It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I saw it, and it doesn't change the points that I made. I don't think you can disagree with what I said, can you?

I don't disagree with you that it's not necessary to burn the barn down because there might be a mouse in it. But I don't think either of my last two points is invalidated because I agree with you.
edit on 24-1-2017 by Shamrock6 because: I don't have any real edit I just wanted to say sure, blame the keyboard :p




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
can he legally keep someone from talking to the press?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
can he legally keep someone from talking to the press?


On behalf of a government agency? Yes, he certainly can.

As a private citizen? No, he can not.
edit on 24-1-2017 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Control of free expression is the mode of fascist; soon a media czar where everything has to be approved by a govt. agency.

Bye ATS...it's been fun!!!


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
So government scientists can't talk about their research until the Trump admin OK's it.

Anyone that thinks this is a good idea drinks their Kool Aid through a fire hose.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




It is funny that people scream foul play and lost of "Free speech", but for me the wife of a government employee I am very well aware that my husband is ban or very well coerced into not posting in any social media due to the nature of his job. In my husband line of work he will lose his security clearance and his very well pay job.


I wonder how they would view a spouse with an ideological agenda?


ten cuidado !!!
edit on 24-1-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Why, because I am bursting your bubble, I don't troll I just bring poster back to reality.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The issue I have with is, I would think as head of the organization that he does have the ability to do this, but it seems like a power overreach, but he comes off as one of the "give an inch and i'll take a mile" guys when it comes to power and control. So im kind of nervous where he may try to go with this. We're only 5 days into his presidency and this would be 3rd agency to be given a "social media blackout" My concern is where does it go from here.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: marg6043




It is funny that people scream foul play and lost of "Free speech", but for me the wife of a government employee I am very well aware that my husband is ban or very well coerced into not posting in any social media due to the nature of his job. In my husband line of work he will lose his security clearance and his very well pay job.


I wonder how they would view a spouse with an ideological agenda?


A spouse can quite easily cost you a job with the government so...that's how they view them.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Nyiah

I saw it, and it doesn't change the points that I made. I don't think you can disagree with what I said, can you?

I don't disagree with you that it's not necessary to burn the barn down because there might be a mouse in it. But I don't think either of my last two points is invalidated because I agree with you.

Ok, I misinterpreted your tone then. I thought you were arguing without considering I don't disagree either.

I personally find the idea of media blackouts to this scale to be very disturbing. Preventing these agencies from speaking to ANYONE at all is a foreboding move, and not a good one. Saying it's all about that someone can't put their personal opinions on their employer's media account is inaccurate, that's already a contractual no-no given I don't think anyone disagrees with. Effectively muzzling any person, company, or agency from speaking at all is a bleak move. We're starting with the agencies, and we know full well it's going to work backwards from there if left unchecked.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043
not bursting my bubble, not really trolling and surely not bringing poster back to reality.

You are just ignorantly hopelessy devoted to don.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I dont like Trumps approach on this, even if it doesnt do a whole lot. It is indicative of an iron fist approach to governance. I guess we will have to wait and see about the substance of the EPA changes. Having dealt with them before, they are bloated and overreaching in some respects. In others though, they have an important role in protecting our environment.

What I like:
No TPP
Renegotiating NAFTA
Cooperative approach to Russia
Going after ISIS

What I dont like:
Media blackouts on agencies
Greenlighting the Dakota Access (though we dont have details yet, so we shall see)
His approach to planned parenthood clinics

Up in the air:
Obamacare replacement



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: trb71

its not just social media, they can't talk to reporters either



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
Don has ordered blackouts for USDA as well

and its not just twitter, its all media


I think there's a seditious coup attempt in progress.

It's the left-over Obama people.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: marg6043




It is funny that people scream foul play and lost of "Free speech", but for me the wife of a government employee I am very well aware that my husband is ban or very well coerced into not posting in any social media due to the nature of his job. In my husband line of work he will lose his security clearance and his very well pay job.


I wonder how they would view a spouse with an ideological agenda?


A spouse can quite easily cost you a job with the government so...that's how they view them.


Actually I knew that....just tightening a few screws!



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Since 2013 the EPA has been under investigation for corruption.

EPA Fails to Punish Corrupt Workers, Lets Them Keep Full Pay

JUNE 12, 2015




The scandal-plagued agency that’s wasted millions to bring underserved and minority communities “environmental justice” fails to punish corrupt employees and allows them to keep their government paychecks, according to a new federal audit.

It involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which just a few years ago was investigated for dodging potential public scrutiny and possibly congressional oversight by using bogus electronic mail accounts to conduct official business. This occurred under President Obama’s first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, who dedicated tens of millions of dollars to an “environmental justice” movement that helps minority communities get green. Under the program the EPA has doled out large sums to leftwing community groups that help poor, minority and indigenous people increase recycling, reduce carbon emissions through “weatherization,” participate in “green jobs” training and avoid heat stroke.

Other EPA transgressions have been reported by Judicial Watch over the years, including agency funds going to groups that help illegal immigrants. In fact, JW uncovered documents that show a New Jersey nonprofit (Lazos America Unida) that advocates on behalf of the “Mexican immigrant community” and a Missouri farm workers’ group that aims to increase awareness about the dangers of sun and heat exposure in migrant populations were among EPA grant recipients. A few years ago the EPA gave Tijuana $93,000 to launch Mexico’s green transformation.

Earlier this year the EPA served as an inspiration for a bill introduced in Congress to curb an epidemic of federal employees watching pornography on government computers during work hours. The congressman who introduced the law disclosed that various EPA Inspector General probes have uncovered multiple cases of employees working hard at watching porn. “One EPA employee was viewing as much as 6 hours of pornography a day in his office,” the congressman said. “The same federal employee was found to have downloaded as many as 7,000 pornographic files onto his government computer.”


www.judicialwatch.org...

Oh, its going to get better.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Nice article from 5 yrs ago

look, a media freeze is not necessary to keep out corrupt people from these organizations, make a new thread for that.
edit on 24-1-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

My tone is definitely one of frustration, but it wasn't meant to be antagonistic. If it came across that way, sorry. It's just mind boggling to see people ignoring long standing practices and facts just so they can bash Trump because he's Trump. Just as it was when it happened to Obama. It's always galling to me when people will straight up ignore information and facts literally in their face just so they can bash "the other side."

(end rant)

What I really have a problem with is the whole tone of it, because it does come across as "you will clear everything through us before you do anything." Now, is that just because he's been in office for a couple of days and there's going to be substantial policy shifts? Or is this something that's going to wind up being a long-term thing, and government agencies won't be allowed to talk to anybody at all without prior approval from the White House?

Time will tell, and in the meantime it's obvious that a lot of people are going to get themselves worked into a lather over this.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: marg6043




It is funny that people scream foul play and lost of "Free speech", but for me the wife of a government employee I am very well aware that my husband is ban or very well coerced into not posting in any social media due to the nature of his job. In my husband line of work he will lose his security clearance and his very well pay job.


I wonder how they would view a spouse with an ideological agenda?


A spouse can quite easily cost you a job with the government so...that's how they view them.


Actually I knew that....just tightening a few screws!


Ah, I see what you did there. I'll get outta the way now



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The EO on hiring freeze also put a freeze on contracts.

This is because in the past when government had a hiring freeze, the agencies got around it by going to contract labor so nothing was accomplished in the way of actually achieving a true hiring freeze. If you mean to trim the size of government, then you need it to stop growing and spending and allowing it to simply shift it's spending to contract labor doesn't do the trick.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join