Scott Pruitt's Travel Scandal Gets Swampier

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler
I repeat: Sooo. Scott Pruitt. Anything to discuss there?

Sure:

The EPA just started circulating new talking points to staffers undermining any human influence on climate change: EPA talking points downplay role of human activity in climate change

Pruitt has long-proven "deep state" connections as a waterboy for dirty energy companies: New EPA head Scott Pruitt's emails reveal close ties with fossil fuel interests

He also recently refused to ban a Dow pesticide that EPA scientists deemed unsafe, overruling his own experts after a brief meeting with a Dow lobbyist: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

He hired a lobbyist from Agrichemical giant Syngenta as Senior Adviser on Agriculture, then mysteriously reduced a $5M fine Syngenta was facing down to $150,000: Critics cry foul after EPA reduces Syngenta fine for Kauai pesticide violations

Pruitt claims he has to fly first class on taxpayer dime because crazy environmentalists hate him so much, he is in mortal danger just sitting in coach. He spent $43,000 installing a soundproof phonebooth in his office so no one can hear the shady backroom deals he's cutting with all those special interest groups:

Scott Pruitt’s $25,000 soundproof phone booth? It actually cost more like $43,000.


^I've been collecting this info, because I thought about doing a thread on what an incredible swamp this administration has turned out to be. There are tons more examples regarding Mnuchin, Ajit Pai, Zinke, etc, etc

But yeah what's the point, let's all just talk about Hillary some more...Trump is draining the swamp because it's a sexy catchphrase, scientists are full of it thanks to oil companies exposing them with alternative facts; climate change is a hoax because Al Gore is rich, even though the "fake" science on GHG warming goes back 100 years before he was born.

Not to mention no collusion, Roy Moore is a victim of evil Democrat smear tactics, child victims of school shootings are paid actors, anyone who speaks out against plutocracy is a damned socialist just trying to get free stuff, and the real scandal we should all be focusing on is a satanic pedophile ring in some pizza parlor.

Conservatives and Alex Jones nutwads have done so much to drive conspiracy theories further from the truth, 180 degrees from the ACTUAL conspiracies, then I could have ever imagined when I first joined this site. It's amazing how much these people have become the very tools of the thing they think they're fighting against.

Get this man a drink.

Well said!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seems the senate disagrees with you as to his qualifications; the final vote was 52 to 46 in favor of confirmation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

So do you see anything wrong with someone being given credibility due to his ability to piss people off as opposed to his actual credentials?

What do you expect? The partisans in the country have reaped this trollery....and don't like it now that it has been sown?

Im old enough to remember. It was a trickle when Bush beat Gore, but 9/11 slowed it down. Then after he beat Kerry...it became like it is today. Instantly overnight everything on the internet became politics, and it became a contest of who could come up with the cutest insults on each other.

Under Obama it only festered, as "turn about" became "fair play".

So here we are today. A bumper crop has been harvested with Trump in office. After the last 16 years of hard work, im shocked to see the partisans complain. Ya'll made this. (maybe not you in particular...)

a reply to: shooterbrody

What does that have to do with anything? I already know he was confirmed by the Senate a while ago. The Senate clearly rubber stamped pretty much all of Trump's cabinet. They also approved of all those yahoos who have been kicked out of his cabinet too. I wouldn't call the Senate's judgement sound on these matters currently. We have someone who appears to never have stepped in a school in her life in charge of the Department of Education for instance.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

a reply to: mc_squared

That's rather comprehensive.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't call the Senate's judgement sound on these matters currently.

As they are the ONLY ones with power to confirm the nomination, it appears to me they are the only ones whos opinion matters when the question of qualification arises.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There certainly has been a steady train of increasing partisanism and bickering over the years. I mostly stayed out of politics during the Bush years. It used to drive Liberal people I knew up a wall because they wanted to know how I felt about the Iraq war since I was in the military and was looking at deployment. I would just shrug and say, "I'm just doing what they tell me to do."

