Last edited by Jay (2016-12-20 13:50:10)
No I just think it's stupid to disqualify people because of their bank account. It's irrelevant. I think Rex Tillerson was a really good pick, and so is Mattis. Pruitt might be good, and DeVos might be a breath of fresh air.uziq wrote:
jay is so incorrigibly petit bourgeois that he exhibits their trademark and telltale social aspiration. he identifies with the rich and 1% and rather fancies he has something in common with them. he's a winner, you know, and associates with the quality.
Like putting someone in charge of a department they said they want to shut down? How is that going to do any good?Jay wrote:
Putting a critic in charge of each agency might actually do some good. There's enough inertia that prevents radical changes.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/d … ?cid=bitlyAs Vladimir Putin’s man in Turkey, Karlov was the public face of that murderous dictator’s war crimes around the globe and of oppression at home. Andrei Karlov is the human embodiment of policies that deployed bunker busters to kill babies, sent fighter planes on scorched earth bombing runs that destroyed a whole city, aided Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad in his campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands, and even ordered attacks on UN aid workers.
So I, for one, am shedding no tears for Andrei Karlov. Frankly, I’m surprised his murder didn’t come months ago. After all, this was the lede sentences of a Washington Post story from Oct. 9: "There seems to be no way for the international community to stop the ongoing war crimes being committed by the Syrian regime and its Russian allies, especially in Aleppo," the newspaper reported. "But by brazenly flouting international law, leaders and rank-and-file officials in both countries are opening themselves up to future justice in multiple ways."
Justice has been served.
Because putting people who have been in the system in charge has done wonders for our competitiveness, right? Our education system sucks. Putting an American trained educator in charge seems like kind of the opposite of what we should want to do. She's in favor of vouchers. So am I.SuperJail Warden wrote:
most of these people have zero experience in the area they are going to be put in charge of. the pick for department of education was never a teacher or even has an advanced degree. her only experience is making money by founding charter schools and donating to the gop. rick perry has zero experience in the energy field but he is going to replace a nobel prize winner in physics.
it is stupid cronyism and anyone defending it is an easily fooled idiot
Last edited by Jay (2016-12-20 15:42:44)
The EPA is staffed by environmental loonies. I don't want to go back to the bad old days, no one does, but they've steadily increased their reach to the point that anyone who owns anything near water has to jump through their hoops. They've far outstripped their mandate and need to be reigned in, not destroyed, and that happens to be Pruitt's position. I wish him the best.AussieReaper wrote:
Like putting someone in charge of a department they said they want to shut down? How is that going to do any good?Jay wrote:
Putting a critic in charge of each agency might actually do some good. There's enough inertia that prevents radical changes.
The EPA is there to prevent the sorts of pollution you see in China. Why is scraping it considered a good thing?
it's not a critic, it's a non-expert. there's a big difference. it's part of the populist backlash against 'experts' and technocrats. i can agree with it to a degree, when government and politics has become so specialised and mandarin, for a certain 'caste' of society only to engage in ... but this goes too far the other way. it's philistine and anti-intellectual.Jay wrote:
Putting a critic in charge of each agency might actually do some good. There's enough inertia that prevents radical changes.
Last edited by uziq (2016-12-20 15:56:21)
I've met too many completely incompetent rich people to equate wealth with skill. Maybe when I was younger and more idealistic, but man, if you heard the dumb crap the bankers on my train talk about every day, a lot of them are worse than the union grunts...uziq wrote:
it's not a critic, it's a non-expert. there's a big difference. it's part of the populist backlash against 'experts' and technocrats. i can agree with it to a degree, when government and politics has become so specialised and mandarin, for a certain 'caste' of society only to engage in ... but this goes too far the other way. it's philistine and anti-intellectual.Jay wrote:
Putting a critic in charge of each agency might actually do some good. There's enough inertia that prevents radical changes.
also i feel like most people don't really care about the size of their bank accounts. it's the weird ideological assumption that you sometimes find wherein people think 'financial success' = 'must have aptitude'. we really need to do away with the idea that a successful banker or a person with 'real business experience' is somehow intrinsically good at leadership or politics. it's a spurious assumption. people born into enormous wealth or privilege don't have to do much – other than not fuck up tremendously – to do well in life. trump is a walking advertisement of this. i think people are wary of this idea that a staff full of billionaires is going to be a staff of hard pragmatists who know who to broker deals and 'just get it done'.
Last edited by Jay (2016-12-20 16:19:14)
There's a reason for that. Have you not heard about the Flint Michigan water crisis?Jay wrote:
but they've steadily increased their reach to the point that anyone who owns anything near water has to jump through their hoops.
The crisis that was caused by the local government cheaping out on importing water from Detroit, even though they knew the local water was tainted, because they didn't want to get locked into a long term contract when their cronyist water treatment plant was scheduled to come online in a few years? That really isn't any of the EPAs business anyway. Completely local issue.AussieReaper wrote:
There's a reason for that. Have you not heard about the Flint Michigan water crisis?Jay wrote:
but they've steadily increased their reach to the point that anyone who owns anything near water has to jump through their hoops.
EPA's basic mission is to protect human health and the environment -- air, water, and land. EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state legislatures and tribal governments.
But yeah, Flint. Totally a local issue and none of anyone else's business.EPA's purpose is to ensure that: all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work […]
Do you genuinely think that's what's going to happen?Jay wrote:
They just need to have enough energy to call the bureaucrats out on their shit and reign them in as much as they can.
They'll sit back, ignore what they can get away with, and keep on doing what they've been doing until the next administration rolls into town.
The first is my hope, the second is what is more likely. Real change has to come through Congress, but we ended up here because they punted everything that could potentially cost them votes, so I'm not going to hold my breath.pirana6 wrote:
Do you genuinely think that's what's going to happen?Jay wrote:
They just need to have enough energy to call the bureaucrats out on their shit and reign them in as much as they can.
Or do you think this is what's going to happen:They'll sit back, ignore what they can get away with, and keep on doing what they've been doing until the next administration rolls into town.
If they want clean water, they can just move to a place with clean water. No one owes you clean water. /libertarian land logicunnamednewbie13 wrote:
And now we're somehow on this. Also,EPA's basic mission is to protect human health and the environment -- air, water, and land. EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state legislatures and tribal governments.But yeah, Flint. Totally a local issue and none of anyone else's business.EPA's purpose is to ensure that: all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work […]
or everyone will leave, businesses will close, the entire place will turn into a ghost townDilbert_X wrote:
Don't worry, the free market will clean up the water problem.
When there is no clean water then clean water will be really valuable and corporations will step in to fill the gap.
Supply/Demand you communist faggot.
my god you really are just the most stupid brainwashed idiot on the whole fucking internet.Finray wrote:
or everyone will leave, businesses will close, the entire place will turn into a ghost townDilbert_X wrote:
Don't worry, the free market will clean up the water problem.
When there is no clean water then clean water will be really valuable and corporations will step in to fill the gap.
Supply/Demand you communist faggot.
can't find the video right now but some guy took a drive through the place and most of the homes and shops were boarded up and marked for utilities being cut off.
Ghost towns are business opportunities for savvy millennial entrepreneurs.Finray wrote:
can't find the video right now but some guy took a drive through the place and most of the homes and shops were boarded up and marked for utilities being cut off.
<_<Dilbert_X wrote:
Chernobyl
...
Russia.
