You're now talking about what powerful corporations do in globalised economies. The sort of economies that trump's tax and trade policies were trying to correct.
Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
You're now talking about what powerful corporations do in globalised economies. The sort of economies that trump's tax and trade policies were trying to correct.
Yes, because because his economic policies were right. It requires little to no intelligence to decide to implement those policies, the only reason no other modern politician does it is because they're corrupt fucking cunts who are owned by their corporate donors, as you will soon discover with creepy joe.
The board of electors for wayne county / detroit refused to certify the votes (which would have handed Michigan to Trump) due to unexplained irregularities in the count. They got a load of abuse, went on mute, had a private conference, came back, and changed their minds. Nothing to see here.
Hilary phoned them
This is odd :
The board also passed a resolution calling on Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to conduct an independent comprehensive audit of all of the precincts in the county that recorded unexplained discrepancies between the number of ballots recorded as cast and the number of ballots counted.
All four members of the board unanimously supported the certification of the August primary election, which also saw unexplained discrepancies.
The board also passed a resolution calling on Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to conduct an independent comprehensive audit of all of the precincts in the county that recorded unexplained discrepancies between the number of ballots recorded as cast and the number of ballots counted.
All four members of the board unanimously supported the certification of the August primary election, which also saw unexplained discrepancies.
No, all four people involved agree there are unexplained discrepancies in the vote tallies.
Why certify the result ?
There is no ethidence that the unexplained discrepancies don't have an explanation, they just don't know what that explanation is, but because there is no ethidence that it doesn't exist, then there is no reason to not certify the votes on the basis that there is an explanation for the weird stuff which they would undoubtedly find if they investigated it. Get it?
Trump really put his foot on the gas now with his scorched earth tactics and friend favours.
Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, which in isolation sounds good, but is not.
Leaving allies in the lurch to try and clean up their mess, also creating a vacuum for terrorist organisations to take advantage of.
Selling shit loads of advanced weapons to enemies of Iran in the region. Also, I read that he wanted to strike against Iran recently, but his advisors managed to talk him around. Saudi money would be grand i guess.
Pushing forward with policies allowing sale of drilling rights in Arctic refuge areas that are deemed vulnerable ecosystems to be protected.
Probably just scratched the surface.
Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, which in isolation sounds good, but is not.
Leaving allies in the lurch to try and clean up their mess, also creating a vacuum for terrorist organisations to take advantage of.
Selling shit loads of advanced weapons to enemies of Iran in the region. Also, I read that he wanted to strike against Iran recently, but his advisors managed to talk him around. Saudi money would be grand i guess.
Pushing forward with policies allowing sale of drilling rights in Arctic refuge areas that are deemed vulnerable ecosystems to be protected.
Probably just scratched the surface.
Contrary to what you think, I'd gladly assassinate Trump if he came close to following through with this one. I'd try and avoid the head though, so at least his loved ones can pay their respects with an open casket, he deserves that much.
I've seen Jenna Ellis several times on TV and she comes across as significantly smarter than Rudy, wonder why she isn't leading Trump's legal battles?
Because the states still operate as their own little countries out there, so someone registered to the bar in one state has no right to practice law in a different state. She probably isn't registered in Pennsylvania. Neither was Rudy, but the judge gave him permission this time probably because of the entertainment value he foresaw.
It's better than pro Bono work.
You’d avoid Trump’s head because it would have no demonstrable effect to him.
He’s been functioning without a brain since the 70’s.
Trying to correct? Oh you mean by giving said corporations unfettered access to certain native lands, national parks, the Arctic and lifted protection on huge areas of coastal waters. He's lifted or abolished an insane amount of protection and ridden roughshod over anything and everything that stood in the way of the mighty dollar, undoing in 4 years what had taken decades to get into law. He is a utter abomination who cares for only two things, his ego and money.
Last edited:
She refuses to let him grab her pussy.
So sue him, or sue the company that starts drilling next door to your land. If they do damage, you'll prove it, and make them pay. You seem to think those lever arch files of rules and regulations protect the environment. It's literally the opposite. They protect the corporation from getting sued and they protect it from competition.
Imagine I pour mercury into the river. Some Erin Brockovich type just needs to collect the samples, submit them as evidence to court, and I'm done for. Imagine I fill out all the forms the regulator requires me to, where I tell them I won't pour mercury into the river, see here are all my checks and balances to prove I'm taking it seriously. I ticked the box here, see. Then I pour mercury into the river. Now Erin Brockovich doesn't have a leg to stand on, because the court will not substitute it's judgement in place of the regulators judgement. Her remedy is to complain to the regulator. Imagine me shaking in my boots when the regulator comes to ask me questions. Yeah you can't. Because I lie to them, shake hands, and carry on.
You're whining about things you can now litigate thanks to Trump. Because you'd rather "complain" to some silly government regulator who doesn't give two shits about the river, and only wants to pay themselves as much money as they can using your taxes, for doing fuck all.
You're whining about things you can now litigate thanks to Trump. Because you'd rather "complain" to some silly government regulator who doesn't give two shits about the river, and only wants to pay themselves as much money as they can using your taxes, for doing fuck all.
This message was sponsored by the CCP
Can you not help him find what he's looking for?
You didn't just say people can now litigate thanks to Trump did you ?! Jesus H. Christ. Because there was no need to litigate anything before, it was all protected, report any infraction and the law was clear and would support you.
Now all of those Oil, Gas, Fracking, Lumber, Hunters and Fishing trawlers have carte blanche within the framework of their licences to continue trashing the land, oceans and atmosphere thanks to ... Trump. It's insane to say or think otherwise when virtually all of the world's conservation groups have been pointing out his recklessness for the whole of his presidency.
