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
Almost anyone is going to set off a crapstorm. When Washington State put I-732 on the ballot, fake environmentalists revealed themselves as fake environmentalists. I see no reason to pander to them. They don’t care about the environment; they care about government power.
So if you put a good environmentalist in as head of the EPA; one who is really committed to protecting the environment, though through lawful means consistent with good government and separation of powers, that is going to set off a crapstorm.
If you put in someone as head of the EPA who just wants to poke a stick in the eye of everything environmental, that is going to set off a crapstorm.
I say what really matters is what kind of guy this is. If he is committed to environmental protection, all the lefts will oppose him, but some of those who are really committed to environmental protection will probably come around in due time.
Let’s please drop this now. Paul is just like any one of us here. Perfection is not a requirement for participation.
Why is Nancy Pelosi worried about the “children’s sake” when she is busy working to get them all aborted.
I second your motion.
Maybe DJT might nominate for every position people who will generate the same amount of fear and vitriol. And then he and Mitch McConnell could bundle them all up into one resolution and let the Dems (and any squishy RINOs) try to avoid responsibility for keeping the government from operating.
Point of order: Trump did not lose the popular vote. We didn’t run that scenario so we don’t know if he would lose or not.
… and that it is necessarily bad.
“Scott, Donald Trump here. Listen, I want to appoint you to run the EPA, but it’s just a decoy. I’ll have to pull it. But there will be a judgeship later on. Thanks for being a team player.”
We need to introduce separation of powers into the federal agencies that now have legislative, administrative, and judicial powers. And the legislative power should require ratification of all regulations by Congress. There is a reason the detail work of drawing up regulations is delegated to the agencies, but there is no reason Congress can’t keep for itself a power to ratify them before they go into effect.
Fred Cole is why an “ignore” function is needed.
No, it isn’t. (I presume you aren’t referring to the built-in ignore function we were all born with. )
I’m not sure I catch your meaning.
I was sure my card would be a winner, but I came up empty. I had racist, sexist, Islamophobe, xenophobe, and homophobe. Really, that card should have won. It’s the left’s entire vocabulary.
Good choice. As for the benighted souls who think CO2 is a pollutant, they are invited to stop emitting it. From their lungs.
Exactly. Try telling a Russian or a Mongolian that warmer winters are a threat to mankind.
I don’t know how many conservatives in NY and California don’t bother to vote because they know that their vote won’t count for anything, but I’m betting that it’s a lot. No one knows what would have happened if the popular vote meant anything. No one ever will.
I’m not sure I buy that anymore. I think after the 2000 election, people realized the symbolic importance of the popular vote.
Also, it cuts both ways. If you’re a Democrat, there’s no point in voting in California, but 8.7 million people still turned out to vote for Clinton.
So much winning.
[Sarcasm On] But principled opposition would have been so much better. [Sarcasm Off]
wish my mouth was not full when I read this, and I am glad my tablet is water resistant.
Well-written, interesting. Great title. Good job, Jon Gabriel Ed. BTW, I have never seen Ed as a last name. If you leave out your middle name, Gabriel, Jon Ed is a really efficient name. I guess your dad was Mr. Ed.
Never Trump has told me their votes have no effect, but lots of meaning. Therefore, their vote is only symbolic, but it did not matter. So the popular vote can’t matter, but it does have meaning.
My vote has meaning to me, but not to the outcome of the election. I’m sure the popular vote has meaning to some people who want to console themselves because they lost, but it has no meaning to the nation. No one knows who would have won if it was popular vote that controlled, and no one ever will.
Just because the Left insists Scott Pruitt is Satan doesn’t make it so.
The first step in taking on the Left and reversing their policies, is to dismiss or ignore the Lefty narrative.
No matter what Trump does the Left will find it to be “worse than Hitler” so what’s the point of worrying about what the Left thinks.
I agree. My post was in response to an NT talking about the importance of Trump losing the popular vote. I agree with you the pop vote is meaningless.
I always assumed the CA, NY, IL, NJ run up in the (D) popular vote and the low (R) turnout is due to the lack of Republican Campaign resources (ie: mostly advertising $$$) allocated to states the (R)’s know they will lose.
If the popular vote mattered the Republican Campaign would certainly invest more resources to those states, and while the (R)’s would still get their arhses kicked they would probably not lose by so much and thus the national popular vote would probably better reflect the Electoral College results.
This whole popular vote meme is not only meaningless, it reflects a deep misunderstanding of what a Federalist Republic is all about. The United States is not a direct democracy, and is not supposed to be one. It is comprised of states, which are united for certain purposes but which are also supposed to have a say in how they are governed. Anyone who wants California and New York to run a whole country should just support California and New York seceding and running themselves – not the whole rest of the country. Actually, it isn’t even California and New York. It’s Los Angeles and New York City.
The notion of national popular vote in a Presidential election under our Constitutional system has no meaning as a measure of winner and loser, so why don’t you just drop it.
Its not an irrelevant datum. Look, I’m not saying he didn’t win the election. I’m pro-EC.
What I’m saying is: he didn’t win the popular vote, meaning that,yeah, he won the election. But he doesn’t have much of a mandate. Therefore it behooves him to try to seek consensus, rather than poke people on the eye
Ok, Fred. Just drop saying who ‘won’, we all know about the summation of the votes across the ‘states’. Regarding consensus, this is usually reached by an examination of facts surrounding the particular issues and the mindless Left does not participate in such endeavors.
He certainly does in the places that voted for him – and there are far more of those places than the places won by the Failed Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton.
So no, he doesn’t have a mandate in Los Angeles County. But almost everywhere else – yes, he does.
Is there an award for “Best Reply of the Year”?