Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Jan '17 19:19 / 1 edit
    YouTube : EPA Gag order

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agencies-ordered-to-restrict-their-communications/2017/01/24/9daa6aa4-e26f-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.ba8d181dff09

    Trump administration officials instructed employees at multiple agencies in recent days to cease communicating with the public through news releases, official social media accounts and correspondence, raising concerns that federal employees will be able to convey only information that supports the new president’s agenda.

    The new limits on public communications appear to be targeting agencies that are charged with overseeing environmental and scientific policy, prompting criticism from officials within the agencies and from outside groups focused on climate change.

    The Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Agriculture and Interior departments now have formal policies restricting what they should convey to the public about their work.

    Speaking to reporters Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he and his colleague were “looking into” whether the administration had changed the way many agencies share information publicly.

    The moves also underscore the kind of skirmishing that could continue to take place between incoming political appointees and civil service employees.

    At the EPA, for example, communications staff received a memo instructing them that “no social media will be going out” and “a digital strategist will be coming on board” to oversee it. It added, “Incoming media requests will carefully screened.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Jan '17 19:20 / 1 edit
    So basically, Trump wants to silence any EPA reports that could conflict with the Republican agenda of drilling and denying climate change.
  3. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    27 Jan '17 19:41
    Originally posted by vivify
    So basically, Trump wants to silence any EPA reports that could conflict with the Republican agenda of drilling and denying climate change.
    No.
    No, he doesn't.
    This is the usual protocol during transition.
    Back away from the ledge.

    As far as I can ascertain, no one is challenging climate change.
    Although there are a lot of those in the field who question some of the reports with respect to degree, there aren't many who say it's not happening.
    What is being questioned however, is the implications thereof.
    Of course, that's not as sexy as saying 'wide eyed conspiracy kooks,' or 'hoaxsters,' but the reality is, nearly everyone accepts at least a healthy portion of the data.
    What it means... well, that's a horse of a different color.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Jan '17 21:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    No.
    No, he doesn't.
    This is the usual protocol during transition.
    Back away from the ledge.
    Restricting an agency created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment from releasing scientific findings to the public is NOT "usual protocol".

    This is a painfully transparent move from the party that tried to ban the Ethics department from investing Congress. First, Trump appoints as the EPA's head someone who doesn't believe in climate change data, then gags the department from releasing findings to the public.

    It's an obvious, pathetic and immoral move.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jan '17 21:10
    Originally posted by vivify
    Restricting an agency created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment from releasing scientific findings to the public is NOT "usual protocol".

    This is a painfully transparent move from the party that tried to ban the Ethics department from investing Congress. First Trump appoints as the EPA's head someone who doesn't believe in cl ...[text shortened]... partment from releasing findings to the public.

    It's an obvious, pathetic and immoral move.
    Obvious? Immoral? Yes.

    Pathetic? Not at all. It's astute. People will forget about the ban and less information on environmental impacts will flow to the public, thereby causing less opposition to "drill, baby, drill."
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jan '17 21:26
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    No.
    No, he doesn't.
    This is the usual protocol during transition.
    Back away from the ledge.

    As far as I can ascertain, no one is challenging climate change.
    Although there are a lot of those in the field who question some of the reports with respect to degree, there aren't many who say it's not happening.
    What is being questioned however, is the im ...[text shortened]... east a healthy portion of the data.
    What it means... well, that's a horse of a different color.
    Well then, we shall see how long this ban lasts, eh. My guess is, about 4 years. Or till his sorry ass is impeached.
  7. 27 Jan '17 21:30
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well then, we shall see how long this ban lasts, eh. My guess is, about 4 years. Or till his sorry ass is impeached.
    I'd vote for Trump just to see the lefties go nuts lol.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jan '17 21:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I'd vote for Trump just to see the lefties go nuts lol.
    Will you still be joking if he decides to nuke North Korea or Tehran?

    I don't think you quite understand what it means to have a short attention span narcississtic sociopath for a president. Or maybe you think that is the best way to govern.
  9. 27 Jan '17 21:34
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Will you still be joking if he decides to nuke North Korea or Tehran?

    I don't think you quite understand what it means to have a short attention span narcississtic sociopath for a president. Or maybe you think that is the best way to govern.
    I'd love to see him Nuke Tehran.

    North Korea is a bit too close to South Korea and I have some friends there.

    Of course the bigger threat is China. That war would be in doubt.
  10. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    27 Jan '17 23:38
    Originally posted by vivify
    [youtube EPA Gag order]6XfrYeU-LL4[/youtube]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agencies-ordered-to-restrict-their-communications/2017/01/24/9daa6aa4-e26f-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.ba8d181dff09

    Trump administration officials instructed employees at multiple agencies in recent days to cease communicating with the public thr ...[text shortened]... l be coming on board” to oversee it. It added, “Incoming media requests will carefully screened.
    Wow, I thought she was going to pop!
  11. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    27 Jan '17 23:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Obvious? Immoral? Yes.

    Pathetic? Not at all. It's astute. People will forget about the ban and less information on environmental impacts will flow to the public, thereby causing less opposition to "drill, baby, drill."
    Two more heralds of fascism.

    Silencing the media and then progress towards the goal in little baby "reasonable" steps so no one sees where you're going, and little protest is made for any one little step.

    This is how the Third Reich brought facism to Germany.

    See They Thought They Were Free , by Milton Meyer.
  12. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    28 Jan '17 00:04
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Two more heralds of fascism.

    Silencing the media and then progress towards the goal in little baby "reasonable" steps so no one sees where you're going, and little protest is made for any one little step.

    This is how the Third Reich brought facism to Germany.

    See They Thought They Were Free , by Milton Meyer.
    Control your blood pressure. A lot of what they say is fake news. Not all but a lot.
  13. Standard member vivify
    rain
    29 Jan '17 15:08
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-plans-to-cut-epa-staff-in-half/article/2613178

    President Trump is seeking to slash the number of workers at the Environmental Protection Agency by at least half, leaving it significantly gutted as the administration mulls further cuts, the former head of Trump's EPA transition team said Friday.

    "Let's aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we'll want to go further," Myron Ebell said now that he has returned to his position as director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell left the Trump transition team a week ago.

    Ebell told the Associated Press that Trump is likely to seek significant reductions in the agency's 15,000-person work force. Slashing half of the work force would leave 7,500 at the agency, which would dramatically reduce its capacity to move out regulations quickly.
  14. Standard member vivify
    rain
    29 Jan '17 16:20
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-plans-to-cut-epa-staff-in-half/article/2613178

    President Trump is seeking to slash the number of workers at the Environmental Protection Agency by at least half, leaving it significantly gutted as the administration mulls further cuts, the former head of Trump's EPA transition team said Friday.

    "Let's aim for half ...[text shortened]... 500 at the agency, which would dramatically reduce its capacity to move out regulations quickly.
    Step one: Pick someone who doesn't believe in climate to head the EPA
    Step two: Restrict the EPA from communicating any findings or concerns with the public
    Step three: Gut the EPA's staff and reduce their effectiveness.

    The GOP is lead by a corrupt scumbag.
  15. 29 Jan '17 16:30
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Will you still be joking if he decides to nuke North Korea or Tehran?

    I don't think you quite understand what it means to have a short attention span narcississtic sociopath for a president. Or maybe you think that is the best way to govern.
    Nuke em. Sent a message like we did to the Japs. The got the message.