6 ms·

You're buying into a false narrative. There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. And, some that do make sens

by rrggrr 9y ago

You're buying into a false narrative. There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. And, some that do make sense and that are necessary may get rolled back... for 4 years until the next administration comes in.

wavefunction 9y ago
What about when the Trump administration hussles to de-National Monumentize public lands and start the brutal extraction they're looking to do on say Escalante or Bear Ears? You can't roll environmental damage back, necessarily.
RandVal30142 9y ago
>You're buying into a false narrative. You're making up a false narrative.
- mistermann 9y ago
  You actually think regulations are going to be rolled back to those of the 70's?
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    No just pointing out you are creating a false narrative. >There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. "Soooo many regulations, we couldn't possibly need all of these. Ignore the specific few discussed here lets make it about allllll these redundant regulations." Not very smooth.
    - 5ilv3r 9y ago
      It's difficult to have these conversations when people are constantly terrified of "what trump wants" instead of what he is actually capable of. I'm amazed at how much power people think the president has.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        The President plus Congress plus the Supreme Court has all the power, though. The first two would love to roll back pollution controls, and the last one is teetering. The main thing preventing it right now is that the ruling party has forgotten how to rule.
      - tacomonstrous 9y ago
        The President has power over things affected by his executive privilege. Like the State department, for instance, which has experienced massive hemorrhaging of personnel, is barely staffed, and is ensuring that the US has less than the bare minimum of institutional knowledge and capacity to maintain its (good or bad) hegemony over the world's affairs. This could have momentous long term effects.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      You may wish to check usernames. You're assigning a quote to them that they did not make, unless they have multiple accounts.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > No just pointing out you are creating a false narrative. And just dodging my question. I find it endlessly fascinating why liberals can't stick to straight Q&A despite the truth on their side. Oh, is that not a fair comment? Then answer the simple question I asked.
      - RandVal30142 9y ago
        > liberals Who are you talking to?
        dang 9y ago
        We ban accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle. Since you've been doing that, and repeatedly posting uncivilly to boot, I've banned this one.
r00fus 9y ago
You assume they'll lose in 2020. It could very well be 8 years (or 12). No one thought GWB would be a 2-term president. No one thought Trump was electable. Thinking the assault on the EPA will suddenly be reversed next election - that's fantasy thinking. Fact is, the government should be meaningfully increasing our regulation of emissions and pollution (in terms of costs) or some will cause irreversible results in the global ecology (coral reefs, ocean acidification, carbon levels, global temperature). Not moving forward means we lose ground.
- dom0 9y ago
  > will cause irreversible results in the global ecology We (as in homo sapiens) moved beyond that point years ago. Everything we can do now is attempt to reduce global permanent damage, not avoid it. Also, these attempts are not successful at this time.
- adventured 9y ago
  > No one thought GWB would be a 2-term president. No one thought Trump was electable. That's nowhere close to the truth. Tens of millions of voters did; and likely tens of millions of more non-voting people thought so as well. Michael Moore thought Trump was going to win, because of how he was connecting as an anti-establishment candidate and Hillary was strictly representing the old establishment - in an anti-establishment election. Plenty of right-wing media outlets provided sound reasoning for why Trump would or could win. George W. Bush was a double war President, who was still knee-deep into those wars in the run-up to the 2004 election, and a mere few years post 9/11. The Democrats ran two weak politicians at him. The second one vs Kerry, given the broader war/political context, was an obvious outcome.

by rrggrr 9y ago

wavefunction 9y ago

What about when the Trump administration hussles to de-National Monumentize public lands and start the brutal extraction they're looking to do on say Escalante or Bear Ears? You can't roll environmental damage back, necessarily.

RandVal30142 9y ago

>You're buying into a false narrative. You're making up a false narrative.

mistermann 9y ago
You actually think regulations are going to be rolled back to those of the 70's?
- RandVal30142 9y ago
  No just pointing out you are creating a false narrative. >There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. "Soooo many regulations, we couldn't possibly need all of these. Ignore the specific few discussed here lets make it about allllll these redundant regulations." Not very smooth.
  - 5ilv3r 9y ago
    It's difficult to have these conversations when people are constantly terrified of "what trump wants" instead of what he is actually capable of. I'm amazed at how much power people think the president has.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      The President plus Congress plus the Supreme Court has all the power, though. The first two would love to roll back pollution controls, and the last one is teetering. The main thing preventing it right now is that the ruling party has forgotten how to rule.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      The President has power over things affected by his executive privilege. Like the State department, for instance, which has experienced massive hemorrhaging of personnel, is barely staffed, and is ensuring that the US has less than the bare minimum of institutional knowledge and capacity to maintain its (good or bad) hegemony over the world's affairs. This could have momentous long term effects.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You may wish to check usernames. You're assigning a quote to them that they did not make, unless they have multiple accounts.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > No just pointing out you are creating a false narrative. And just dodging my question. I find it endlessly fascinating why liberals can't stick to straight Q&A despite the truth on their side. Oh, is that not a fair comment? Then answer the simple question I asked.
    - RandVal30142 9y ago
      > liberals Who are you talking to?
      - dang 9y ago
        We ban accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle. Since you've been doing that, and repeatedly posting uncivilly to boot, I've banned this one.

r00fus 9y ago

You assume they'll lose in 2020. It could very well be 8 years (or 12). No one thought GWB would be a 2-term president. No one thought Trump was electable. Thinking the assault on the EPA will suddenly be reversed next election - that's fantasy thinking. Fact is, the government should be meaningfully increasing our regulation of emissions and pollution (in terms of costs) or some will cause irreversible results in the global ecology (coral reefs, ocean acidification, carbon levels, global temperature). Not moving forward means we lose ground.

dom0 9y ago
> will cause irreversible results in the global ecology We (as in homo sapiens) moved beyond that point years ago. Everything we can do now is attempt to reduce global permanent damage, not avoid it. Also, these attempts are not successful at this time.
adventured 9y ago
> No one thought GWB would be a 2-term president. No one thought Trump was electable. That's nowhere close to the truth. Tens of millions of voters did; and likely tens of millions of more non-voting people thought so as well. Michael Moore thought Trump was going to win, because of how he was connecting as an anti-establishment candidate and Hillary was strictly representing the old establishment - in an anti-establishment election. Plenty of right-wing media outlets provided sound reasoning for why Trump would or could win. George W. Bush was a double war President, who was still knee-deep into those wars in the run-up to the 2004 election, and a mere few years post 9/11. The Democrats ran two weak politicians at him. The second one vs Kerry, given the broader war/political context, was an obvious outcome.