Scott Pruitt... can we all agree on one thing?

[jasg]

@Intergalactic_Gladiator

I just read this a moment ago:

https://splinternews.com/pissed-off-mom-confronts-scott-pruitt-at-washington-res-1827299922

A mother confronts Pruitt and asks him to resign because of his actions as EPA Administrator. Not included in the video is Scott Pruitt hustling out of the restaurant with his much needed security detail.

Clearly, mothers with toddlers are an existential threat.

[running_coach]

@jasg

Clearly, mothers with toddlers are an existential threat.

Even been hit by a flying toddler?

[guizot]

@wolfpup

Pruitt is thriving because he’s a shameless Trump sycophant. In Trump’s world of pathological narcissism this is all that matters. Pruitt’s larceny is hardly a problem, it’s a feature – Trump undoubtedly admires it, even while lamenting Pruitt’s small-time amateurishness.

Yes–he’s a complete toady. All he would have to do is say one word publicly to doubt Trump, or get too much spotlight, and Trump would kick him out of the swamp.

[The_Tooth]

Nope, all cannot agree. You don’t have to work very hard to find people who think Pruitt’s doing a fine job of putting things to right after Barack Obama destroyed the country.

[Banquet_Bear]

@chargerrich

However the entirety of my post was prefaced with an intent to remove political bias and judge on character to hold office and dedication to your policies and beliefs. My point was to ask how anyone could support/defend his brazen actions of clear corruption and abuse of office.

…the problem with your OP is that while you assert that Scott Pruitt is a corrupt, self-serving scumbag, you don’t actually make a case for why he is a corrupt, self-serving scumbag. No cites, no evidence, just an assertion.

I agree with you. I’ve probably seen everything you’ve seen. I know how bad Scott Pruitt is. But we live in a world now where news is curated by an algorithm and people are often only see the news that “fits their worldview.”

So regardless of your intent: anyone who doesn’t know anything about what Scott Pruitt has done would read your OP as a blatant political rant. Which it is. Its barely a debate. You shouldn’t be surprised if people respond in kind. And this is coming from someone who agrees that Pruitt is a corrupt self-serving scumbag.

[enipla]

@Banquet_Bear

…the problem with your OP is that while you assert that Scott Pruitt is a corrupt, self-serving scumbag, you don’t actually make a case for why he is a corrupt, self-serving scumbag. No cites, no evidence, just an assertion.

I agree with you. I’ve probably seen everything you’ve seen. I know how bad Scott Pruitt is. But we live in a world now where news is curated by an algorithm and people are often only see the news that “fits their worldview.”

So regardless of your intent: anyone who doesn’t know anything about what Scott Pruitt has done would read your OP as a blatant political rant. Which it is. Its barely a debate. You shouldn’t be surprised if people respond in kind. And this is coming from someone who agrees that Pruitt is a corrupt self-serving scumbag.

Banquet Bear, just how many times should a person inform those that refuse to look at the news?

How often should we explain that fire can burn?

How often shall we warn them about rattle snakes?

Just how often?

I, for one, am done warning them.

[Banquet_Bear]

@enipla

Banquet Bear, just how many times should a person inform those that refuse to look at the news?

…who says they are refusing to look at the news?

A few days ago I was watching a spacebattle on youtube, and in the recommended videos a couple of clips from the movie “Enders Game” popped up. I haven’t seen Enders Game because I have a visceral dislike of the author Orson Scott Card. But the clips were only a couple of minutes, and hey space battles! So I clicked and watched a couple of them.

Next thing I know the next six recommended videos are Jordan Peterson videos: “Jordan Peterson destroys SJW!!!”. The youtube algorithm, taking cues from what other watchers of the Enders Game clips had watched, had decided that I wanted to watch someone that opposes pretty much everything I stand for.

People curate their news: both intentionally and unintentionally. If you watch Fox News, if you follow the President and a few other people on twitter, then everything else gets filtered out. They watch the news. But they don’t see what you see. Because you have curated a very different filter and what gets served up to you is completely different to what other people see.

How often should we explain that fire can burn?

How often shall we warn them about rattle snakes?

Just how often?

I, for one, am done warning them.

