was running and from his first day in office.

          Clinton and Obama only came around after years of publicly defending DOMA

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Yep, 2008 wasn’t that long ago when these peoples so called savior denounced same sex marriage ON STAGE DURING THE ELECTIONS. “Unnecessary” was his exact word if memory serves me correct. Only under immense pressure did he crack and “change” his stance on the subject.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            @markf

            Big deal. Trump said lots of things during his campaign but since the religious right helped elect him they will be expecting their agenda (make LGBT folks second class citizens again) to be put into place. Their buddy Pence will get the ball rolling.

            @mason

            Again big deal. The fact is Mr. Obama did evolved on LGBT rights and ultimately that is what counts. He and his administration had our backs in so many ways and we have much gratitude for everything he ended up doing.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            April, before you condemn someone you should at least attempt to understand their background. Take a look at this interview from 16 years ago.

            http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans

            Not many (if any) were taking this stance on a national stage in 1999. Unlike most politicians who eventually changed their tune on this subject under pressure from the public.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        Obviously and literally yes?

        It’s like asking “well, he slaps his wife around, does that make him not nice? Even if he loves puppies?”

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “@markf

          Big deal. Trump said lots of things during his campaign but since the religious right helped elect him they will be expecting their agenda (make LGBT folks second class citizens) to be put into place. V.P. Pence will get the ball rolling.

          @mason

          Again big deal. The fact is Mr. Obama did evolved on LGBT rights and ultimately that is what counts. He and his administration had our backs in so many ways and we have much gratitude for everything he ended up doing.”

          Dude, give me a break. So Trump picked Pence because Trump has supported gay rights his entire life and decided he wanted to change that when he becomes President. That argument makes a lot of sense. 2nd class citizens, this why you lost, because everyone knows your hyperbole BS is just that.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            @markf

            Dude? I’m not a dude.

            Again, it doesn’t matter whether Trump supported LGBT rights in the past. What counts is what he does now as President. Anyway, I expect any day now an Executive Order allowing “religious freedom” to discriminate against LGBT folks. It’s a reward for the fundamentalist who voted for this amoral fraud.

            @GeneralMalaise

            Non discrimination laws mean just that. You cannot refuse service to the public. You cannot hang a “whites only” sign outside your business. It’s the law that the public is dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality and disability. Some locales also include sexual orientation and gender identity. This was the case when it came to these flower shops. If you can’t follow the law you need to find another locale so you can be a bigot toward LGBT people to your heart’s content.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “Dude? I’m not a dude.”

            Me neither, girlfriend!

            I *am* a male cursed with rampant hetero but overall that’s been an impairment more than anything else, especially as it relentlessly distracts during one’s most educable years.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            NO SOUP FOR YOU!!! A business can refuse service to anyone. For any reason. What. So. Ever.

            It’s one of the great things of working for “yourself”!

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            HA HA U NO WANT KWEER BIZNISS I TAKEE HA HA

            U NO SMART IN HEAD HA HA

          • 0 avatar
            Daniel J

            “Again, it doesn’t matter whether Trump supported LGBT rights in the past. What counts is what he does now as President. Anyway, I expect any day now an Executive Order allowing “religious freedom” to discriminate against LGBT folks. It’s a reward for the fundamentalist who voted for this amoral fraud.”

            Seems to me as of late that LGBT rights have been discriminating religious rights.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            @DenverMike

            If Christians from the New Testament days were here in the United States today they would laugh at what passes for “christian persecution”.

            Crucifixions? Nope

            Being thrown to the lions? Nope

            Kept from practicing their faith? Nope.

            Kept from holding public office? Nope.

            But being called out for treating LGBT folks like crap. OH THE HUMANITY.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Seems to me as of late that LGBT rights have been discriminating religious rights.”

            No, what’s been happening lately is that the right of religious folks to lord it over everyone morally when it comes to homosexuality has been curtailed. Not that this “right” ever existed in the past, but we allowed them to do it. Well, not anymore.

            And this doesn’t mean their rights are being violated…not one darn bit. After all, no one’s forcing them to be homosexual, and the idea that doing business with a homosexual is “immoral” is beyond silly. These folks certainly never go ballistic about having to bake cakes or take photos for sexually immoral heterosexuals, do they? Nope.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I’ll hang around my friend’s 2ndhand store, partly for the giggles. If a customer is the slightest bit rude to him, he’ll snatch the product right out of their hands, throw it behind the counter!

          “Not FOR SALE! Get out of my store!!”. (NO JUNK FOR YOU!!!)

          Their reaction is always *priceless*. They’re all use to shops kissing their A$$.

          Of course a LBGT will claim they weren’t rude, call it a “hate crime”, and try to turn it into an international incident.

          They were rude.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “I’ll hang around my friend’s 2ndhand store, partly for the giggles.”

            So you enjoy inhaling the musty stench of a trash store while watching the saddest schlubs of society take one more blow to the face.

            OK, what’s that got to do with serving healthy, solvent LGBT customers?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yes and nothing. It’s not just for the poor. Anyone looking to save a buck, including millionaires or others looking make a few bucks, as with the endless stream of collectors, dealers, Ebay’ers, Etsy’er, etc, making the ’rounds’.

            He has a knack for finding the eclectic stuff, rare, vintage, vinyl Rock LPs, toys, mid-century, hard/impossible to find, one-of-a-kind, racing/Hot Rod memorabilia (Indy 500, Salt Flats, midget), parts, Muncies, Hurst, Moon, triple deuces, etc.

            It’s always lots of fun digging through the truck loads of stuff/junk he buys in mass, most of it getting recycled. But pots and pans always sell good.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            DenverMike – here are the legal grounds upon which a business owner can refuse to serve a customer:

            “business owners can refuse to serve customers, but must be careful that the denial of service is based on customer behavior, decorum or the health and safety of patrons and employees.”

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Denvermike:

            I have no problem with a store owner kicking out anyone for being rude. Heck, I’m a very strong gay rights advocate, and if I saw people I knew to be gay acting a fool in someone’s place of business, I’d be happy to help the owner evict them right onto the street. If the gay folks in question called me a hater, I’d say, “well, guys, I’ll be at Pride next year marching with my gay kid…remind me of how hateful I am then, OK?”

            But “shopping while gay” doesn’t equate to being rude, you know?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Right. But who gets to decide what constitutes “rude behavior” or coping an attitude? I’m not highly sensitive, but the next guy (shop owner etc) may be.

            They’re stup!d if they’re turning away money from ANY group, race, religion, gender orientation, etc, stepping up “friendly”, or no expression/comments, good or bad.

            My friend isn’t dumb, he just has a “short fuse”. If a business has a policy of not (directly, over the phone, at the counter) serving LBGTs or others, that’s one thing.