I think the partisan bickering train really kicked off with the Monica Lewinsky scandal myself. From then on it was game on. Once the bar was lowered to where we are criticizing a sitting President for personal sexual issues that are supposed to be between him and his wife there was no going back. Today conservatives can't understand Liberals fixation with Stormy Daniels.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok. That's true, but that doesn't make their judgement sound on the issue. Remember 2018 is an election year. Some to many of those Senators probably won't be returning in January.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

26 dems seats up and 8 gop seats up

I don't see the dems taking the senate.
fivethirtyeight.com...

but what do I know about elections........

My personal opinion of pruitt and trumps epa; they are probably swinging too far in the opposite direction from the previous administration. I also think the previous admin pushed to far as well.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

26 dems seats up and 8 gop seats up

I don't see the dems taking the senate.
fivethirtyeight.com...

They don't have to retake the Senate for my statement to be true. A Republican challenger could kick them out of office too. Not to mention I said "Some to many". The logical definition of some is 1 or more.

My personal opinion of pruitt and trumps epa; they are probably swinging too far in the opposite direction from the previous administration. I also think the previous admin pushed to far as well.

So how do you propose this is fixed without swinging too far back the other way, which is what WILL happen if this # isn't reigned in?

So how do you propose this is fixed without swinging too far back the other way, which is what WILL happen if this # isn't reigned in?

well it starts with people pointing out possible corruption, like this story.

Then people need to realize no matter which party they usually vote for, all corruption is unacceptable.

a reply to: Grambler

I think it is more than that. People need to stop holding the actions of the other party as personal offenses that have to be rectified IMMEDIATELY as soon as they retake office. This trend started under Obama, but Trump is just running with it with reckless abandon.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I think it is more than that. People need to stop holding the actions of the other party as personal offenses that have to be rectified IMMEDIATELY as soon as they retake office. This trend started under Obama, but Trump is just running with it with reckless abandon.

Well there is truth to that.

I think though that it is not that simple.

Take the IRS for example.

Under Obama, its admitted that they illegally targeted conservative groups.

So when Obama is out and Trump comes in, he shouldnt be hamstrung and not able to clean house.

Now should they now target liberals; absolutely not.

Lets assume Cory Booker wins, and is forming the epa.

SHould he get rid of anyone connected to Pruitt or fossil fuel lobbyists? Probably.

But should he replace them with all people pushing for renwables? probably not.

So yes; ideally we woould have leaders that would be benevolent and make good choices.

But I dont see it happening, and I dont neccessarily think any shakeup is a bad thing.

So all we can do is call out corruption and hold people accounatble with our votes.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I think it is more than that. People need to stop holding the actions of the other party as personal offenses that have to be rectified IMMEDIATELY as soon as they retake office. This trend started under Obama, but Trump is just running with it with reckless abandon.

Well there is truth to that.

I think though that it is not that simple.

Take the IRS for example.

Under Obama, its admitted that they illegally targeted conservative groups.

Actually it has been determined that wasn't totally true. There were plenty of liberal groups targeted too.

So when Obama is out and Trump comes in, he shouldnt be hamstrung and not able to clean house.

Now should they now target liberals; absolutely not.

Lets assume Cory Booker wins, and is forming the epa.

SHould he get rid of anyone connected to Pruitt or fossil fuel lobbyists? Probably.

But should he replace them with all people pushing for renwables? probably not.

So yes; ideally we woould have leaders that would be benevolent and make good choices.

But I dont see it happening, and I dont neccessarily think any shakeup is a bad thing.

So all we can do is call out corruption and hold people accounatble with our votes.

The problem with that is we have to wait 4 years and potentially suffer through 4 years of having made a bad choice if a poor candidate is elected. Scott needs to be removed immediately and we need to make Trump realize that somehow.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I think it is more than that. People need to stop holding the actions of the other party as personal offenses that have to be rectified IMMEDIATELY as soon as they retake office. This trend started under Obama, but Trump is just running with it with reckless abandon.

Well there is truth to that.

I think though that it is not that simple.

Take the IRS for example.

Under Obama, its admitted that they illegally targeted conservative groups.

Actually it has been determined that wasn't totally true. There were plenty of liberal groups targeted too.

So when Obama is out and Trump comes in, he shouldnt be hamstrung and not able to clean house.

Now should they now target liberals; absolutely not.

