4 ms·

The Trump admin repeatedly weakened regulations around atrazine imposed by the Obama admin[0][1], only for the Biden admin to reimpose them.[2][3] I suppose we'

• quotemstr 2y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure of that. This chemical seems like a central example of something RFK would love to ban.
  • anticorporate 2y ago
    The FDA (potential future home of RFK) does not have oversight on pesticides. This is an EPA issue.
    • quotemstr 2y ago
      You're overindexing on formal authority and prematurely discounting informal influence. RFK will be a prominent member of the administration. He'll have the ears of powerful people. He'll get some wins at the FDA (because it's blindingly obvious we're poisoning ourselves), and he'll be able to use these wins to drive changes at other agencies. The org chart is always just a suggestion.
      • stfp 2y ago
        Is the next administration really likely to do, on purpose, anything that would affect earnings for large corps? It would absolutely blow my mind. I think RFK will do zilch unless it aligns with more profits for the right folks.
        • quotemstr 2y ago
          You might want to update your model of the political metagame. "Big Corp versus the people" is something like three Hegelian dialectics ago.
          • voltaireodactyl 2y ago
            Interesting, the UHC stuff would have led me to believe otherwise. What is the current Hegelian dialectic?
      • staunton 2y ago
        You're assuming he'd make a serious attempt to ban it
  • mullingitover 2y ago
    RFK was telling us he'd never support Trump, too, and here we are. RFK has demonstrated repeatedly that he has absolutely no principles whatsoever, and he'll sell out if a soft breeze passes by. If the agribusiness sector tells Trump that banning this chemical will cost them 10% of their profits, Trump will tell RFK to get in line, and he'll give a slight whimper as he does so.
    • yaksha 2y ago
      Trump was willing to build a coalition while Democrats were not. RFK, assuming he gets past the Senate, will be in a substantially better position to influence health policy than if he were to have snubbed Trump. The game of politics makes enemies one day become allies the next. If you want real progress on an agenda, being dogmatic generally isn't the best way to accomplish it (imo).
      • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
        I'm not American, but to me this looks like a preposterous take, when the Democrats had Cheney and a pile of other Republicans lined up in what looks more to me like a coalition than getting the endorsement of a bizarre personality-cult fringe candidate.
        • mullingitover 2y ago
          This is correct, there is an unfortunate acceptance of a lot of political mythology that I believe explains the results of the election (as we see above). The GOP couldn't even form a coalition with itself, you saw a lot of people within the GOP who wouldn't endorse their candidate (the most stark example being the former VP). The democratic nominee coalition built to a fault. Many point to exactly this, and the failure to scorch the opposition to the degree warranted, as the reason for the loss. RFK is your garden variety opportunist grifter, as are the entire confederacy of scammers and dunces (no offense, this is strictly a factual assessment) who are now on their way to positions of power based purely on their loyalty.
• weberer 2y ago
  RFK spoke out against this chemical specifically, so its likely on the chopping block. https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?t=350 https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?t=350
• K0balt 2y ago
  So to keep better restrictions on atrazine we need to create a conspiracy theory that blames farmers for the “woke” movement.