            Bakers, florist or printers, turning down business, when it comes to “taking part” in a gay wedding, and they may totally feel they ARE “taking part”, by simply providing the wedding cake, flowers or invitations, I’m totally fine with.

            It’s their call to make, even if I don’t agree. And I wouldn’t agree a crime has been committed either, even if *feelings* were hurt.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Again, it doesn’t matter whether Trump supported LGBT rights in the past….. Anyway, I expect any day now an Executive Order allowing “religious freedom” to discriminate against LGBT folks.”

            So what Trump believed before he was President doe not matter but what Pence believed before he was VP, does. Got it

            Ok, you let me know when that order comes. I’ll be waiting……………

    • 0 avatar
      mtmmo

      Wow you are mentally unhinged. Likely because you can’t afford to buy new batteries but I’m enjoying it!

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      “P.S. If he needs to bail we do not want him back as Oklahoma State Attorney General. He is a Homophobe and Transphobe. Not a nice person.”

      A chilling effect. Women, children, minorities hardest hit!

  • avatar
    mason

    It’s not so much that people actually disapprove of the EPA or what they do. We all agree that clean air and water are a wonderful thing. The ones that have had to work and/or live in second and third world countries (myself included) are especially appreciative of the advancements we as a country have made. But sometimes it’s the manner in which policies are formed. Science should be used to guide regulatory policy, when regulatory policy is used to steer the science and pockets are subsequently lined people want answers. Plain and simple.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “Science should be used to guide regulatory policy”

      Swell. Now just sell that to Baptist deacon Pruitt.

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        It hasn’t worked that way for years yet now it’s expected. Interesting.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @mason – please cite examples of “regulatory policy used to steer the science”

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            he can’t. see, the problem is that the science is trying to tell us we are going to need to make changes in the way we live, and some people are just compelled to fight that tooth and nail.

            on a base level, it’s nothing more than a spoiled brat “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO” reactionary impulse.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      “When regulatory policy is used to steer the science and pockets are subsequently lined people want answers.”

      Yup, that’s pretty much exactly what we’re saying.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      What “pockets are lined?” Do you have any evidence of such lining?

      And, if not, are you really going to be one of these people arguing without evidence that nearly every scientist in the country is corrupt?

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        If you’re looking for a field in which you can line your pockets, environmental science is really, really not a good choice.

        On the other hand, working for the fossil fuels industry…

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        As to your direct question of whether I think scientists are all corrupt, absolutely not. But when politicians predetermine the outcome of Commissions of Inquiries by controlling definitions and terms of reference it really doesn’t matter what scientists prove or disprove. One overly simple example is the term “global warming”. When most people hear this they assume all data gathered is the direct result of the human races impact related to global warming. Yet in truth data collected can anonymously include natural events such as volcanic activity and solar radiation to name two examples. Both are natural phenomena that we have no bearing on yet both are included in the cumulative effects of “global warming”.

        Hence my initial statement, which is not incorrect in any way shape or form.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          That’s a lot of words for a response that doesn’t answer my first question at all.

          “What ‘pockets are lined?’ Do you have any evidence of such lining?”

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            he has no evidence of anything. he’ll just call you a sad person who needs therapy.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Lining pockets as an environmentalist….now that’s funny. What do you think a paid climatologist for an enviro outfit makes? Take a sharp man like Fred Krupp from the EDF. Whatever that non-profit pays him, it can’t be a fraction of what a major climate-denier petroleum company would pay him to obfuscate the facts.

            Always follow the money.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Mason, the relative contributions to global warming by humanity, volcanoes, solar activity etc. have been determined and compared. It is very easy to find this information online. The short form is that human emissions dwarf the others. That volcanoes dwarf human causes is a persistent lie by the deniers.

          And individual oil industry executives make more per year than the annual budgets of medium-size environmental organizations. Just look it up if you don’t believe me.

          Yes, some such as Gore are wealthy. But you know that if he was poor the very same people who call him a corrupt hypocrite for being wealthy, would dismiss him as a worthless bum. You may not have thought of this, but you know it’s true and it exposes the idiocy of the deniers.

    • 0 avatar
      Whittaker

      Well said Mason.

      But the truth of it will go largely unnoticed by the people who don’t understand how the Federal Government works.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Wow, these past few posts show the truth about climate change/global warming science.

        97% of papers on the topic support man made acceleration and/or contribution to climate change.

        Roughly 66% of the population believe in the science of climate change. 1/3 believe it is fake news.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          No surprise as the news can easily be used to manipulate. I always chuckle when, during deep cold snaps, Fox news runs stories on climate change. To those who don’t realize that climate and weather, while related, are most certainly NOT the same thing, it does help make those who don’t understand real science into doubters. Merdouch is famous for this.

        • 0 avatar
          I_Deal_with_Facts

          Hi Lou,

          I just wanted to correct you regarding climate change “facts.”

          This 97% that you quote has been proven false, actually. See this: https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say

          I hate it when the media misleads the general public, such as yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I_Deal_with_Facts – You cite one individual. I’m citing several studies reviewing multiple authors.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

            Consensus on Consensus – Cook et al. (2016)
            Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

            1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

            2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

            Skeptical Science’s 2013 ‘The Consensus Project’
            Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    Thank God we have a pro Automobile EPA Administrator in charge now. All these people who complain about the new EPA administrator, should first turn in their man card, second drive Prius or some other eco BS auto like BMW I3 or Bolt, third, never ever want a performance car or a real man’s truck. If you are an auto enthusiast this is the best choice for EPA administrator. CASE CLOSED

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      pmirp1: were you even alive pre EPA. If you were you would remember the stench coming out of pipes, the smog days, the days when you could see a grey/brown cloud over the cities.

      And of course when we used leaded fuel.

      Or maybe you were just being sarcastic?

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Ha. I’m complaining. I drive a 460 HP sports car for fun, but commute in a hybrid. Caring about the planet does not mean living in a cave. It does not mean self deprivation. But it does mean caring about your surroundings and those around you. It does mean thinking a bit about your actions and maybe a little less of x for a bit more of y. It is just about balance. Installing an anti environmental warrior in the very agency that is supposed to be the watchdog is not a balanced approach. It is a disgusting move. Had our government had proper checks and balances in Congress we would have the ability to stop such choices. But that is not the case now. The Democrats might just as well stay home. They can’t control a thing.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Footprint-based CAFE is still bad legislation. It doesn’t care if your Corvette only gets driven 2K miles a year or if you can hypermile it to 30MPG or what your overall “balanced” carbon footprint is. It also considers an ATS sized car getting 26MPG to be worse for compliance than a light truck getting 23MPG.