This is supposed to be a Great Debate. If the OP chooses to put no effort into the OP then it should come as no surprise that no effort goes into the rebuttal. That was my entire point. I don’t expect anyone to educate anyone. But an assertion with no evidence is easily defeated with an assertion with no evidence.

[Rabbi_Mohel_Skinberg]

@chargerrich

[C]an we all agree that Scott Pruitt is a corrupt,

I do not think one would be going out on too tenuous a limb, were they to state that THE ENTIRE “TRUMP™” ADMINISTRATION IS CORRUPT TO ITS CORE – POLITICALLY AND MORALLY. Even those who may not be innately Machiavellian by nature and whose intentions were pure, are complicit through inaction – i.e., those who loose the latch upon a mere knock at the postern gate, are complicit in the enemy’s breach of the castle walls and subsequent rape of its inhabitants.

The miasma of corruption in this particularly Vaudevillian episode in the U.S. political kleptocracy, is so dense and rank, that one could not script a satire to its degree of absurdity, and expect to flog it for a nickle. “Trump’s™” noxious presence has opened a Pandora’s box of complete and utter disregard for self-restraint; where mental and moral filters have been removed; exposing the dire frailties of the U.S. congressional system and its embarrassing impotency–regarding the so-called “checks and balances” that are so often vaunted as mollification for its duly mortified masses.

Let this be a lesson to all prospective republics: Under whatever moniker, absolute power corrupts absolutely; and when an absolute ass-hat assumes said power, expect he and his emancipated inmates to raze the asylum to its foundations

[septimus]

@Banquet_Bear

… The youtube algorithm, taking cues from what other watchers of the Enders Game clips had watched, had decided that I wanted to watch someone that opposes pretty much everything I stand for.

People curate their news: both intentionally and unintentionally. If you watch Fox News, if you follow the President and a few other people on twitter, then everything else gets filtered out. They watch the news. But they don’t see what you see. Because you have curated a very different filter and what gets served up to you is completely different to what other people see.

I think this has become a major problem. In the 20th century we largely all watched the same news. Walter Cronkite was “the most trusted man in America.” Big towns had two newspapers, one left-center and the other right-center … but well-informed people read both newspapers. There may have been polarization of opinion but at least there was an effort to work with the same set of facts.

Cable, internet and their offspring like telecommuting and social media have made polarization of political information severe. The present Administration brags about its “alternative facts.” (The problem isn’t brand new with Trump: GWB aides used to scoff at “reality-based” liberals.) History makes names for great epochs, the ‘Reconstruction Era’, the ‘Gay Nineties’, the ‘Roaring Twenties.’ Perhaps historians will call our era the ‘Era of Lies.’

The rise of Internet may make this problem almost inevitable but algorithms by Google, in particular, have exacerbated the problem. Everyone lives in their own bubble now. I’m in a bubble — the only time I watch Fox ‘n’ Friends is when a leftish comedian is ridiculing them. Rightists know nothing of the left except what Sean Hannity and his ilk tell them.

If the humans ever regain control of Middle Earth I think drastic solutions may be in order. Unfortunately, however, proposed remedies are already being misused. One top Republican is on record saying something like “Trump’s tweets are all the news Americans need.”

@Banquet_Bear

This is supposed to be a Great Debate. If the OP chooses to put no effort into the OP then it should come as no surprise that no effort goes into the rebuttal. That was my entire point. I don’t expect anyone to educate anyone. But an assertion with no evidence is easily defeated with an assertion with no evidence.

These are people that would continue to support Trump if he shot a man in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. What makes you think they would care about Pruitt? Waste the effort to educate and at best all you’ll hear is “Maybe. But what about Benghazi?”

Many of us do try to enlighten the ignorant. One Trumpist at SDMB confessed to knowing nothing about Trump University; all he knew was that Hillary’s crimes were worse. (Upthread a poster compares Clintons’ and Pruitt’s crimes — I don’t know if he was being sarcastic.) His reaction after I spent some time under the illusion he might be salvageable, was, paraphrased, “OK. Maybe my man’s a crook. But so what? Let’s Make America Great Again. And what about Benghazi?”

[guizot]

@enipla

Banquet Bear, just how many times should a person inform those that refuse to look at the news?

