GG Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Uh oh. This will make the left crazy. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-picks-gop-oil-industry-ally-scott-pruitt-lead-n693231 Not to miss a beat, NYT is out with a shocking story about an "undercover alliance" between energy companies and attorneys general from red states. I'm guessing that green activists pushing an agenda behind the scenes at the EPA is all in the open.
B-Man Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) Trump nominates Linda McMahon to serve as Small Business Administrator Oklahoma A.G. Scott Pruitt getting tapped to lead the EPA has the enviro-Statist community like............ Edited December 7, 2016 by B-Man
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 BLACK DEMOCRAT ALABAMA STATE SENATE LEADER ENDORSES JEFF SESSIONS FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL. “We’ve spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people.” Say........................what if a lot of black Christians start thinking of themselves more significantly as Christians than as black Democrats? Could that happen? https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251201/
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 More on the Pruitt nomination.......................this could have gone in the stupid backlash thread also............. GREEN WEENIE, SUPPLEMENTAL I may have been too hasty awarding this week’s Green Weenie to the NRDC this morning. Because since that post, Trump has announced his intention to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Pruitt is a totally awesome pic for the EPA. I had been hearing the names of a lot of Bush Administration retreads for EPA, which would have meant business as usual. How awesome is Pruitt? Just take in the Twitter reaction from former Obama Administration factotum Dan Pfeiffer: An existential threat to the planet! A backhanded admission that the EPA really is too powerful. “At the risk of being dramatic.” That’s a risk all Green Weenie contestants seem willing to take all the time. I guess Pfeiffer really really wanted a Green Weenie for himself. Let’s cue the climax of the DNC meeting reported here last month, with the young Zach protesting that climate change was going to kill him: “You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy
DC Tom Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 More on the Pruitt nomination.......................this could have gone in the stupid backlash thread also............. GREEN WEENIE, SUPPLEMENTAL I may have been too hasty awarding this week’s Green Weenie to the NRDC this morning. Because since that post, Trump has announced his intention to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Pruitt is a totally awesome pic for the EPA. I had been hearing the names of a lot of Bush Administration retreads for EPA, which would have meant business as usual. How awesome is Pruitt? Just take in the Twitter reaction from former Obama Administration factotum Dan Pfeiffer: An existential threat to the planet! A backhanded admission that the EPA really is too powerful. “At the risk of being dramatic.” That’s a risk all Green Weenie contestants seem willing to take all the time. I guess Pfeiffer really really wanted a Green Weenie for himself. Let’s cue the climax of the DNC meeting reported here last month, with the young Zach protesting that climate change was going to kill him: “You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy Thank God he was only risking being dramatic. I'd hate to see what happens when he's actively histrionic.
Azalin Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Thank God he was only risking being dramatic. I'd hate to see what happens when he's actively histrionic. His drama is based in pure stupidity. There's a lot of people who actually believe that nonsense, and I'm beginning to realize how amusing these next four years are going to be. The part that I find so ironic is that these are supposedly the 'intellectual elite', and they're acting like uneducated, petulant children.
Taro T Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 His drama is based in pure stupidity. There's a lot of people who actually believe that nonsense, and I'm beginning to realize how amusing these next four years are going to be. The part that I find so ironic is that these are supposedly the 'intellectual elite', and they're acting like uneducated, petulant children. Acting?
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Climate skeptic to head EPA... Left Freaks... Marine General to Lead Homeland Security...
IDBillzFan Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 His drama is based in pure stupidity. There's a lot of people who actually believe that nonsense, and I'm beginning to realize how amusing these next four years are going to be. The part that I find so ironic is that these are supposedly the 'intellectual elite', and they're acting like uneducated, petulant children. One of the problems the left faces these past dozen years is that it is never, ever able to make its case without drama. Everything has to be over the top. Everything. Slow the rise of the oceans. Grandparents will be pushed off a cliff. Children will starve. We will all die from climate change. Guam will tip over. Once your party is based almost exclusively on hysteria, it's kind of difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Which is why after eight years of Obama-driven hysteria, they are left in charge of two states, six counties and a small ruling majority on the Greater Macungie Utilities Commission.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 One of the problems the left faces these past dozen years is that it is never, ever able to make its case without drama. Everything has to be over the top. Everything. Slow the rise of the oceans. Grandparents will be pushed off a cliff. Children will starve. We will all die from climate change. Guam will tip over. Once your party is based almost exclusively on hysteria, it's kind of difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Which is why after eight years of Obama-driven hysteria, they are left in charge of two states, six counties and a small ruling majority on the Greater Macungie Utilities Commission. When your volume is always cranked up to 11, people start hearing it at about a 1.
Tiberius Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 One of the problems the left faces these past dozen years is that it is never, ever able to make its case without drama. Everything has to be over the top. Everything. Slow the rise of the oceans. Grandparents will be pushed off a cliff. Children will starve. We will all die from climate change. Guam will tip over. Once your party is based almost exclusively on hysteria, it's kind of difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Which is why after eight years of Obama-driven hysteria, they are left in charge of two states, six counties and a small ruling majority on the Greater Macungie Utilities Commission. You don't think the right does this?
DC Tom Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 You don't think the right does this? You're an idiot.
