*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Jack Sawyer]

What don't you like about him?

LOL is this a real question?

Hint....it starts with T

And ends with "actical pants"?

[wufwugy]

LOL is this a real question?

I know literally zero about him.

[Jack Sawyer]

Anybody here find it worth questioning that the prominent anti-Trump opinion emerges from a media engine that stops at nothing to try to destroy Trump?

Let's try, one recent example.

Scott Pruitt was Trump's appointee for the position of the Head of EPA.

I know literally zero about him.

Ok, let me fill you in.

Pruit was Oklahoma's AG for a number of years. During the time he held this position, he sued the EPA no less than 14 times block clean air and water safeguards from, you guess it, the EPA. Investigations showed that in every suit except one, at least one of Pruitt’s co-litigators contributed to Pruitt’s campaign or a political action committee affiliated with Pruitt – directly, or via an employee or member..

Trump appointed this man as the head of the EPA.

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?



After you gave that opinion, here are some more facts to consider, ofcourse in hindsight as he has already resigned

https://www.axios.com/go-deeper-the-...5dc32a1fd.html
http://fortune.com/2018/07/05/scott-...signs-scandal/

[Poopadoop]

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?

It's the opinion of someone who believes government regulation of business is a bad thing in principle. The problem with that stance is it's been shown repeatedly that without gov't regulation, businesses will happily abuse the rights and well-being of citizens for their own profit.

An example: without EPA regs, mining companies could save money by not cleaning up the toxic byproducts of their operation. There is no laissez faire approach to business regulation that you could argue would self-police this matter.

E.g., a copper mine opens in Montana, takes out all the copper and leaves a bunch of toxic waste behind that bleeds into the drinking water, making everyone and everything that lives there sick for decades. According to some this would be a bad practice for that company economically because people would no longer buy their copper. Only that doesn't happen because the people buying their copper don't give a shit about the drinking water in Montana either.

[wufwugy]

Let's try, one recent example.

Scott Pruitt was Trump's appointee for the position of the Head of EPA.



Ok, let me fill you in.

Pruit was Oklahoma's AG for a number of years. During the time he held this position, he sued the EPA no less than 14 times block clean air and water safeguards from, you guess it, the EPA. Investigations showed that in every suit except one, at least one of Pruitt’s co-litigators contributed to Pruitt’s campaign or a political action committee affiliated with Pruitt – directly, or via an employee or member..

Trump appointed this man as the head of the EPA.

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?



After you gave that opinion, here are some more facts to consider, ofcourse in hindsight as he has already resigned

https://www.axios.com/go-deeper-the-...5dc32a1fd.html
http://fortune.com/2018/07/05/scott-...signs-scandal/

In general I don't have an opinion because I need more information to be well informed.

Things that jump out:

The co-litigator campaign contributions is a good example for why government power should be restrained.

I'm a fan of making the head of the EPA somebody who doesn't like the EPA. I'd prefer the agency not exist and an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the federal government is prohibited from operating within that space (adding to our rights).