They’re looking at the news–the official Trump news, which serves them whatever fantasy Trump is selling. (Sometimes they serve it to him first, and then he spouts it back.)

This is what happens in a cult. It doesn’t matter how much information you give the cult followers–they’ll always use the cover story of the cult leader to justify whatever they do, (up to and including kool-aid). They’re not going to agree on any “one thing” about Scott Pruitt–or anything else that is contrary to song-and-dance that their leader spews out.

[nelliebly]

@septimus

I think this has become a major problem. In the 20th century we largely all watched the same news. Walter Cronkite was “the most trusted man in America.” Big towns had two newspapers, one left-center and the other right-center … but well-informed people read both newspapers. There may have been polarization of opinion but at least there was an effort to work with the same set of facts.

Cable, internet and their offspring like telecommuting and social media have made polarization of political information severe. The present Administration brags about its “alternative facts.” (The problem isn’t brand new with Trump: GWB aides used to scoff at “reality-based” liberals.) History makes names for great epochs, the ‘Reconstruction Era’, the ‘Gay Nineties’, the ‘Roaring Twenties.’ Perhaps historians will call our era the ‘Era of Lies.’

The rise of Internet may make this problem almost inevitable but algorithms by Google, in particular, have exacerbated the problem. Everyone lives in their own bubble now. I’m in a bubble — the only time I watch Fox ‘n’ Friends is when a leftish comedian is ridiculing them. Rightists know nothing of the left except what Sean Hannity and his ilk tell them.

If the humans ever regain control of Middle Earth I think drastic solutions may be in order. Unfortunately, however, proposed remedies are already being misused. One top Republican is on record saying something like “Trump’s tweets are all the news Americans need.”

These are people that would continue to support Trump if he shot a man in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. What makes you think they would care about Pruitt? Waste the effort to educate and at best all you’ll hear is “Maybe. But what about Benghazi?”

Many of us do try to enlighten the ignorant. One Trumpist at SDMB confessed to knowing nothing about Trump University; all he knew was that Hillary’s crimes were worse. (Upthread a poster compares Clintons’ and Pruitt’s crimes — I don’t know if he was being sarcastic.) His reaction after I spent some time under the illusion he might be salvageable, was, paraphrased, “OK. Maybe my man’s a crook. But so what? Let’s Make America Great Again. And what about Benghazi?”

Thank you. excellent points.

[Banquet_Bear]

@septimus

These are people that would continue to support Trump if he shot a man in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. What makes you think they would care about Pruitt? Waste the effort to educate and at best all you’ll hear is “Maybe. But what about Benghazi?”

…so whats the debate?

“Scott Pruitt is corrupt.”

“No he isn’t.”

“Cite?”

“How about you provide a cite first?”

“You aren’t arguing in good faith. You Trumpers. He could shoot a man in the street and you would still support him!”

This is a rant. Not a debate. If you don’t want to do the basics: if you can’t even provide a cite, then whats the point?

What the OP wants to do is make the case that Pruitt is corrupt to such a degree that everyone should agree that he is corrupt.

But the news cycle moves so quickly now. We are struggling to keep “family separation” story in the news. Pruitt? Barely a headline. The story has gone viral with everyone I follow. But outside of my general feedback loop it was a story for about 30 seconds. There is too much fucking news now. A reasonable person cannot keep up. It is entirely probable that the average person doesn’t have a clue what Pruitt’s been up too.

If the OP wants to show that Pruitt is corrupt to the degree that everyone should be able to agree that Pruitt is corrupt then they should make that case. Because on the other side of the fence the narrative is that Pruitt is “doing a great job, that he’s getting rid of regulations that are hurting businesses and the only reason Pruitt is being targeted is because he loves America”.

Many of us do try to enlighten the ignorant. One Trumpist at SDMB confessed to knowing nothing about Trump University; all he knew was that Hillary’s crimes were worse. (Upthread a poster compares Clintons’ and Pruitt’s crimes — I don’t know if he was being sarcastic.) His reaction after I spent some time under the illusion he might be salvageable, was, paraphrased,

I wouldn’t expect anything less in Great Debates. That’s why we are here, are we not?

“OK. Maybe my man’s a crook. But so what? Let’s Make America Great Again. And what about Benghazi?”

