You’re really focused on this supposed Pruitt lie. I haven’t looked up any of your sources on it yet, but does it really surprise you that a politician would lie? Bill Clinton lied. So did GWB, and Obama. It’d be newsworthy if a politician didn’t lie.
Nobody on the planet is surprised when anyone associated with Trump lies. However it’s still bad, as is the reprehensible practice of trying to justify constant lying via false equivalence.
I think it’s a reprehensible practice to try and dismiss the hypocrisy by hand-waving it away with cries of “false equivalence”, but, whatever.
He is the head of the EPA. That is the United States federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency, and is thus responsible for enforcing the nation’s Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as numerous other environmental statutes. His lies are indeed consequential for the issue at hand and against what the EPA mission is about.
History has show that while a politician appoints him or her the duties of the position go beyond politics. It is when the heads show themselves to be playing with the facts that then trouble happens and it will not be a happy time for the head of the EPA, just ask the mother of Judge Gorshuch.
Of course doorhinge is still clueless about why what he did was a logical fallacy.
As noted before, the whole sketch by Oliver was under the threat of a lawsuit from the assholes at the coal company. He had to be very accurate besides being funny. And I had indeed checked before hand about how Factcheck did call what Pruitt said a falsehood.
No, seriously. What you did was to straight-up say that it doesn’t matter when any politician lies. At what point is that a legitimate approach, argumentative or otherwise?
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that every human has lied at some point. I’m going to include newborn babies for the sake of completeness. Does that make lying okay? Does that mean that all people lie the same amount? Does that mean that all lies are equally important? Equally unimportant? Should we all be perfectly okay with politicians feeding us bullshit, just because allegedly all politicians have at some point lie?
No, I did not “straight-up say that it doesn’t matter when any politician lies.”
I said it does not surprise me when they lie, because it’s so common. Is there some part of my post #439 that you interpret to mean ‘lying is ok’ or passing any moral judgement for or against it at all? If so, where?
I’ll try to get back to you on that.
Back in 2007-8, there was quite a bit of talk about the gas leasing systems, and how they were very heavily subsidized, in that getting the oil lease from a BLM was generally less than 10% of what you would get from a private owner, but I will need to try to find this stuff from years ago.
Maybe there is even more updated info, I’ll look into when I get some time. (heh.)
But, we’ll start with: I am pretty sure that oil and gas drilling gets a much better deal when they lease from govt lands than when they do from private land owners, and to me, that’s a subsidy.
Tell ya what, give the land back to the tribes that have claim to it, then see if they would like to lease it for development.
Not all that focused, just a sidebar with doorhinge about whether facts could be trusted, even if they come from a comedian.
But, in any case, you have no problem with that sort of misleading data? There are alot of people in politics that avoid being entirely honest, as that seems to interfere with their job, but telling absolutely blatant lies that can be disproven with only a moment’s research is gotta be some level of concerning, even to those on the same side, right?
Most politicos at least try to not get caught in lies, this administration just has one fabrication after another, and they don’t even care how easily disproved it is, because they know that there will remain a base of loyal followers that believe it all, and there will be a base of party devotees that try to defend and create false equivalencies to cover for their lies.
ETA: and I don’t have much time, but as it appears you have not actually checked the links, I will point out that Pruitt’s lies were off by more than an order of magnitude. Claiming 50,000 jobs in May, when it is more like 1300 since the beginning of the year.
I do recall when Trump arrived in Philly, the temperature was about seventy, sky was clear with a light breeze. And he said “Good morning!”. Which was true. So, there’s that.
Of course, as I like to point out many times in this thread, what supporters of Trump are ignoring is that while there will still be a base of loyal followers, for the purposes of this thread the political enemies are becoming less. Unfortunately for the Trump followers, the consensus that is being reached is not in favor of El Trompo. The lies he and his minions had to say to keep the facade are turning many off.
The entirety of the post. Because if not, what on earth were you trying to say? You were either trying to dismiss the lying as being of no importance, or you were doing a statistically improbable job of assembling what looked like a coherent sentence by randomly striking keys.
So, you can’t see what the proverb is saying. :smack:
It’s about planning for the future. Even if you won’t be the one enjoying it.
In the future, if you’re going to infer something from one of my posts, I’d kindly ask you to not characterize it as “What you did was to straight-up say that”. Fair enough?
And one subsidy for the fossil fuel industry that is not frequently talked about, at least not in that context, is the fact that we let them borrow the army on occasion.
Seriously, we’re giving billions to people who hate us to, if not destroy the planet, at least to despoil significant chunks of it. Even for people with no brains, moving beyond that should be a no-brainer.
I’ll make an effort to remember. And I’ll also note that you don’t seem to have an answer to “Because if not, what on earth were you trying to say?” - meaning that I was probably doing a straight-up awesome job of interpreting your inference.
Though there’s also a distinct possibility that instead of meaning “It’s super-okay when all politicians lie”, which would be the straight interpretation of what you wrote, that instead the actual inference you intended to imply was “It’s super-okay when MY politicians lie.” It’s my understanding that many people who are willing to tolerate the lies of the politicians who are nominally on their side, even if they tell hundreds of lies in rapid succession, while being vigorously opposed to each and every lie (and alleged lie) spoken by their political enemies. Regardless of the impact and importance of the subject being lied about.
This approach is really, really partisan, of course. Regardless of which side is doing it.
Donald Trump was an undemocratic outcome. Remember that millions more voted against him than for him. Our constitution prescribes a non-democratic method of selecting the President.
Fortunately, there’s also a non-democratic way to get rid of him: impeachment and conviction by trial.
I do have a problem with all sorts of lying. Not a fan, but this doesn’t strike me as particularly significant. It looks to me like he flubbed a talking point, that was, itself - as is typical of talking points - some pretty heavy spin.
For comparison, I don’t see it as much worse than what the VA Governor did after the assassination attempt in Alexandria. YMMV.
I’d say that it’s a democratic outcome at a different level of granularity (states / individual Congressional districts) than you’d prefer (national popular vote). That does not, in my mind, transform it into something truly un-democratic like a violent coup or re-instituting a monarchy.
Regarding the issue, more significant then are his 3 or more lies that Pruitt makes about CO2 in very quick succession:
3,2,1… Until that EPA page gets taken down.