        I do not want Puritt’s EPA to run a scorched Earth policy when it comes to air and water quality standards, but I am hoping they can either repeal the current FE regs or wind them back far enough that they have to be replaced once Trump is gone.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          I never said I support footprint based mileage standards. Quite the contrary; I would eliminate any footprint standard. Actually, I would eliminate any CAFE requirement and replace it with a registration surcharge/credit based on the EPA mixed number. Once a year you would either get a check or write one, depending on the mileage of the vehicle you choose to buy. Details would have to be worked out of course but this would be far less cumbersome than the current set up and it would encourage carmakers to get as much of their fleet to the minimum needed to avoid a surcharge.

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            @golden2husky – ugh, not a fan of that proposal. It would shift the costs of maintaining fuel efficiency to the end consumer.

            Thing about CAFE is this. It’s structured to get automakers to sell fuel efficient vehicles as their bread and butter and leave performance cars as low volume niche products. I don’t see a problem with this.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        “The Democrats might just as well stay home. They can’t control a thing.”

        Nor should they. Judged over the course of the last 2 months, they can’t even control their own emotions.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “they can’t even control their emotions”…

          Well, I tend to get emotional when I see the president of the United States running with scissors on *my tax dollar,* you know.

          You’re paying a high price to troll people you don’t agree with politically. Hope you’re enjoying it.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Your tears and those of your kindred spirits are filling the bath tubs of the sane people of America, Freed Mike, who bathe and save on their water bills… and how awesome is that!?!?

            But the truth has apparently hurt you deeply. Be well.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, GM, I’ll pray for *you.*

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Your praying to your goddess Gaia won’t help me, freed Mike. But thanks for the offer.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “they can’t even control their emotions”

            That is hilarious.

            #putinspotus spent 77 minutes calling the press the enemy of the people and during that time lied 17 times.

            Declared the “court system” a threat to national security.

            Suggested that publicly criticizing his military decisions is tantamount to aiding “the enemy.”

            Publicly condemned a private company for dropping his daughter’s (increasingly unpopular) fashion line.

            Trashed New START during a call with Putin — after putting the phone aside to ask his advisers what that (nuclear-arms treaty) was.

            “I was a good student. I understand things,” President Trump assured America on Wednesday. “I comprehend very well, okay? Better than, I think, almost anybody.”

            Got angry at his press secretary for being impersonated by a woman.

            How many more examples do I need to post?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            The media meltdown was hilarious, Lou. That said, I especially like the fact that when Trump is p*ssing on the media’s collective head, he, unlike most politicians, doesn’t even try to tell them it’s raining.

            Seriously… Obama’s NSA spies on the media and they say nothing. Trump criticizes them for their undeniable bias and it’s “un-American” and “deeply disturbing”. You folks are not serious-minded.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            GeneralMalaise – I’m not surprised that you liked that 77 minute press conference.

            I read an interesting take on that fact. The writer exclaimed, there are now only two types of people in the USA and they aren’t divided by party lines. There is one group that enjoyed his 77 minute press conference and then there is the other group, the group that fears for America’s future.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Lou…you people on the Left lost your mojo by becoming absurd. It happened somewhere on the road between cultural appropriation and transgender bathrooms. There is no need to argue against the New Democrat orthodoxy, it’s just laughed at. Without a word needing to be spoken, people get it. Wake up.

            Besides… you’re Canadian, you have your own issues to deal with.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @GeneralMalaise – “Besides… you’re Canadian, you have your own issues to deal with.”

            We are neighbours with the world’s most powerful country. What happens in the USA affects Canada. What #nutjobpotus does will affect people around the globe. Lax pollution laws in the USA will affect Canada.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, I have only one God, GM. I don’t pray to Gaia.

            We Jews are like that. Monotheism, y’know. Look it up sometime.

            But I’ll still pray for you.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “No, I have only one God, GM. I don’t pray to Gaia.”

            You worship GM? So is Mary Barra a high priestess? Doesn’t owning a Jetta get you in trouble with the elders?

            I think you’re in the wrong sect, come back to the Church.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “…should first turn in their man card, second drive Prius or some other eco…”

      Blah blah blah…being a car enthusiast and wanting a decent environment are not mutually exclusive goals. I just bought a car for $16,000 that would embarrass just about any of the “sport sedans” coveted when I was coming of age in the ’70s and ’80s…and it gets around 34 mpg. Plus, it pollutes less, and it has safety features that would have been sci-fi back in the day.

      “The market” drove a lot of that. But so did regulations.

      Grow up.

  • avatar
    ajla

    It is possible to have clean water, clean air, AND have no more footprint-based CAFE?

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      Of course, but we need “the world is ending” drama because this guy had the balls to stand up to the incompetent and out of control EPA.

      • 0 avatar
        Whittaker

        And public schools, which are wholly a state responsibility, are going to melt under the dragon fire of the Sec of Ed.
        Because talking heads say so.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Whittaker, I’ll tell ya the one time that I laughed at the campaign was when the Orange One said: “I’m going to defund the Common Core.”

          THE FEDS AREN’T CONTRIBUTING ANY MONEY TO THAT ANYMORE. The standards have been written, they are out there, the states either adopted them or they didn’t. Some states were for them before they were against them. States are either in or they are out.

          But dang didn’t that line play well with his base.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            these are people who- when Lamar Smith gets up and says “you should only need to get your news from our president”- say “yes sir, sounds good!”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/25/house-science-committee-chairman-americans-should-get-news-from-trump-not-media/

            ““Better to get your news directly from the president. In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.””

            Every day sees us inch closer to a tinpot dictatorship. Y’know, as bad as the Star Wars prequels were, there was one line in the least bad of them which is especially relevant now:

            “So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.”

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “@Whittaker, I’ll tell ya the one time that I laughed at the campaign was when the Orange One said: “I’m going to defund the Common Core.”

            THE FEDS AREN’T CONTRIBUTING ANY MONEY TO THAT ANYMORE. The standards have been written, they are out there, the states either adopted them or they didn’t. Some states were for them before they were against them. States are either in or they are out.

            But dang didn’t that line play well with his base.”

            Could he mean that he will withhold education funds from states that would spend it on common core? Because that would make you look pretty silly.

          • 0 avatar
            Whittaker

            @PrincipalDan, Yes, another nonsense statement from Trump.
            But on the Sec of Ed topic, isn’t it true that the Dept of Ed has no authority force any changes on public education in the various states?
            So why the hand wringing over the appointment?
            Trump isn’t the only one lying to their base.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            What’s your opinion on the efficacy of Common Core, Dan?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Could he mean that he will withhold education funds from states that would spend it on common core? Because that would make you look pretty silly.”

            THEM’S FIGHTING WORDS, TODD! STATES RIGHTS FOREVER!!!!!

            (Hey, apparently Trump’s bought into that concept when it comes to things like the all-important burning national priority of keeping men who dress up like women out of public bathrooms…why not everything else?)

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            In for a penny in for a pound…

            I think that my daughter (in New Mexico) ought to learn the same basic things as her cousin in Tennessee (with the exception of state history and the 10% additional state specific standards allowed by the CCSS in Math and Reading/Language Arts.)