This is a forum on a messageboard. Were you expecting to change the world? You debated someone who didn’t debate in good faith. Does that surprise you?

If your goal is to “enlighten the ignorant” then I’ll be quite frank, most of the time you are going to be sorely disappointed. I think that its entirely reasonable to ask the OP to make a case for what they assert. If we give this OP a pass then why not a thread about how “9/11 was an inside job?” Or how about “global warming is fake?”

[septimus]

@septimus

Cable, internet and their offspring like telecommuting and social media have made polarization of political information severe… Everyone lives in their own bubble now

What a coincidence! An hour after posting this I picked up a book written in 1993, opened it almost at random, and read …

@Stephen Jay Gould

… I don’t know if the Origin of Species contains an argument more general or more important than Darwin’s recognition that pervasive redundancy makes evolution possible…

But rules of structure, deeper than natural selection itself, … [may apply to] Human creativity … for I think we are dealing with a statement about the very nature of organization – something so general that it must apply to any particular instance.

How sad then that we live in a culture almost dedicated to wiping out the leisure of ambiguity and the creative joy of redundancy. These days, even the most complex concepts must be reduced to photo opportunities and sound bites, and elections are decided by fifteen-second images of men surrounded by flags and alleged criminals walking through symbolic revolving doors. We may be creating a generation of sheep

[but Gould finishes on an optimistic note:] … and although these pleasant mammals outnumber New Zealanders by almost twenty-five to one, I rather suspect that Homo sapiens, properly nurtured by redundancy and ambiguity, will continue to prevail.

[septimus]

@Banquet_Bear

… “You aren’t arguing in good faith. You Trumpers. He could shoot a man in the street and you would still support him!”

This is a rant. Not a debate. If you don’t want to do the basics: if you can’t even provide a cite, then whats the point?

I understand your general point, and don’t particularly disagree with it. But let’s face reality.

First of all, Scott Pruitt is such an almost unbelievably despicable asshole, who would know where to start? I might have apoplexy before I got to the best punchlines.

If I type “is scott pruitt corrupt” into Google search, here is the first page of hits:

[ul]
[li]Scott Pruitt Did Something Corrupt and Embarrassing, Vol. 837,321 …[/li]https://www.vanityfair.com/.../scott-pruitt-did-something-corrupt-and-embarrassing-v…
[li]A List of EPA Chief Scott Pruitt’s Insanely Corrupt Acts - Splinter[/li]https://splinternews.com/a-list-of-all-the-insanely-corrupt-shit-scott-pruitt-ha-1826864…
[li]How Does Scott Pruitt Still Have a Job? Rolling Stone[/li]How Does Scott Pruitt Still Have a Job?
[li]Scott Pruitt, Wilbur Ross, and Corruption in Trumpworld - The Atlantic[/li]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/wilbur-ross...pruitt/563441/
[li]It’s time for the Republican Congress to impeach the EPA’s Scott Pruitt …[/li]https://www.marketwatch.com Economy & Politics Rex Nutting
[li]Scott Pruitt is going to be fired very soon - The Washington Post[/li]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../scott-pruitt-is-going-to-be-fired-very-soon/
[li]Maybe Scott Pruitt isn’t corrupt enough - The Washington Post[/li]https://www.washingtonpost.com/...scott-pruitt...corrupt.../19cd43b6-69bc-11e8-9e38-2…
[li]Scott Pruitt Made His Employees Pay For His Hotels Here Are All …[/li]digg.com/2018/scott-pruitt-corruption-list
[li]MoveOn Petitions - Scott Pruitt is corrupt and should be fired immediately[/li]Scott Pruitt is corrupt and should be fired immediately | MoveOn
[li]Scott Pruitt: Errand Boy for Corruption Friends of the Earth - Friends …[/li]Scott Pruitt: Errand Boy for Corruption
[/ul]

Which of these news sources is the target most likely to believe? If he can’t take the trouble to click and read, what makes us think he will read a copy-paste job?

You suggest that some target Doper might be interested enough in Pruitt’s corruption or despicable nature to read the thread but hitherto unaware of it, and unwilling to click a link? Let me answer by asking if we can agree that some humans’ cognition is not completely at a high intellectual level.

