Are you suggesting that
any and all environmental regulations are by definition "proper and good"?
OK, here's a hypothetical.
A POTUS, in the next 2 years, simply bans all use of fossil fuels.
Is that a good thing?
Saint Greta would certainly approve.
But since ~80% of the energy the US uses comes from fossil fuels that would make the recent economic downturn due to COVID-19 look like the DotCom bubble.
People would die because nothing could be transported in this country.
I'd say that's a bad regulation, but hey, that's just how I roll.
Am I suggesting that what ever regulations Trump rolled back are to the same degree as this?
Of course not, but I brought it up to illustrate a point. One must consider the cost and the benefit of any given regulation.
How do the regulations rolled back by Trump stack up in that category?
That is a worthwhile discussion to have and reasonable people can disagree on the topic.
But that's not what you did. You essentially stated that those 80 regulations are essential, hence one can only "care about the environment" if one embraced them.
The cost and benefit never even came up.
Huh? So you're saying that because people disagree about him that is "destroying" families and relationships?
Hell Red Sox and Yankees have been doing that for a 100 odd years in Connecticut, but I digress.
So you're saying that people feel so strongly about him that they will distance themselves for friends and family that don't think the same about him?
That's
his fault?
You don't think the individuals involved have even the teeny tiniest part to play in that?
Oh and let me ask you one simple thing.
What would you suggest is the distribution as to which party decided an opinion about Trump was the non-negotiable item? Opposed or in favor?
So who exactly is cheesed off at us?
Our NATO allies for being hounded to meet the military spending targets they promised they would?
Yeah, how horrible of us.
Of course, every other politician hugs their opposites and sings Kum Ba yah with them. Not a single one "attacks" their opponents.
I'm going to leave this one to the Baron, it's right up his wheel house.
Look, you clearly haven't been paying attention to Trump's SOP. He's been doing this since he was doing real estate deals in NYC.
Everything is about "the deal". Everything is a negotiation.
As part of that he describes the other person in the negotiation in one of two ways: They are either the utter scum of the earth, or their the virtual second coming of Jesus. There's no middle ground.
Which one he chooses at any given moment depends on which he thinks will help him in the negotiation.
Now, one can not be a fan of such behavior, but it has the advantage of being transparent.
Stop and think about Kim for a moment. He went from "little rocket man" to being praised by Trump.
The first was an example of the scum of the earth bin, the other the latter.
Oh, and just a casual perusal of US history will show various US officials saying "nice" things about truly the scum of the earth. It's called diplomacy.
Uh no.
As Mueller clarified(?)
in his Congressional testimony is that they never even determined if he could be charged.
"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.
"We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.
Now I don't know how you can spin "not making that calculation" to mean that they were ready to make the charge.
One would think that a precursor to making any charge was the "calculation" regarding such a charge.
So as a minimum, I would consider your claim to be, shall we say "misleading"?
OK wait, just what the frack was the Trump campaign supposed to do to "stop" Russian interference?
Were they supposed to get the CIA/NSA/FBI to do something? No, I'm pretty sure that's the responsibility of whomever the POTUS is.
Were they supposed to get Facebook to stop running add bought by Russians?
OK, if one supposes that's their responsibility, just how the frack do they do that?
Tell me, what were they supposed to do to stop Russian interference?
Yeah, it's not like the Democrats would be willing to hire a foreign national to dig up dirt on their opponent and then feed that to the various Intelligence services to run an intelligence op on the opposition campaign. They're too "nice"
Oh and if the behavior of Numes is your definition of "shriveling up" I sure as shite would hate to see what standing tall would look like.
minister of misinformation.