            The irony (for Republicans) is that the rationalization of state standards was originally Republican proposal and was aimed to make students more mobile and ready for the business world. If everyone learns the same basic things, who cares which of the 50 states your job candidate was raised in.

            The CCSS also greatly help states with small populations (like mine). Instead of publishers having a Reading series for each of the 50 states they’d only need ONE.

            In a small state where the textbook market was limited there would only be a small number of publishers who would bother to compete for business. The quality of the curriculum suffers in that situation.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @PrincipalDan – they must think your blog name has nothing to do with your educational background ;)

  • avatar
    ptschett

    On the one hand I don’t mind having an agency that oversees environmental protection, considering that my day job has revolved around off-highway diesel engine and aftertreatment systems for the last 8 years. On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having an EPA that doesn’t feel a need to classify every mud puddle that stays wet for a few days after a rain as a regulated water body, and that maybe assesses the job impacts of its rules as they’re developed rather than blowing it off and then telling a federal judge it’ll take two years to work out the impact.

    (Don’t blame me, I voted for the guy from Utah…)

  • avatar
    tylanner

    If you need more power than a Hellcat, more affordable fun than a Focus RS or a truck higher than a Raptor, I’m sorry, but you are not thinking clearly Mr. auto enthusiast.

    Yes a Tesla is hauntingly unfamiliar but innovation is in right now and it’s not going anywhere…and they cannot take our classic cars off the roads, crush every Wankel or start dismantling organized drag racing…

  • avatar
    markf

    It’s too bad the comments section of this site ha been taken over by fevered leftists suffering from acute Trump derangement syndrome. Yes, by tomorrow afternoon all the water and air will be polluted, give me a break. Gt over yourselves and find something else to whine about. Trump is here for the next 8 years, es 8 cause these apoplectic whinging is what will get him reelected….

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      markf – wow. Nice to see a breath of fresh air. At least you didn’t call anyone a snowflake!

      “acute Trump derangement syndrome”

      Acute – of a bad, difficult, or unwelcome situation or phenomenon

      Acute (medical definition) – “Of abrupt onset, in reference to a disease. Acute often also connotes an illness that is of short duration.”

      Nothing a diagnosis of mental instability or impeachment won’t fix.

      Oh, BTW, nice spelling. Fits the electoral demographic of putinspotus.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        I yhink the spelling is because of the limitations of typing on cell phone screens. I strughle with it myself. Touch-<typing os vastly superior.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        relax snowflake. Good luck getting Trump impeached, let me know how it worked out 8 years from now.

        Putinspotus, cute. You can’t handle your crappy candidate lost so it must be the Ruskies. Of course the Russians were the punch line to Obama’s “the 80s called” joke so which is it? Do the 80’s want their foreign policy back or are there Russians under every bed and behind every corner? Oh, who was President when Russian amassed this great influence and spying capability?

        I guess Trump voters can’t spell but we sure can vote! It’s gonna be a long 8 years for you, you might want to chill out, don’t be so Beta……

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          they can’t control their emotions, Mark. Let them act out. It’s amusing.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @markf – oh, there it is……snowflake and……..and…… OMG……Beta….

          ROTFLMFAO

          With Pruitt in charge I’ll be referring to you guys as “the yellow snow eaters”.

          @General – on the subject of can’t control emotions….. how is that orange dude fairing in that regard?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            He’s doing quite well, Lou. That’s why the Democrats and Democrats with bylines aka the Media are losing their sh*t. Thanks for asking!

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        I wonder who courts the baby seal clubbed vote?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Seal Hunt?

          1. Seals are a sustainable resource and are in abundance. We live in a world where resources have become an issue, and many of us are choosing to consume products that come from renewable resources. Seal is a great example of this – there are tons of them in Canada and they are not at all at threat of becoming endangered.

          Speaking of sustainability, seals are part of the reason why fish stocks are very low (although overfishing is also a big issue) and the seal hunt not only provides jobs and resources for the hunters, but also allows the fish populations to regenerate (a bit.) All major conservation groups will agree that a responsible use of resources (like hunting seals for food and clothing) is a good thing, and is often the central principle of modern conservation.

          2. Seals are local. The green topic is a big one right now, and part of the green movement focuses on buying local.

          Canada has a lot of great resources, but when it comes to fashion, few are 100% Canadian. Nearly all of our fashion products are in some way sourced from overseas (whether it be raw materials or construction) but seal skin and wild fur are 100% free range, local products.

          3. The seal hunt supports Canadian communities. There are two major seal hunts in Canada, one in the Arctic sea (seals hunted by Inuit people) and one on the East Coast (a commercial seal hunt.) Both provide jobs and resources for those people. The meat is eaten, the fat is used for a variety of products, and the skin is sold so that these people can support themselves.

          Food, as you may know, is extremely expensive in the Arctic, and there are limited jobs in that area, or in the Maritimes. The seal hunt is a very important Canadian industry for the people who depend on it.

          4. The seal hunt is not inhumane. The animal rights activists will have you believe that the seal hunt is inhumane, but this is not the case.

          First of all, most seals are killed with rifles (not clubbed to death.)

          Secondly, there have been numerous studies done on the seal hunt, and biologists and veterinarians have all agreed that the seal hunt is no less humane than any other hunt.

          SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, UNDEMOCRATIC

          5. The media paints an unfair picture. My question, after having learnt all the above, was why does the seal hunt have such a bad reputation? There are two answers to this.

          First of all, seals are cute, and people are more likely to be protective of cute animals. If we were all truly concerned about cruelty and sustainability, why aren’t we doing more to save fish? Many species of fish are far more at risk than seals, yet their not-so-cute appearance doesn’t exactly inspire people to campaign for them. (Notice how we care more that our tuna is “dolphin safe” but not so much if that particular tuna is endangered.)

          Secondly, the seal hunt is much more visible than other hunts, and the access to it allows for more imagery. The seal hunt happens in certain places at very specific times, and so it is very easy for activists to turn up and take photos of blood on the ice. Those same activists aren’t invited into abattoirs, and therefore we don’t have the same images in our head of cows or sheep. The fact that seals are cute, and that we have access to photos of them being killed, means the seal hunt has been very unfairly portrayed by the media and activist groups.

          Many of us are so far removed from nature, farming, and hunting, and it is so easy to forget that our food comes from the land. While I will admit I don’t like seeing photos of any dead animals, I do appreciate the process and am under no illusions about the realities of eating meat and wearing animal products.

          For those of us who do choose to consume animals, the best we can do is consume sustainable resources that are treated humanely – and the seal hunt is just that.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Lou… You heartless baby seal clubber, you.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Lou… You heartless baby seal clubber, you.”