[Czarcasm]

@Banquet_Bear

…so whats the debate?

“Scott Pruitt is corrupt.”

“No he isn’t.”

“Cite?”

“How about you provide a cite first?”

“You aren’t arguing in good faith. You Trumpers. He could shoot a man in the street and you would still support him!”

This is a rant. Not a debate. If you don’t want to do the basics: if you can’t even provide a cite, then whats the point?

What the OP wants to do is make the case that Pruitt is corrupt to such a degree that everyone should agree that he is corrupt.

But the news cycle moves so quickly now. We are struggling to keep “family separation” story in the news. Pruitt? Barely a headline. The story has gone viral with everyone I follow. But outside of my general feedback loop it was a story for about 30 seconds. There is too much fucking news now. A reasonable person cannot keep up. It is entirely probable that the average person doesn’t have a clue what Pruitt’s been up too.

If the OP wants to show that Pruitt is corrupt to the degree that everyone should be able to agree that Pruitt is corrupt then they should make that case. Because on the other side of the fence the narrative is that Pruitt is “doing a great job, that he’s getting rid of regulations that are hurting businesses and the only reason Pruitt is being targeted is because he loves America”.

I wouldn’t expect anything less in Great Debates. That’s why we are here, are we not?

This is a forum on a messageboard. Were you expecting to change the world? You debated someone who didn’t debate in good faith. Does that surprise you?

If your goal is to “enlighten the ignorant” then I’ll be quite frank, most of the time you are going to be sorely disappointed. I think that its entirely reasonable to ask the OP to make a case for what they assert. If we give this OP a pass then why not a thread about how “9/11 was an inside job?” Or how about “global warming is fake?”

Nice handwaving…but CelticKnot didn’t say “Show me your evidence first”. What was said was roughly “Why should I back up my claim? You all would only disregard/ignore it”-the same excuse woosters give when asked to back up a claim that seems to defy reality.

[septimus]

@septimus

[ul]
[li]Maybe Scott Pruitt isn’t corrupt enough - The Washington Post[/li]https://www.washingtonpost.com/...scott-pruitt...corrupt.../19cd43b6-69bc-11e8-9e38-2…
[/ul]

NETA: I notice that the links I copy/pasted won’t work: they were “damaged” by the copy. (I suppose some Dopers may use this as an excuse not to learn about Pruitt.)

I discovered this when I clicked on the above link just now, which Trumpists might use to celebrate their Hero. :smack:
“See? Even the Washington Post admits he’s not corrupt — He’s not even Corrupt Enough!!#%#!!”

Pruitt’s problem isn’t that he’s corrupt; it’s that he isn’t corrupt enough. He could be thrashing with the big gators in the swamp, but he’s lounging with larvae in a mud puddle. Pruitt should abandon his penny-ante corruption and get rich the way others do in Trump’s Washington.
Why get in trouble for renting a condo for a below-market $50 per night when, like Jared Kushner, you could have a $120 million investment that helps your family business from a group with ties to Qatar’s government while you oversee Middle East policy?

Pruitt is being raked over the coals for wasting more than $60,000 on military and charter flights and for flying first-class (coach is too dangerous!). Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump stands to gain tens of millions from the trademarks issued to her businesses by China while her father negotiates with that country.
Poor Pruitt gets heat for a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office (although, I admit, that one was quite creative). But Kushner, the president’s son-in-law , invites financial executives to the White House, reportedly dangles a job in front of one of them, and his family business gets $500 million in loans.

Pruitt is being investigated for giving raises of $66,000 and $48,000 to aides who are pals of his, one of which resigned on Wednesday. The president, by contrast, is making untold millions for the Trump Organization from interest groups and foreign governments that are either funneling business to or otherwise boosting Trump properties in hopes of winning favor with the president.

Pruitt may be afraid that, if he were to do what Trump and his kin do, it might be “illegal,” to use the archaic term. This may also be why Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson ($31,000 dining set), Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke ($139,000 office doors) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (asked for a military charter for his European honeymoon) have not exploited the full moneymaking potential of their jobs…

ETA: The ten links were Google’s response to “Scott Pruitt corrupt.” Right-wingers who want to educate themselves might also want to try “Scott Pruitt liar”, “Scott Pruitt scumbag”, etc.
.

