No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: undefined
#2Many in the Trump administration strike me as simply incompetent in their roles. Pruitt, OTOH, almost seemed to be going out of his way to see what he could get away with. "How much self-dealing, graft, and over-spending can I do before they can my ass? Hold my beer..." I'm surprised it has taken this long, but perhaps his antics were a useful distraction from other issues.
And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job.
Re: undefined
#3I can only hope that he's properly investigated for the sheer amount of overt corruption and waste he's been personally responsible for.
Re: undefined
#4Many in the Trump administration strike me as simply incompetent in their roles. Pruitt, OTOH, almost seemed to be going out of his way to see what he could get away with. "How much self-dealing, graft, and over-spending can I do before they can my ass? Hold my beer..." I'm surprised it has taken this long, but perhaps his antics were a useful distraction from other issues. And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed…
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job.
Really? How?
The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong?
EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those tenets might be. I'm curious: what do you think the head of the EPA should be doing (within the bounds of the job) that he was not doing?
Re: undefined
#5Many in the Trump administration strike me as simply incompetent in their roles. Pruitt, OTOH, almost seemed to be going out of his way to see what he could get away with. "How much self-dealing, graft, and over-spending can I do before they can my ass? Hold my beer..." I'm surprised it has taken this long, but perhaps his antics were a useful distraction from other issues. And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed…
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job. Really? How? The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong? EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those…
I get that Democrats and Republicans have very, very different views on the role of government, and especially the EPA.
Still, Scott Pruitt seemed almost cartoonishly evil in this role. I can understand if you believe the environment is better protected by some other means, but when your primary goal is to basically continue acting as a coal industry lobbyist, methinks head of the EPA is not a job you should have.
Re: undefined
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job. Really? How? The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong? EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those…
I get that Democrats and Republicans have very, very different views on the role of government, and especially the EPA. Still, Scott Pruitt seemed almost cartoonishly evil in this role. I can understand if you believe the environment is better protected by some other means, but when your primary goal is to basically continue acting as a coal industry lobbyist, methinks head of the EPA is not a job you should have.
Fair enough.
I do not like corruption in government officials, regardless of any particular policy positions.
EDIT: I am still curious as to the actions he took, as an officer that people here might disagree with...
Re: undefined
#7Many in the Trump administration strike me as simply incompetent in their roles. Pruitt, OTOH, almost seemed to be going out of his way to see what he could get away with. "How much self-dealing, graft, and over-spending can I do before they can my ass? Hold my beer..." I'm surprised it has taken this long, but perhaps his antics were a useful distraction from other issues. And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed…
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job. Really? How? The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong? EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those…
Talking admin and not policy, he had a number of issues. The secret calendars may have violated federal law, the large raises for his aides that the White House declined and he went around them and did anyway, the large increase in security detail costs and first class flights, the soundproof booth, having staffers book his hotels on their personal cards with no reimbursement, using staff to find his wife a job, making staff run personal errands, etc.
For a guy that supposedly believes in smaller government he seemed to waste a pretty fair amount of agency money.
Re: undefined
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job. Really? How? The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong? EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those…
Talking admin and not policy, he had a number of issues. The secret calendars may have violated federal law, the large raises for his aides that the White House declined and he went around them and did anyway, the large increase in security detail costs and first class flights, the soundproof booth, having staffers book his hotels on their personal cards with no reimbursement, using staff to find his wife a job, maki…
I'm not arguing admin - which was clearly problematic. (I would get fired, for sure, for doing what he has done there)
I'm curious about what policy moves he made that made people angry. Maybe everyone is OK with his policy move? I don't get that this is the case...
EDIT: More specifically - do people, hating his policy moves, make up admin stories about his egregious personal spend? I'm inclined to believe he was a corruptocrat, but the stories didn't come from political allies that liked his policy moves...
Re: undefined
#9Many in the Trump administration strike me as simply incompetent in their roles. Pruitt, OTOH, almost seemed to be going out of his way to see what he could get away with. "How much self-dealing, graft, and over-spending can I do before they can my ass? Hold my beer..." I'm surprised it has taken this long, but perhaps his antics were a useful distraction from other issues. And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed…
> And that's ignoring the fact that he seemed to fail at the main tenets of his job. Really? How? The personal habits were egregious, but as to his administrative choices, do you simply disagree with his policy choices? Or did he do something wrong? EDIT: The reason his corruption made me sad is that I thought he was succeeding at the basic tenets of his job. Which means that you and I might well differ at what those…
Pruitt has rolled back or delayed the implementation of many regulations that I think would be effective in protecting the environment. Civil penalties against polluters are half of what they were before Pruitt showed up. I could go on, but suffice it to say that as director of the Environmental Protection Agency, I don't think Pruitt was doin' a whole lot of protectin'. If you feel that the environment (no, not the "business environment") is better protected thanks to the actions of Scott Pruitt, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Re: undefined
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that Democrats and Republicans have very, very different views on the role of government, and especially the EPA. Still, Scott Pruitt seemed almost cartoonishly evil in this role. I can understand if you believe the environment is better protected by some other means, but when your primary goal is to basically continue acting as a coal industry lobbyist, methinks head of the EPA is not a job you should have.
Fair enough. I do not like corruption in government officials, regardless of any particular policy positions. EDIT: I am still curious as to the actions he took, as an officer that people here might disagree with...
This isn't about the policies, Pruitt realistically hasn't been administrator long enough to be enacting or implementing policies. They are separate cases, he resigned for misconduct reasons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office) as you can't really judge policy within a court of law within such a short period unless the policies immediately infringed upon certain things that can be judged.