…what more do you want from me?
I’m being serious here.
I agree with the OP. I’ve challenged CelticKnot on their assertions. What more do you want?
…hold on a second. I never asked septimus to back up the OP, he did that on his own. And septimus didn’t post the evidence to back up the OP: they posted the evidence to prove that “it wasn’t hard to find”, an important distinction.
And we all aren’t on this messageboard at the same time. I’m posting from the other side of the world, sometimes I don’t get back to this messageboard for days, sometimes I come back to the thread and the conversation has drifted so far that it isn’t worth-my-while responding. So maybe Celtic Knot will come back tomorrow and post some evidence, maybe not. Who knows?
So the fact that septimus chose to offer evidence doesn’t materially change the fact that both septimus and Celtic Knot made identical arguments as to why evidence isn’t necessary.
So in hindsight I should have done a quick google search and grabbed the first dozen of the 100s of links showing Pruitt’s corruption… honestly I thought most - if not all - of those interested in commenting on this thread would already have read their fair share of the news.
I TRULY did not think that I had to PROVE he was corrupt, that seemed incredibly self evident but to Trump supporters and anyone else that far right I can now see that is simply not the case, I apologize and stand corrected.
I was and am simply fascinated at how the the political spectrum provides this shield against character so long as the politician is “playing for your team”.
I despise Scott Pruitt in the very same way as Rod Blagojevich regardless of thier team colors. They are both low character, corrupt, immoral, self serving villians who do not serve their respective parties with a shred of integrity or honor… I still cannot understand how anyone - regardless of party affiliation - could support him.
THAT was my point.
To be clear, I did NOT provide evidence. I did a trivial Google search, copy, paste. The only link I actually pursued was the one with the amusing title.
I agree with this entire post.
If someone started a thread “How come today’s sixth-graders don’t even know 2+2 is 4?” would Banquet Bear insist we provide cites to show that 2+2 = 4 ? :rolleyes:
…I think you did provide evidence. Czarcasm agrees with me. Its quite odd to think that you think you haven’t.
I would expect some cites that showed what percentage of sixth-graders didn’t know that 2+2 is 4. And then I would expect you to show that this percentage is significant enough to be a problem. Because otherwise, why would you be posting it in Great Debates instead of General Questions?
You’ve already said you “understand my general point, and don’t particularly disagree with it”. So what exactly is it you are trying to argue about now?
Pruitt just resigned. Probably because he’s just a squeaky clean bureaucrat.
Confirmation
Trump promised to hire only “the best people.” What happened?
Sure. It’s like if someone starts a thread saying, “The age of the earth… can we all agree on one thing?” And that one thing is that the available scientific evidence indicates that the earth is not 6000 years old and wasn’t literally created in 7 days.
At that point, yeah, if you disagree, you’re going to be mocked and ridiculed, because disagreeing indicates a degree of downright contemptible ignorance or motivated reasoning. That is, you either haven’t paid any attention to the subject you came in to talk about and took no time to get even the barest background before coming into the discussion, or you do have some background understanding, but the conclusion you reached simply cannot be defended in good faith. Anyone earnestly arguing that the scientific evidence indicates a young earth either never looked at the scientific evidence, or has turned to dark side epistemology to defend a belief they aren’t willing to change or address. Either is contemptible and worthy of insult and mockery in a thread about the subject. And Pruitt being corrupt as all hell is in exactly the same boat.
I mean, has your opinion been amended at all now that Pruitt has become the latest example of a Trump appointee who has left the administration? To quote the LA Times article linked above:
The spendthrift EPA chief has been a political liability for the White House for months, drawing the attention of federal investigators with scandal after scandal, many of which were linked to his lavish spending of taxpayer money and the use of his position to enrich his family. Pruitt leaves the post the target of more than a dozen official probes.
The transgressions span from Pruitt’s deal with the wife of a top energy lobbyist for deeply discounted housing, huge raises he gave friends against the instructions of the White House and his penchant for flying first class. Pruitt used his office to try to secure his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise and also enlisted aides to try to help her land lucrative work elsewhere. He had a $43,000 phone booth installed in his office.
Though President Trump initially backed Pruitt and prominent conservatives had lobbied to keep him in place, the scandals eventually made Pruitt too much of a liability for the administration.
Emphasis mine. Pruitt had so many scandals that it became a liability for the most graft-ridden president in history.
I guess the swamp is being drained. One cup at a time, after several million gallons came whooshing in last winter.
Meanwhile, from Vox, Pruitt’s resignation letter is kind of hilarious.
First thought: the resistance is working, keep it up! If this is what it takes to keep incredibly shitty people out of government, then by all means, barge in on them in restaurants, turn them down on dates, make it clear that when shitty people play shitty games, they win shitty prizes.
Second thought: I love how this letter completely ignores why people were pissed at him. Things like ignoring the scientific consensus on one of the most important environmental issues, and tons of high-profile corrupton scandals.
It just took them a while to discover Pruitt lodged in the drainpipe like Augustus Gloop.
As a former resident of SW Louisiana, let me say that swamps are good things, full of wildlife, and should not be drained.
What we have now is not a swamp but a cesspool, and Pruitt is just the latest turd removed.
And Trumpists seem to love the smell.
“Oh, this is just perfect: the lickspittle fawning toward power, the invocation of religion to justify plutocracy, the bulletproof sense of victimization … today’s pathetic conservative movement, all wrapped up with a bow.”
He might have blown his chances at replacing Inhofe, too. Maybe he figures he can cut out now and hope that people have short memories.
A propos the subthread here about how we all read only the news sources that confirm our beliefs, I want to say that I get most of my news from the NY Times and they seem to be quite aware of the problem and have three regular conservative columnists: David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Brett Stephens. The trouble is that all three have morphed into virulent anti-Trumpers. That’s because all three have a modicum of respect for facts. But what can you do? To be pro-Trump, you have to embrace an alternate reality.
So Pruitt is gone. So what? His deputy who, will take over as acting EPA administrator, is just as opposed to the environment as he was while perhaps not being so corrupt. And it is that, not his petty veniality, that I objected to about him. Trump should have been happy to have an ass like Pruitt to attract all the criticism and deflect attention from the real damage that is going on.