[Banquet_Bear]

@septimus

I understand your general point, and don’t particularly disagree with it. But let’s face reality.

First of all, Scott Pruitt is such an almost unbelievably despicable asshole, who would know where to start? I might have apoplexy before I got to the best punchlines.

If I type “is scott pruitt corrupt” into Google search, here is the first page of hits:

[ul]
[li]Scott Pruitt Did Something Corrupt and Embarrassing, Vol. 837,321 …[/li]https://www.vanityfair.com/.../scott-pruitt-did-something-corrupt-and-embarrassing-v…
[li]A List of EPA Chief Scott Pruitt’s Insanely Corrupt Acts - Splinter[/li]https://splinternews.com/a-list-of-all-the-insanely-corrupt-shit-scott-pruitt-ha-1826864…
[li]How Does Scott Pruitt Still Have a Job? Rolling Stone[/li]How Does Scott Pruitt Still Have a Job?
[li]Scott Pruitt, Wilbur Ross, and Corruption in Trumpworld - The Atlantic[/li]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/wilbur-ross...pruitt/563441/
[li]It’s time for the Republican Congress to impeach the EPA’s Scott Pruitt …[/li]https://www.marketwatch.com Economy & Politics Rex Nutting
[li]Scott Pruitt is going to be fired very soon - The Washington Post[/li]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../scott-pruitt-is-going-to-be-fired-very-soon/
[li]Maybe Scott Pruitt isn’t corrupt enough - The Washington Post[/li]https://www.washingtonpost.com/...scott-pruitt...corrupt.../19cd43b6-69bc-11e8-9e38-2…
[li]Scott Pruitt Made His Employees Pay For His Hotels Here Are All …[/li]digg.com/2018/scott-pruitt-corruption-list
[li]MoveOn Petitions - Scott Pruitt is corrupt and should be fired immediately[/li]Scott Pruitt is corrupt and should be fired immediately | MoveOn
[li]Scott Pruitt: Errand Boy for Corruption Friends of the Earth - Friends …[/li]Scott Pruitt: Errand Boy for Corruption
[/ul]

…there you go. You’ve almost done the job of the OP. Well done. Now if you had rounded your argument off with “now after reading these cites: can anyone seriously deny that corrupt, Scott Pruitt is a lying, self-serving scumbag?” and you would have your debate.

Which of these news sources is the target most likely to believe? If he can’t take the trouble to click and read, what makes us think he will read a copy-paste job?

What do you mean by “target?” I’m not understanding your objection to what I’ve posted. If you present a strong but arguable assertion in the OP, and you back up that assertion with evidence, then you’ve got yourself a Great Debate. That’s all I’m saying.

You suggest that some target Doper might be interested enough in Pruitt’s corruption or despicable nature to read the thread

Its a click-bait thread title. “Scott Pruitt… can we all agree on one thing?” Its practically inviting someone to say “no.” I open up threads all the time to see what they are about. Thats the nature of internet messageboards.

but hitherto unaware of it, and unwilling to click a link?

There were no links in the OP.

Let me answer by asking if we can agree that some humans’ cognition is not completely at a high intellectual level.

A point irrelevant to the debate at hand, and in the context of this thread very close to crossing the line into an insult. “High intellectual level” is subjective.

[Czarcasm]

Any reaction to the evidence given, or are you just going to debate about the proper way to debate?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Czarcasm

Nice handwaving…

…give me a fucking break.

I’m not fucking handwaving.

but CelticKnot didn’t say “Show me your evidence first”. What was said was roughly "Why should I back up my claim?

Why should CelticKnot back up their claim? The OP didn’t back up their claim. Thats my entire point.

You all would only disregard/ignore it"-the same excuse woosters give when asked to back up a claim that seems to defy reality.

septimus’s and CelticKnot both make identical arguments why they shouldn’t have to back up their claims (although septimus’s has since provided a range of cites). So if CelticKnot is wrong, do you agree that septimus was wrong as well?

[Czarcasm]

Celtic Knot said “Why should I bother giving evidence” when asked, and septimus provided the evidence when asked.
See the difference?