            Looks like I’m qualified to run the EPA too.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            “Well, right about that time people
            A fur-trapper who was strictly from commercial
            Had the unmitigated audacity to jump up from behind my igloo peekaboo
            And he started into whippin’ on my favorite baby seal
            With a lead-filled snowshoe

            I said, with a
            Lead-Filled
            With a lead filled snowshoe
            He said, peekaboo
            I said, with a
            Lead-Filled
            With a lead filled snowshoe
            He said, peekaboo
            He went right upside the head of my favorite baby seal
            He went whap with a lead-filled snowshoe, and
            He hit him on the nose and hit him on the fin, and he
            That got me just about as evil as an eskimo boy can be. so I bent down
            And I reached down, and I scooped down and I gathered up a generous
            Mitten-ful of the deadly yellow snow

            The deadly yellow snow, from right there where the huskies go!

            Whereupon I proceeded to take that mittenful of the deadly yellow snow
            Crystals and rub it all into his beady little eyes with a vigorous
            Circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area…”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            GeneralMalaise – your blog name is rather appropriate. That covers the spectrum of corrupt USA politics on both sides of the ideological divide.
            Frank Zappa is hardly an expert on sustainable environmental practices. Then again, expertise no longer matters with #altrealitypotus at the helm.

            I hear that the White House is looking for a communications director. You fit the bill, alt news and insults is the only qualification.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Just what the world needs… another tight-a$$ed lefty. Get a grip, Lou. Climb down off your rocking horse.

    • 0 avatar
      mtmmo

      markf – Exactly. And that’s why TTAC is no longer a several times a day or even a daily thing. In the beginning it was funny reading the leftists become unhinged but now it’s become predictable and boring. Jack is the only reason to visit TTAC and even then he can found on other sites.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Fevered leftists.”

      Blah blah blah blah…do stuff that p*sses people off, and they get p*ssed. Not difficult to understand.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “do stuff that p*sses people off, and they get p*ssed. Not difficult to understand.”

        Translation: Do stuff that the Left does not like and watch us go ballistic.

        Elections have consequences, shoulda thought of that before you nominated the most corrupt candidate in history

  • avatar

    EPA was a “fine-tuned machine” to use Trump’s words, when it sued Volkswagen. Interesting business model too, as it can look forward to collecting billions in fines. Could someone make Pruitt’s coffee from contaminated water just to make a point?

    • 0 avatar
      markf

      Of course we could get the Dems that ran Flint and Michigan to import some of that fine drinking water…..

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        By this “logic:”

        “Republicans were the ones who mistakenly invaded Iraq. Therefore the military is illegitimate.”

        Whatever kindergarten taught you argument and rhetoric should be required to refund your money, bro.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          Bro, your logic is non-existent and you seem to be obsessed with Iraq and the US Military.

          The Republicans don’t “run” the military, the military follows the orders of the CIC, Repub or Dem.

          Flint and Michigan have been run into the ground by Dems for the better part of 50 years….

          Trying to recall what Kindergartens teach “logic and rhetoric” bro

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Let alone all major metro sh*tholes that have been run by Democrats and ruined by their policies for a half century or more.

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        last time i looked, governor snyder and his city management cronies were all rancid repubs.

  • avatar

    I am amused by the display of righteous indignation. If folks would only be so upset and butt-hurt over unelected bureaucrats passing regulations with the force of law…

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’re right. We’re all over reacting.

      By the way, I propose the next stream that gets polluted is the one near your house. No problem, right?

      (People oppose regulations because they think the things they prevent can’t happen to them. Well, they can. And they do.)

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        Yes,cause they have been doing such a great job not polluting rivers and streams…..

        “The Environmental Protection Agency took responsibility Friday for inadvertently polluting a Colorado river with 1 million gallons of toxic orange wastewater while trying to clean up an abandoned gold mine.”

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/07/colorado-river-epa-mine-wastewater-spill/31320641/

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          By this logic: If a military operation fails, de-fund the military because they’re screwups.

          Yeah, right.

          Did the EPA create the mess at that mine? No. Some company did, and left the community holding the bag. The EPA tried to clean it up. It messed up.

          But that proves my point – if not for federal regulation, companies will pollute whenever they can, and won’t do anything to clean it up.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            FreedMike – by their logic, government should change how they fund education……oh….wait….. putinspotus in on it ;)

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    The EPA and other organs of government need to be controlled, not eliminated. I am grateful I’m not breathing the air of 1970 and that water is now less poisonous than cheap rotgut wine.
    That being said, growth of regulatory agencies resembles cancerous metastasis. For extreme examples of this in action, not every tractor tire rut on a farm is navigable waters of the United States nor is it a primeval habitat of the snail farter.
    I support clean coal, entirely because it costs near as damn the same as nuclear to build and will encourage adoption of the new modular SMR nukes. There are many examples of these around the world already, but I’m happy to wait for the US gov’t to bless these after a pilot, probably at INEL in Idaho.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Except there really is no such thing as “clean coal”…cleaner than it was, sure but even if you want to ignore the much higher co2 output from burning it, coal leave behind a lot residue and it causes a lot of damage to mine. Both to the miners and the planet. Why a man would want his son to follow his footsteps into the coalmines is beyond me.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        golden

        That was the point – there is almost no economic advantage to clean coal for capital cost. Both are more expensive than gas fired plants, but as the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has commented, you can’t be an environmentalist and not support new generation nukes.
        Small Modular Reactors can be assembly line manufactured and installed singly or in an array. If they catch on and don’t suffer huge paperwork overhead – because they are standardized, then they might become cheaper to build than the clean coal plants. That paperwork has already been thru the first round and it looks like a pilot might be built at INEL – a national engineering lab.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I don’t think “cheaper nuclear” is the answer to making it more popular in the wake of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. They’re going to have to convince people that the safety factor is beyond reproach.

          And this gets back to my argument as to why regulation is vital. Does anyone think the American people are gonna buy that “the market” is going to regulate itself when it comes to a nuclear powerplant that could render entire cities or even states uninhabitable if it goes sideways? Not a chance.

          Nuclear has real advantages, but proponents of it are going to have a tough time selling it.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Fukushima was a game changer, its over for nuke.

            http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/31/business/corporate-business/ailing-toshiba-may-sell-westinghouse-pare-risks-nuclear-business/

            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-17/how-toshiba-lost-6-billion

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            SMRs do not need pumps to cool the reaction. Natural convection does the job. No backup generators to fail. Standardized design reduces possible unpleasant surprises, provided initial oversight is done properly, like, say, by the NRC. Don’t site nukes on a coast subject to huge subduction earthquake-driven tsunamis like Fukushima. (Looking at you WPPSS aka WHOOPS. The Cascadia fault could take out much of whats west of I-5 in the Pacific Northwest.)
            Similar to an observation upthread – nukes, gas fired plants, freezing in the dark, pick one. (Check US gov’t EIA site to see the relative efficiency in CO2 produced oil vs gas vs coal). Musk is dreaming big on solar/battery storage and I wish him the best, but it is not there yet. As for windmills, expensive and intermittent generation, plus the funding incentives don’t seem to incent maintenance. I’ve done engineering work on heliostat solar generation and I think you can forget that too. Lotsa ways to screw that up in operation. Hydro? Where’s my salmon dinner? How about that Oroville dam?

