Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Picks EPA Head, Left Loses Mind
Many conservatives were nervous when Donald and Ivanka summoned Al Gore to Trump Tower for a discussion on climate change. Any fears were put to rest Wednesday when his transition team chose Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.
Pruitt gained national attention by suing the EPA over burdensome regulations expected to harm Oklahoma businesses and residents. He challenged the agency’s radical rules on carbon emissions, cross-state air pollution, regional haze, and greenhouse gasses, which relied more on social justice than hard science.
If his legal record doesn’t hearten conservatives, the reaction by the left will. Lefties took to Twitter in a collective primal scream.
At the risk of being dramatic. Scott Pruitt at EPA is an existential threat to the planet
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) December 7, 2016
Nominating a climate denier to run the Environmental Protection Agency is offensive. I will do everything I can to stop this.
— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) December 7, 2016
For our children’s sake, the EPA Administrator cannot be a stenographer for Big Oil lobbyists & polluters. https://t.co/lWPvQPUrTG
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) December 7, 2016
Whatever @algore said, @realDonaldTrump apparently didn’t get it. https://t.co/6NLni2B242
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) December 7, 2016
Scott Pruitt is a dangerous and unqualified choice for #EPA pic.twitter.com/Xf2JtyQXEq
— Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) December 7, 2016
EPA nom Scott Pruitt stands with big oil & climate deniers, not American families who fight for #CleanAir & #CleanWater
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) December 7, 2016
Trump’s nominee to lead EPA, Scott Pruitt, is a climate denier who’s worked closely with the fossil fuel industry. That’s sad and dangerous.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 7, 2016
Enough with the “denier” smear. The fact is, everyone believes in climate change. But only progressives think it started 100 years ago.
Published in General
With every passing day, it looks more and more as if Trump means business.
And if he does either of those things, I’ll say I wish I had voted for him. I’m not to vain to eat Rob’s humble pie.
I still don’t believe anything you say, Prof! You burned me good last time, and I ain’t forgot it! ;-)
My penchant for drama would be satisfied if he was an existential threat to the EPA.
Indeed.
He has surpassed my expectations
Too bad that Pelosi, Schumer & Co. will raise such a fuss over this that they’ll alienate even more Blue Rubble state voters, much like BHO & HRC did with coal in West Virginia.
From a fly on the wall wall at the meeting:
DJT: Mr. Vice President, thanks for coming by. I’d like to ask you, who would be your LAST choice to head the EPA?
AAG: Um…let me see…Scott Pruitt?
DJT: Thank you, sir. Have a nice day.
You can’t lose what you never had.
Sounds wasteful, like leftwing spending programs.
It’s gonna be a long four year if Trump keeps making appointments designed to troll people.
The spot where I’m sitting was under around a mile of ice 10,000 years ago and no, it didn’t melt because of Neanderthal heavy industry.
Yes Mr. Cole, trolls can be tedious.
@fredcole
Enjoy it while you can. Because hippie media coordinate with Democrats, it’s possible Democrat leaders will eventually recognize how Trump is manipulating them and Democrat politicians will advise journalists how to respond intelligently (but not truthfully).
Agreed.
Now, the question becomes: How many regulations can be eliminated — not just temporarily redefined or not enforced — without legislation?
The federal hiring freeze will help, but attrition will be slower than we like (unless the agency head can make his employees miserable enough to quit). But Democrats will eventually regain the majority and repopulate these agencies with communists. Can an agency head on his own eliminate many powers so that his replacement cannot quickly undo his good work?
AFAIK, it depends on how the legislation is worded. If the legislation “authorizes” the regulation it can be done away with by the proverbial pen and phone. If the legislation requires the regulation then the legislation will have to be repealed. The distinction is between “will” and “may.”
There is another strategy: re-regulation. A lot of legislation tells them to write regs to accomplish a particular goal. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Rewrite them so that they still satisfy the goal, but do far less harm.
That kind of thing can have sticking power.
Masterful. I’ve never seen so many “likes” pile up so quickly.
Jon,
Regards,
Jim
Well, look, it’s going to be a hell of a lot better for him politically, and for our country in terms of social cohesion, if Trump doesn’t intentionally troll people like this. If you want to appoint somebody to reign in the EPA, I’m all for it. But if you’re going to be the President of the whole nation, you’d do well, especially after this very contentious election cycle, and an electoral victory where he lost the popular vote, not to be intentionally antagonistic.
The number of likes on this comment are a testament to my friend @fredcole.
Some of the people commenting in this thread want to be intentionally antagonistic. I don’t like that. But what evidence do you have that this appointment is intentionally antagonistic?
The appointment speaks for itself.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Trump didn’t realize this guy’s reputation when he picked him. Maybe he bumbled into this appointment and unintentionally picked a guy who set off a crapstorm.
Isn’t that all the more reason to pick someone else?
Look, I’m not suggesting he go soft. I’m suggesting that when you poke people in the eye over and over, you’re going to have a rough time. That’s something Obama did. For eight years he spit in people’s faces. He engaged in scorched earth tactics. He tried to force things through the hard way without attempting to compromise or include the other side.
And what did it get him? A shattered party and a legacy that’s in ashes.
How long did it take you to figure out how to pour cold water on a magnificent situation? So his appointments are designed to merely piss off the right people? He has given no thought to what’s best for our country?
I’m going to invoke my new idea for responding to such impenetrable comments: I shun you.
No, it doesn’t.
He has that reputation because he stood up to big government overreach without regard for what the media would say about him. I would think you of all people would be in favor of that.
But it doesn’t.
Or a testament to the fact that there’s a bug that allows one or several people to like a comment an unlimited number of times.
Shunned.
But if you’re going to be the President of the whole nation, you’d do well, especially after this very contentious election cycle, and an electoral victory where he lost the popular vote, not to be intentionally antagonistic.
I’ve decided to hope for maximum antagonism.
Look, I’m not suggesting he go soft. I’m suggesting that when you poke people in the eye over and over, you’re going to have a rough time. That’s something Obama did. For eight years he spit in people’s faces. He engaged in scorched earth tactics. He tried to force things through the hard way without attempting to compromise or include the other side.
OBama’s ideas and political philosophy are wrong-headed and don’t work in the real world. Ours do.
Obama failed because he was both antagonistic AND wrong.
I’ll take my chances with Trump’s antagonism (if that’s what it is), because:
1. He’s on the right side (of this issue)
2. I want to punish these people with every fiber of my being and drink their delicious tears
You appear to be judging the appointment’s merits based on the left’s reaction, or likely reaction, to it. By that standard, there are any number of actions that could be considered “trolling,” including the appointment of a resolutely pro-life Justice. The significant question is not whether this appointment is a finger in the eye of the left, but rather whether his stand on the regs in question was in fact defensible. Was he right or wrong? Was he representing his constituents as he should have been? If the answers are “right” and “yes,” who cares if feathers are ruffled? Why worry about a “reputation” without considering where those who are imposing the reputation are coming from?