Hahaha you're utterly wrong on this. I think you're confused about the difference between laws/precedents and government regulations. The latter has weight and carries consequences which corporations respect. The former does not and is afforded zero respect.
If you google it, wikipedia might help you out:
[article]
Laws from every stratum of the laws of the United States pertain to environmental issues. Congress has passed a number of landmark environmental regulatory regimes, but many other federal laws are equally important, if less comprehensive. Concurrently, the legislatures of the fifty states have passed innumerable comparable sets of laws.[5] These state and federal systems are foliated with layer upon layer of administrative regulation. Meanwhile, the US judicial system reviews not only the legislative enactments, but also the administrative decisions of the many agencies dealing with environmental issues. Where the statutes and regulations end, the common law begins.[6]
Federal statutes[edit]
Main article: List of United States Federal Environmental Statutes
See also: Environmental policy of the United States
Federal regulation[edit]
Consistent with the federal statutes that they administer, US federal agencies promulgate regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations that fill out the broad programs enacted by Congress. Primary among these is Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, containing the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Other important CFR sections include Title 10 (energy), Title 18 (Conservation of Power and Water Resources), Title 21 (Food and Drugs), Title 33 (Navigable Waters), Title 36 (Parks, Forests and Public Property), Title 43 (Public Lands: Interior) and Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries).
Judicial decisions[edit]
See also: List of environmental lawsuits
The federal and state judiciaries have played an important role in the development of environmental law in the United States, in many cases resolving significant controversy regarding the application of federal environmental laws in favor of environmental interests. The decisions of the Supreme Court in cases such as Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (broadly reading the procedural requirements of NEPA), Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (broadly reading the Endangered Species Act), and, much more recently, Massachusetts v. EPA (requiring EPA to reconsider regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act) have had policy impacts far beyond the facts of the particular case.
Common law[edit]
The common law of tort is an important tool for the resolution of environmental disputes that fall beyond the confines of regulated activity. Prior to the modern proliferation of environmental regulation, the doctrines of nuisance (public or private), trespass, negligence, and strict liability apportioned harm and assigned liability for activities that today would be considered pollution and likely governed by regulatory regimes.[7] These doctrines remain relevant, and most recently have been used by plaintiffs seeking to impose liability for the consequences of global climate change.[8]
The common law also continues to play a leading role in American water law, in the doctrines of riparian rights and prior appropriation.
[/article]
So for all intents and purposes the common law doesn't come into play when you have a regulation in it's place. If you read the descriptions of federal regulations, compare them with the description of judicial decisions and common law, and having read them, if you then tell me you think regulations are better and you'd prefer to have them instead of the law, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're delusional.
[article]
Laws from every stratum of the laws of the United States pertain to environmental issues. Congress has passed a number of landmark environmental regulatory regimes, but many other federal laws are equally important, if less comprehensive. Concurrently, the legislatures of the fifty states have passed innumerable comparable sets of laws.[5] These state and federal systems are foliated with layer upon layer of administrative regulation. Meanwhile, the US judicial system reviews not only the legislative enactments, but also the administrative decisions of the many agencies dealing with environmental issues. Where the statutes and regulations end, the common law begins.[6]
Federal statutes[edit]
Main article: List of United States Federal Environmental Statutes
See also: Environmental policy of the United States
Federal regulation[edit]
Consistent with the federal statutes that they administer, US federal agencies promulgate regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations that fill out the broad programs enacted by Congress. Primary among these is Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, containing the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Other important CFR sections include Title 10 (energy), Title 18 (Conservation of Power and Water Resources), Title 21 (Food and Drugs), Title 33 (Navigable Waters), Title 36 (Parks, Forests and Public Property), Title 43 (Public Lands: Interior) and Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries).
Judicial decisions[edit]
See also: List of environmental lawsuits
The federal and state judiciaries have played an important role in the development of environmental law in the United States, in many cases resolving significant controversy regarding the application of federal environmental laws in favor of environmental interests. The decisions of the Supreme Court in cases such as Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (broadly reading the procedural requirements of NEPA), Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (broadly reading the Endangered Species Act), and, much more recently, Massachusetts v. EPA (requiring EPA to reconsider regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act) have had policy impacts far beyond the facts of the particular case.
Common law[edit]
The common law of tort is an important tool for the resolution of environmental disputes that fall beyond the confines of regulated activity. Prior to the modern proliferation of environmental regulation, the doctrines of nuisance (public or private), trespass, negligence, and strict liability apportioned harm and assigned liability for activities that today would be considered pollution and likely governed by regulatory regimes.[7] These doctrines remain relevant, and most recently have been used by plaintiffs seeking to impose liability for the consequences of global climate change.[8]
The common law also continues to play a leading role in American water law, in the doctrines of riparian rights and prior appropriation.
[/article]
So for all intents and purposes the common law doesn't come into play when you have a regulation in it's place. If you read the descriptions of federal regulations, compare them with the description of judicial decisions and common law, and having read them, if you then tell me you think regulations are better and you'd prefer to have them instead of the law, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're delusional.
It seems your confusion arises when an area has previously been given national park or protected status ... and then Trump took it away. So to clarify ... now they aren't protected and licences are being dispensed to allow Oil, Gas, Fracking, Lumber, Hunters and Fishing corporations to rape the land/sea. So now give me the spiel. Oh sorry too late, the many conservation groups have beaten you to it, and your claptrap on litigation means shite.
And you clearly have misread what I said ... National Parks and Protected Marine environments = protected. Now how difficult is that to understand?
Similar threads