            There is no such thing as a free lunch.

            28 cars may be right in this country. For the second/third world, they can remain poor, choke on their air or choose some risk. En brera.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            SMRs have that one drawback the coolant is highly reactive to water to include the water in concrete. We ran one successfully though for years on a small scale. The Japanese tried to run a larger one and haven’t been able to duplicate that success.

            The AP1000 design incorporates convection into a more conventional design and can go 3 days with a total loss of power to the pumps. It can continue indefinitely so long the resovoir can be topped off after those 3 days.

            Of the “big 3” nuclear disasters (Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI) it would have at least prevented Fukushima. I think TMI would be prevented in today’s technological environment via modern ICS systems, though they can have other drawbacks. Chernobyl was a type of reactor that is 50’s Soviet tech and wouldn’t be built today. I don’t know if any are in operation outside the former USSR, but it’s failure isn’t really relevant to even our older designs…the technology was just not the same. I don’t know if the AP1000’s design would have prevented TMI since but it could have with modern safeguards that would have stepped in when the operators began making decisions based on bad data.

            Having said that the gen 3 stuff is promising and a properly designed Sodium reactor should be safer, all things equal but they do have a pretty scary failure mode if the design isn’t good.

            Honestly I’d like to see something where small modular reactors are used to augment renewables in conjunction with a sort of move to more localized power generation.

            Interestingly enough I saw a NOVA recently where they had a reactor that used nuclear waste as the fuel.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            that’s the sad thing about the Fukushima disaster. it’s not an example of the flaws of nuclear power in general, it’s an example of poor design decisions around the implementation of 1960s technology. it would be nice to have feasible reactors which don’t need water under high pressure in the reactor vessel, but I’d feel a lot better about building out “walk-away-safe” modern designs like the AP1000 and ESBWR than limping along with reactors built in the 1970s off of designs from the late ’50s.

            Fermi II near me currently runs a ’70s-era BWR almost identical to the ones in Fukushima. DTE is trying to get a permit to construct a new, modern, *safer* ESBWR next to it and still people are fighting it.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            See I am on the other end of the spectrum. I live close enough to Plant Vogtle in Augusta that I felt compelled to read up on the design. I’d rather live next to an AP1000 than a coal plant.

            The problem is that the cost overruns are enormous. I think I have 2 separate surcharges on my electric bill now to pay for it. I think the build at Cawtaba isn’t much better. The break even point is now so far in the future that the AP1000 will be a relic like all that 70s stuff by time it is paid for.

            I understand much of the cost is due to there being no companies to build one in the US for 30 years but this is a largely known quantity…the AP1000 is based off an existing design. Now add in totally new designs and you see the problem. Nobody will be able to afford to build them…they can’t afford current tech.

            For nuclear to take off the Government is going to have to get behind a gen 3 technology like they did PWRs back in the day. We need a coherent national energy strategy that modernizes both generation and distribution focusing on renewables where they work and gen 3 stuff to plug the gaps. But Politics make that seem unlikely.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            The tone and tenor of the comments started out promptly with a ‘close the Washington Monument’ approach. Translation – we’re gonna go back to before Nixon signed the EPA enabling legislation with Pruitt. It is worthwhile countering that sophomoric non-argument.
            BAFM – you stuck around
            JimZ – beaching a Navy nuke, upsizing it and expecting commercial entities would have Rickover levels of discipline was pretty naive. We’ve been lucky. SMRs are in a long line of designs meant to be more fault tolerant, but 28 cars could be right about prospects in this country. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is proceeding. I’d rather have our regulatory oversight bless the designs than, say, the Russians. Not all agencies are as high handed as others.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Yes I stuck around. Pity I had to scroll all the way to the bottom for a discussion that was worth a damn and that was on nuclear reactor design, not cars. I’m cool with that, but I have enough stress on a daily basis without the BS in the 200 posts over this.

            Incidentally, I wonder how many talking out their Kirsten’s here have been effected by the Donald. I have. Bad time to retire from the militarywhen you were looking at moving to a civil service job with the freeze. Fortunately I had not put all my eggs in that basket Because I’m not an idiot.

  • avatar
    USAFMech

    Steph, good job playing it down the middle and keeping it transportation-related in the article.

    Mark, your comments section is a f’n mess. About 80% of it is poo flinging. Get it together.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    You guys are moving too fast for me – I’m running out of popcorn!

  • avatar
    markf

    I turned on the tap today and the water is toxic and I must use a gas mask o go outside cause someone who isn’t a raging Leftists is running the EPA so we are going to die very soon cause he will actively seek to poison everything!

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    I’m done. Between articles like this and all the F u c ktardary from the Aussies this place ain’t worth reading. So one last time Al and Robert Ryan, Shove it…
    S
    H
    I
    THEADS

    Now commence with your banning.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “Now commence with your banning.”

      I, Kek, ban thee for like totally forever and ever, Amun.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckrs

      BAFM – if you don’t show up, you lose, they win. The article is important, even if much of ensuing commentary wouldn’t make it in a junior high school debate.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        I’m not trying to win anything here. It is a damn car site, or at least it used to be. It is like CNET which now covers Trump tweets as “tech news”. Every damn thread turns into a running critique of the United States somehow. I can go to any number of sites to see how Trump’s cabinet is coming together. Cars, well one less it seems. They know exactly what is going to happen when they post something like this. This is car news because “the industry wants to know what Pruitt is going to do for them?” No $#!+. I want to know what next weeks powerball numbers are. It isn’t news though. I swear to God I miss when effing Bertel Schmitt was running this place. At least the crapstorms were stirred up in real car articles.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          Maybe cars are just too damn boring now.

          Or trivial, given that this country is more hatefully divided now than at least since Vietnam if not the 1850s.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Maybe cars are just too damn boring now.”

            That is what Ford engineers are saying.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            Lou, that’s brilliant and something that has itched the back of my mind since the first mention (and B&B condemnation) of those Ford focus-on-mobility articles.

            Yah, Mark Fields and I see eye-to-eye! Cars are the brick & mortar anachronisms of future transportation.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            yeah, so lets stoke that division in every forum possible. You people have lost your damn minds.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            The mockers and gawkers on the Left don’t get *it and they can’t hold their pee.

            Non-lefties are just having some fun.

            *it is over for them

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Big Al From ‘Murica – communication should close those divisions but look at which side of the debate chooses insults over information.

            @GM – “*it is over for them”

            Yes, that is true. We are witnessing the devolution of Democracy.

            “and they can’t hold their pee.”