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 FAKE-NEWS HYSTERIA IS WHY OUR ELITES AREN’T TRUSTED: Jack Shafer of Politico has the best piece yet examining the post-election phenomenon of “fake news” panic—the idea, which spread rapidly among establishment figures in the wake of the election, that Americans were fooled en masse into voting for Donald Trump by nefarious propaganda, funded in part by the Russians. His key contribution is to highlight the elitism at the heart of this idea: The shrillness of the propaganda debate reveals a deep distrust of citizens by the elites. The Ignat iuses and Stengels of media and government don’t worry about propaganda infecting them. Proud of their breeding and life experience, they seem confident they can decode fact from fiction. What they dread is propaganda’s effect on the non-elites, whom they paternalistically imagine believe everything they read or view. But they don’t. The idea that naïve and vulnerable audiences can be easily influenced by the injection of tiny but potent messages into their media feedbag was dismissed as bunk by social scientists as early as the 1930s and 1940s. According to what academics call the hypodermic needle theory (aka magic bullet theory, aka transmission-belt model), there is little evidence that the public was the defenseless prey of mini-doses of propagandists. Larger doses don’t seem to be very effective, either. We noted earlier this week that elite media figures actually were fooled on a large scale by a fake story about fake news because it seemed to confirmed their pre-existing assumptions. Everyone is vulnerable to misinformation and spin—to suspend disbelief when it is convenient to do so. As Shafer says, the self-righteous conceit behind the sudden preoccupation with fake news is that this tendency is somehow more pronounced among Trump voters than everyone else—indeed, that many people could only have voted for him because they were misinformed. . . . But the collapse in public trust in the mainstream press is also driven by politics and social divides. Much of the public believes that big city reporters do not understand them or their way of life, and hold their values in contempt. And the degree of hysteria that media elites are exhibiting about “fake news,” and the rubes who were supposedly taken in, will only reinforce this perception further. Yep.
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Back to the thread.................. An interesting contrast slips out in this NYT article "What It’s Like to Apply for a Job in Donald Trump’s White House" Mr. Trump’s interview style... is direct but conversational, according to people who have sat opposite him. He did not take notes or appear to refer to a set list of questions, but he did have dossiers on his visitors and often displayed intricate knowledge of their backgrounds and experience...“If you filibuster, he’ll cut you off,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who was initially in the running to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of state but has since said he is not interested in a cabinet post. “He wants to know what you can do for him.”...President Obama... interviewed a single finalist for each post in most cases, usually in a one-on-one discussion meant to confirm an already well-established conclusion that the candidate would be right for the job, said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior transition official in 2008.“In some cases, he knew who he wanted and it was a question of convincing them to do it,” Mr. Pfeiffer said, citing examples like Hillary Clinton, who became Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, and Robert M. Gates, whom he persuaded to stay on as defense secretary.... Trump interviews multiple candidates for the same job and presses them on what they will do to solve problems. Obama only saw people after they'd been selected and only for the purpose of getting them to accept him. As if he were the interviewee! So the question is: Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama?
Nanker Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Lazy azzed journalists are being pumped out of the journalism schools where they probably spent their time learning how to piss and moan and little else. Exhibit A: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-earth-longer-days-20161205-story.html Back to the thread.................. An interesting contrast slips out in this NYT article "What It’s Like to Apply for a Job in Donald Trump’s White House" Mr. Trump’s interview style... is direct but conversational, according to people who have sat opposite him. He did not take notes or appear to refer to a set list of questions, but he did have dossiers on his visitors and often displayed intricate knowledge of their backgrounds and experience... “If you filibuster, he’ll cut you off,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who was initially in the running to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of state but has since said he is not interested in a cabinet post. “He wants to know what you can do for him.”... President Obama... interviewed a single finalist for each post in most cases, usually in a one-on-one discussion meant to confirm an already well-established conclusion that the candidate would be right for the job, said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior transition official in 2008. “In some cases, he knew who he wanted and it was a question of convincing them to do it,” Mr. Pfeiffer said, citing examples like Hillary Clinton, who became Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, and Robert M. Gates, whom he persuaded to stay on as defense secretary.... Trump interviews multiple candidates for the same job and presses them on what they will do to solve problems. Obama only saw people after they'd been selected and only for the purpose of getting them to accept him. As if he were the interviewee! So the question is: Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama? Rham Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 So the question is: Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama? Rham Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett. Actually, it was Citigroup -- a full month before the election and several months before they got a $476b bailout from the very cabinet they picked. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190 (look at the attachments) http://www.cnbc.com/id/42099554
GG Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Actually, it was Citigroup -- a full month before the election and several months before they got a $476b bailout from the very cabinet they picked. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190 (look at the attachments) http://www.cnbc.com/id/42099554 What exactly does the email and the CNBC story show?
B-Man Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Per the WSJ: President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name fast-food executive Andy Puzder as labor secretary, according to people familiar with the decision. Mr. Puzder, chief executive of CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc., the parent company of the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s burger chains, has been a vocal advocate for cutting back regulations he says have stifled growth in the restaurant industry, which represents 10% of the American workforce. Mr. Puzder, an adviser and contributor to Mr. Trump’s campaign, has criticized the Affordable Care Act and has argued against raising the federal minimum wage higher than $9 an hour. Democrats have called for raising the federal minimum wage for as high as $15. Mr. Puzder is on the board of the International Franchise Association, a trade group that has criticized the Obama administration, saying it attacked the franchising model by implementing regulations that stunt job growth. Instead of focusing on stepping up workplace regulation to create jobs and higher wages, Mr. Puzder would likely call for tools such as an overhaul of the tax system, said Matt Haller, a spokesman for the franchise trade group. Read the rest HERE.
IDBillzFan Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 You don't think the right does this? Not even close.
Recommended Posts