Lets assume Cory Booker wins, and is forming the epa.

SHould he get rid of anyone connected to Pruitt or fossil fuel lobbyists? Probably.

But should he replace them with all people pushing for renwables? probably not.

So yes; ideally we woould have leaders that would be benevolent and make good choices.

But I dont see it happening, and I dont neccessarily think any shakeup is a bad thing.

So all we can do is call out corruption and hold people accounatble with our votes.

The problem with that is we have to wait 4 years and potentially suffer through 4 years of having made a bad choice if a poor candidate is elected. Scott needs to be removed immediately and we need to make Trump realize that somehow.

Actually you are wrong.

This is indictive of why the problem persists.

Not only is the evidence overwhelming that conservatives were specifically targeted, but the IRS has admitted as much

In a legal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for mistreating a conservative organization called Linchpins of Liberty — along with 40 other conservative groups — in their applications for tax-exempt status.

And in a second case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots and 427 other groups suing the IRS also reached a "substantial financial settlement" with the government.

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The real irony is that I also (quite frequently) hear about how we are a left wing site full of liberals. I guess its all down to perception. From where i stand its simply full of partisans doing what partisans do (mostly worry what "the other side" is doing).

I think the main problem is we do have some far right and far left people on ATS and when I see a post like Krazysh0t's that he suggests ATS is mainly a rightwing site he might not see that much of it looking so right wing to him is because he is so far left wing to begin with where someone moderate left would still look very right to him.

a reply to: Grambler

Speaking of the IRS. Where are Trump's taxes that he himself promised he'd release after he was elected. Are they still under audit? LOL! Just another lie. The President is a liar. Now I know this is where everyone here will say Hillary is a liar. Yes she is. And so is Trump. Hillary is a grandmother and holds no office and Trump is President. There is a difference I hope most understand.

I guess I'll just have to wait till Mueller releases Trump's taxes.

And Grambler, you got quite a few stars from me lately. Good going. Who'd a thunk?

Ok, now back to Scott.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Trump not releasing his taxes is not illegal.

But yes, trump has lied.

And I have criticized him for many things, and will continue to do so.

One of those things is hiring dirty people, as the op points out again.

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: theantediluvian
No big deal. We knew that Trump and his administration would be like this when we elected him, right?


MAGA!

Yeah,

Make America Greedy Again

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I think it is more than that. People need to stop holding the actions of the other party as personal offenses that have to be rectified IMMEDIATELY as soon as they retake office. This trend started under Obama, but Trump is just running with it with reckless abandon.

Well there is truth to that.

I think though that it is not that simple.

Take the IRS for example.

Under Obama, its admitted that they illegally targeted conservative groups.

Actually it has been determined that wasn't totally true. There were plenty of liberal groups targeted too.

So when Obama is out and Trump comes in, he shouldnt be hamstrung and not able to clean house.

Now should they now target liberals; absolutely not.

Lets assume Cory Booker wins, and is forming the epa.

SHould he get rid of anyone connected to Pruitt or fossil fuel lobbyists? Probably.

But should he replace them with all people pushing for renwables? probably not.

So yes; ideally we woould have leaders that would be benevolent and make good choices.

But I dont see it happening, and I dont neccessarily think any shakeup is a bad thing.

So all we can do is call out corruption and hold people accounatble with our votes.

The problem with that is we have to wait 4 years and potentially suffer through 4 years of having made a bad choice if a poor candidate is elected. Scott needs to be removed immediately and we need to make Trump realize that somehow.

Actually you are wrong.

This is indictive of why the problem persists.

Not only is the evidence overwhelming that conservatives were specifically targeted, but the IRS has admitted as much

In a legal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for mistreating a conservative organization called Linchpins of Liberty — along with 40 other conservative groups — in their applications for tax-exempt status.

And in a second case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots and 427 other groups suing the IRS also reached a "substantial financial settlement" with the government.

www.npr.org...

I still feel like this is a manufactured scandal. The IRS's job is to ensure tax-exempt status to the correct groups and not unqualified groups. If the groups name uses political words like "Tea Party", which is a political group, the IRS should take the time to verify they are actually not political groups. I cant say I agree with this GOP settlement.