            I would have never pegged you as an amateur urologist plying one’s trade in public bathrooms.
            Maybe you should take up baking wedding cakes. I hear that it is a booming business with little competition.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            @Lou I see enough jackassary from both sides to last a lifetime.

  • avatar

    If I was an editor at the Detroit News or the Free Press, I’d be trying to schedule a sitdown with Sec. Pruitt for an interview about how he sees the EPA under his guidance will affect the auto industry.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      I guess there was too much bickering for somebody to pick up on your comment, but I believe there will be a lot of behind the door dealmaking. I’m willing to bet that the car companies have been rapidly calculating the cost of moving some production back to America vs the cost “saved” if this administration reduces the mileage regulations. While it seems that the costs saved in design and materials would over the long haul would come out ahead of higher labor costs, a lot of design dollars have already been expended and those designs will proceed forward at least until the next design cycle.

      I see a big push to roll back those standards in trade for bringing back some manufacturing in the US. That would be a big win for T-Rump: He can tout that rolling back regs saves jobs, and he can say he brought back X amount of jobs. Of course there is no free lunch and intelligent people will see the shell game for what it is but in manufacturing towns, once a Democratic stronghold, that calculus will be unnoticed and they will again be electoral votes for him.

      Of course there are some risks. The carmakers see higher sales of higher profit, less efficient vehicles but a significant uptick in energy costs can rapidly change buyers’ habits. America is more insulated from such outside suppliers than they were 20 years ago, and watering down environmental protections will also make more production here cheaper. Again, a calculated win for the president. IMO these are short term gains that help a select few at the cost of many. As much as some don’t want to admit it, those environmental regulations have made for a much cleaner, and healthier place for both people and planet. Those protections are not free of course, but I believe we are morally bound to care about the planet around us. It can’t just be about making money for a select few.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @golden2husky – shifting jobs to the USA isn’t short term. Car companies can up production by adding shifts but how long does it take to build a new plant. I’m betting at least 3-5 years. That is actual construction which doesn’t include design/engineering and site prep.
        Ford cancelled a 1.6 billion dollar new plant in Mexico but isn’t shifting any Mexican jobs to the USA. It was a smoke and mirrors ploy to suck up to a Potus known for not paying attention to any briefings. They are still going ahead with $2.5 billion Mexican plant upgrades which will hire 3,800 additional Mexican workers.
        I do agree that relaxing MPG/Emissions standards won’t have much effect on current vehicles as the engineering is already completed. R&D money for future improvements could be shifted to other areas of production.
        Car companies also have to look at the instability caused by #narcissistpotus. If he continues on his current wrecking ball path it may be best for car companies to wait and see. If Dems gain congressional power in 2018 then there will be obvious pushback on softening regulations.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Would anyone agree that since the imposition of regulations the domestic automobile industry has gone from producing 460 cubic inch engines that produced less than 200 hp to compact 4 cylinder vehicles that produce more than 1 hp per cubic inch and can outperform the old, pre CAFE, pre EPA vehicles by any measure?

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      Yabbut no V-8 rumble, no penile profile (ovoid!) and, most goddammity, no vent windows!

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I miss those vent windows. I’m fond of that V8 rumble too. I was watching a video on the new Raptor. That V6 on steroids whine was very disappointed.

        I don’t want to sound like Jack, but I love a good aural report ;)

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Detroit automakers sold “compact” cars (Falcon, Nova, etc), well before US regulations encouraged them. The Arab “oil embargo” forced “Big 3” compacts, more than any policy ever could.

      Then the fuel economy (besides quality) of “subcompact” Japanese imports drove it home. Actually the ’71 Pinto and Vega hit the streets, the same year the EPA was born.

      Huge passenger cars and station wagons, Big Block V8s and all, were falling out of favor, with declining sales starting by the early ’60s.

      Except figure V8 fullsize passenger cars and station wagons, Country Squire, Road Master, etc, did do the work of pickups, pulling the boat, travel trailer, and even used as tow trucks, but could haul the family too.

      Big sedans and station wagons, had their place, but were dying out, long before CAFE (Gas Guzzler tax) tightened the screws on them. Final nail in the coffin? I’ll give them that.

      At the time, extra cab and crew cab pickups started gaining mainstream popularity as family haulers, along with the explosion of midsize and fullsize SUVs, besides minivans. Then CAFE makes these exempt from the GG tax.

      Over all, CAFE and the EPA have had little effect on the “Big 3”. It’s mostly “consumer demand” shaping the industry, Big 3. US Regulations are almost a step behind, of course claiming *they* change/shape the industry for the better. Not so much.

      Cleaner air from tough emissions standards? OK I’ll give them that.

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        “Cleaner air from tough emissions standards? OK I’ll give them that.”

        A wretched pittance in exchange for losing biggity greenhouses.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          You forgot the loss of fold down headlights thanks to pedestrian refs. You can keep vent window though…all they did was whistle.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Fold down headlamps went away mostly because NHTSA eliminated the requirement that all cars use specified sealed-beam lamps. pop-ups came from stylists’ desire to hide those ugly things. Once they were free to design their own headlamp housings, pop-ups went away practically overnight. they were complex, costly, and trouble-prone.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            Pre-AC, vent windows cranked backwards to divert the slipstream through open rear windows gave blessed relief.

            They also served to vacuum ciggie smoke into the slipstream when normally angled if you held your cancer stick near them.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      If you think specific horsepower output is a “technology”, you’re living in the middle of last century. Furthermore, the coincidence of events is not causal.

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    Look at the size of Pruitt’s wristwatch; it’s a dead giveaway that he’s a 5’8″ fundie.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    So with this EPA pick the Chinafication of the USA continues. First you had free trade policies started during the Reagan years (and yes, continued under Dems) drive workers wages down. Now you have someone who will get rid of those pesky environmental regs that corporations are forced to abide by. Workers will go back to labouring for peanuts in polluted workplaces and homes, and the rich will get richer.

    The only surprising thing is a huge segment of the American working and middle class keeps falling for it election after election.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Obama’s EPA delivered a windfall for the little guy, and it definitely stopped the Chinafication of America.

    • 0 avatar

      Chinafication you say? You want big, overarching government but it’s been in the places where government is strongest, the USSR and China, where polution has been the worst. Where property rights don’t exist, the environment suffers.

      When I was managing waste for a DuPont paint lab, I took a bunch of waste management courses at Wayne State’s engineering school, about a third of those required for a MS in the field. In a public policy class our instructor made the point that even before Clean Water and Clean Air acts of the late 1960s and subsequent alphabet soup of EPA, RCRA, and Superfund legislation and regs, property owners could sue polluters for damaging their property.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @Ronnie

        “In a public policy class our instructor made the point that even before Clean Water and Clean Air acts of the late 1960s and subsequent alphabet soup of EPA, RCRA, and Superfund legislation and regs, property owners could sue polluters for damaging their property.”

        And the fact that pollution was a LOT worse back in those days tells me that this “method” of keeping polluters in line was a pretty miserable failure. Hence, the regulations.

        I think you just sank your own argument.

        • 0 avatar

          The United States, pre 1968, had cleaner air and water than the USSR had 20 years later. There’s a book that covers the latter country called Ecocide In The USSR. Entire areas of the country are uninhabitable due to industrial pollution. There’s nothing like that in the United States. They also had the habit of scuttling radioactive nuclear powered naval ships.

          I’d be surprised if Los Angeles, on it’s worst day in 1968, had air quality poorer than Beijing does when they have air quality alerts these days.

          The U.S.A. was not a toxic wasteland before federal environmental regulations kicked in. Yes, there was water and air pollution, and plenty of toxic dumps, but it wasn’t so out of control that they weren’t able to identify the number of Superfund sites that needed control and remediation.

          Interestingly, when I was doing a term paper on Superfund sites, I found out that a non-trivial percentage of Superfund sites involved other criminal behavior. Some of those dumps were illegal pre-1968. It’s not a stereotype to say that the waste hauling business has issues involving organized crime.

          Yeah, I know Randy Newman wrote a cute song about a slow moving river that’s had burning debris since before Europeans arrived.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ronnie, you’re really going to compare the Soviet Union to the United States?

            Okey dokey…of course the Soviet Union had environmental problems. It never gave a s**t about its’ citizens, and said citizens were never able to tell their elected representatives to do a better job of environmental stewardship, as we did in our country…because there were no real elected representatives.

            You’re trying to make some kind of argument that equates Soviet-style control with environmental over-regulation in our country, in what appears to be a “over-regulation = communism” argument, and it isn’t working. For one thing, the Soviet Union wasn’t communist at all – it was a dictatorship with communist-style trimmings. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, actually resembles “pure” democracy. And in a pure democracy, the Soviet Union would never have been able to get away with their environment unless the people went along with it.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You speaking against the party, Comrade?

            Come with me, we have much to discuss.

  • avatar
    Trucky McTruckface

    I’m done waiting for Mr. Stevenson and the moderators to clean up the rancorous SJW circle jerk in the comments. It’d be one thing if it stayed mostly on topic, but there’s people in here b!tching about Russian hacking, common core and everything else under the sun.

    And it’s always, ALWAYS the same group of people. One of them in this thread told another commenter to go f*ck themselves, and it’s at least the second time I’ve witnessed him do that. How is that not bannable behavior? BTSR was banned, as I recall, for spamming the boards, often with right wing, off topic opinions. I fail to see how the behavior of these posters is any different, besides being left wing and far less civil. So what gives?

    It’s a shame that things have taken such an ugly turn, as the comments used to be the primary reason to come here. The content certainly isn’t driving the traffic…I’ve watched for years now as one editor after another has over promised and under delivered. From what I understand, TTAC’s parent company generally sucks to deal with, especially regarding staff budgets, so it’s no surprise that every one of those editors either moved on to greener pastures or bugged out to explore other interests. It’s also no surprise that the long time contributors that still bother to hang around here save their best work for other sites.

    Since I don’t expect VerticalScope to give Mark or anyone else the resources to make the content worthwhile, and I know the resident SJWs aren’t ever going to get a f*cking hobby and stop wasting everyone’s time with their Trump rantings, I’m out.

    So long and thanks for all the fish.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      Sir, wait…

      Is this your sweater?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      I was going to quit but I think instead I am simply going to take opportunities like this to remind the staff that the forums were vastly more civil when Bertel Schmitt was the EIC and by in large the content was better. You are right though, big trucks got the boot for far less jackassary then has been demonstrated here.

      As such I am officially advocating that the editorial staff do the following:

      1. Apologize to Bertel and bring him back. (Unless they can get Farago back)
      2. Bring Steve Lang Back.
      3. Run more content from the Mehta brothers
      4. Bring Crabspirits back.
      5. Give BigTrucks, Tresmonos, and Deadweight a column
      6. Lock comments on articles like this. Limit comments to car articles. That would cut out 90 percent of the cheesedickery.

      Bottom line, this place was better with Bertel in charge. Take that however you like.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        And I’m on my second old fashioned. Got some vermouth for manhattans. To quote Ke$ha, who sang a song about a Trans Am which according to the editorial standards here makes Ke$ha content officially car related and worthy of discussion…This place about to blow. As I am not a lefty I fully expect to be banned.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/03/kehas-gold-trans-am-is-a-metaphor-for-her-t-what/

          And that was during the Bertel Era.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Still a more informative article than this one and the commentary was way better. Then again Ke$ha’s music is better than this post. Actually it does Ke$ha a disservice to be compared to this cheesedickery. This place is Bieber covering Wham’s greatest hits. And no it is not too soon…Wham sucked weather George Michel is dead or alive. So does Bieber. Throw in Minudo for the win and it would still be better than the drivel being excreted here.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thetruthaboutcars.com

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Bertel would bring in more traffic at least. And look, 1.6 percent of the site’s traffic comes from Australia, yet that 1.6 percent is responsible for at least 50 percent of the cheesedickery that happens on this site. And it probably isn’t even 1.6 percent…at least half of those unique visitors are Robert Ryan logging in as one of his other screen names.

        Seriously though, you stir up a hornets nest with this sort of crap but as you can see it isn’t healthy for the site. Gone are the days of this place being a reputable source. Hell didn’t this site come up in a presidential press conference some years back? Yep, gone are the days. I get more real news from auto extremist.com nowadays and frankly, the reviews over at big trucks youtube page are more informative. But hey, lets talk politics! It’s important right because this time the world really is ending. Yeah the other side said it for 8 years but this time it is for real. Give me an offing break.

        #BRINGBACKBERTEL

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    These articles serve an useful purpose: it allows SJWs, TDSs, and others who engage in polemics to vent, keeps them off the streets, causes them to be too spent to muck up most other articles, and serves as a reminder to serious policy debaters that there’s an element here, and in America at large, that cannot be engaged in a rational exchange of ideas, so it’s best not to try.

    Thanks to threads like this, we know who they are – they self-identify – and that allows us to disengage early on in the thread, or largely avoid participating. Those who are proclaiming the online equivalent of ‘Cancel my subscription!’ should reconsider.

  • avatar
    Funky

    Please keep it going. This is all very entertaining and sometimes interesting. As others have stated, politics impact the automobile industry. Divergent threads/comments will sometimes occur when discussing politics. It is easy enough to skip over information/comments if one does not find them to be of interest (or palatable). No complaints here.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    Al Franken – Jill Stein

    Franken-Stein in 2020!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.
  • Corey Lewis: You do British condescension so well!
  • Old_WRX: If they don’t offer that interior in magenta crushed velour fabric it would be such a shame.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber