Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

earthjustice.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#481

Post by somenameforme »

estearum wrote: post #442
somenameforme wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate or Presidency making this largely a non sequitur. Furthermore, administrators of independent agencies (such as the EPA) need to confirmed by the Senate. Up until 2013, appointees could be blocked by a minority with a filibuster. That rule was changed in 2013 by a Democrat majority Senate under Obama, to make it such that a simple majority could force through any appointee. T…

This is true in a world of balanced power between Congress, the judiciary, and the executive. It is not true anymore, as all power is centralized in the parties. The House’s impeachment power will essentially never be used against the dominant party’s President, which allows POTUS to act with impunity and strongly incentivizes him to secure his party’s House dominance — a dynamic we’re seeing very explicitly at play…

Impeachment is not part of the normal checks and balances. It's intended as a means to be able to remove a President who starts acting against even his own party's interests, as it requires a super-majority in the Senate, which has always been understood to mean that generally a significant chunk of your own party will need to vote against you. Consequently, literally no President has ever been convicted by the Senate, though Nixon probably would have been - and that's a good example of the scenario where impeachment is intended, as his own personal actions compromised not only the integrity of his office, but also greatly negatively affected his own party. House-only impeachments are irrelevant and inconsequential gestures when there's no chance of conviction in the Senate.

For the normal balance of powers - the legislative makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary ensures the latter matches the intent of the former as well as that they remain constitutional. The legislative can undermine the judiciary or the executive by passing new laws. The executive can undermine the legislative with vetos, and the judiciary by appointments. And the judiciary can undermine the legislative by deeming the laws unconstitutional, or the executive by deeming their enforcement unlawful.

No branch is particularly superior to the others. The executive has the strength of being headed by a single person, but that is tempered by it having relatively less power than the other branches.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#482

Post by estearum »

somenameforme wrote: post #481
estearum wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true in a world of balanced power between Congress, the judiciary, and the executive. It is not true anymore, as all power is centralized in the parties. The House’s impeachment power will essentially never be used against the dominant party’s President, which allows POTUS to act with impunity and strongly incentivizes him to secure his party’s House dominance — a dynamic we’re seeing very explicitly at play…

Impeachment is not part of the normal checks and balances. It's intended as a means to be able to remove a President who starts acting against even his own party's interests, as it requires a super-majority in the Senate, which has always been understood to mean that generally a significant chunk of your own party will need to vote against you. Consequently, literally no President has ever been convicted by the Senat…

No, it's really not. The idea that POTUS is allowed to retain all Constitutional powers so long as they act in favor of their party is dismissible on its face. The founders (broadly speaking) did not anticipate a two-party system and did not build in controls against this outcome.

Impeachment is intended for exactly what it says: "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Again: all of the balances you describe only work when party loyalties do not exceed loyalties to their own branch's authorities and responsibilities. In practice what we've seen (over decades) is Congress ceding power to their own party's executive, because in practice people's political fortunes are determined by "did I make the leader of my party happy" rather than "did I retain the power of Congress."

This is EXPLICITLY counter to the intended design of the Constitution. You can read the rationale for it in Federalist 51.

This is trivially provable. POTUS (of either party, but especially in the MAGA movement) can and does threaten to primary anyone in Congress who checks him, ergo you either cede power and keep your seat, or you don't and POTUS uses his extreme control over party loyalties to replace you with someone who will cede power anyway.

The two party system (natural consequence of first-past-the-post elections) is a fundamental design flaw in our Constitution which is why it doesn't exist in any government the US has helped architect since its own inception.

All of these things are related. They're an entire web of powers, as you can read about in the Federalist Papers. The founders feared factionalism and figured it would be inevitable, but did not foresee the natural equilibrium that would be found at only two parties and all the consequent pathologies we deal with today.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#483

Post by tremon »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #369
softwaredoug wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re going to end with a strong red/blue state divide on regulatory frameworks. I wonder if the vaccine guideline coalitions point to emerging regulatory consistency among blue states on this as well.

That could lend itself well to studies about the effects of some of these regulations. Maybe not the most ethical way to approach this, though.

Why would this not be ethical to study? It's not like the researchers are taking an active role in creating this situation. In fact, I would say it is more unethical not to research this, given that we already know the PFAS will readily migrate out of the red-flag states.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#484

Post by trymas »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #473
ganyu wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So TL;DR, 1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'. 2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition). 3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA. 4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon. 5. The problem is manufacturers ju…

So the problem isn't PFAS or Teflon. It's the dumping of intermediary chemicals during manufacturing? This is the part that just comes off as fear mongering How is the PFOA ending up in food? Is it from contaminated groundwater near the plant? Isn't the solution to not consumer agricultural products from that limited area? And.. how is it ending up in polar bears? The video just seems sensationalist. Somme chemical u…

Because it’s “forever chemical”. Factories release it into environment, it never chemically degrades, it gets into drinking, water, into animals and fish. You eat the animals and fish, etc.

Give it couple of decades of these cycles and you get trace amounts of those chemicals everywhere. Even where human may haven’t been.

https://youtu.be/-ht7nOaIkpI

Same as CO2 (and other gasses) affect not only immediate area of the factories and cities, but globally.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#485

Post by BoredPositron »

dylan604 wrote: post #470
BoredPositron wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also a bad governance problem.

And? You keep saying this like it's an answer to a question, but it's just not a useful one. Do you go through all of life deciding that you're going to do nothing because it's a bad governance problem? Do you honestly never make changes to things you can control just because it technically should be someone else's problem? Personally, I don't have time for that. If I can make improvements for things as a band-aid fi…

I told you in other comments that other countries fixed their water network problems. Bad water is a governance problem it doesn't help you now but if you apply a band-aid solutions or argue for it. Nothing will ever change it's that easy.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#486

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

daveguy wrote: post #480
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 30% more voted in Alabama , Mississippi, Texas or Florida, do you think they would have voted democratic? Do you have any evidence that the demographics of people who don’t vote are disproportionate to the people who do in any of those states? If you know anything about American history, despite what Michelle Obama says “this is exactly who this country is”

You are completely missing the point because you are pushing an agenda. Go back and read a little more carefully. And see if you can comprehend this concept: when there's a 60% consensus on a topic and everyone votes for it, that topic wins overwhelmingly. There are a lot of those issues like that in the Trumpty Dumpty clown show. That's why they're trying to choose their voters with gerrymandering. Damn Skippy, peop…

Are you predicting that Alabama and Mississippi are going to go Blue in 2026 and 2028? And in 2026, even if people in Mobile Alabama have higher turnout - it still won’t matter because if gerrymandering.

If there is “60% consensus” and those people are in a state that’s already Blue, it doesn’t make a difference. We haven’t even brought up the fact that every state has 2 Senators meaning that the most populous states are represented by the same number of people as the least populous. The Senate decides the Supreme Court judges and the Cabinet.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#487

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

Herring wrote: post #479
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t realize until after social media how a lot of people’s whole lives revolve around the community of the church and how lost they would be without their church community. That’s not by itself meant to be an insult. But I saw it in real time with her. Everything I knew about her as a person was at odds with her support of the current MAGA movement. I thought she would be bemoaning that Republicans didn’t choose…

Yeah well my experience is a lot of conservatives seem completely normal until you start dating a black girl. That's when you see how racism/tribalism works. Try a fun experiment: ask your guy friend about ARPA-E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E They usually love that government program after learning about it. Then ask him about government investment into education, and watch his tune change. Education is one of…

Actually, I do have anecdotes about this. In 2016, we had a house built in the outskirts of Forsyth County. Yeah this Forsyth County.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0

My stepson was 14 when we moved there but had been living in the burbs all of his life. The outer burbs where we stayed saw a lot of development and had become one of the most affluent parts of Atlanta and was still conservative. But not MAGA conservative. There were only around a dozen other black kids in his entire high school. He is 23 now. He’s dated exclusively White girls - that’s all who has been available - and we have met plenty of parents. There has never been a problem with parents. He’s actually engaged to a white girl now. I haven’t met her. But my wife has a couple of times when she flew back in town and they talk.

We have since moved - he is still lives around the same area. Not because of any discomfort. We downsized in 2022 after he graduated in 2020, I started working remotely and we wanted a change of scenery from GA and moved to a state tax free state with better weather.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#488

Post by [deleted] »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #300
zzzeek wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this all just says you're not really reading much about what's going on right now, or you're only reading right wing news sources there is broad consensus among academics and journalists who study/cover authoritarianism that that's exactly what this is. it has a predictable path. this includes that individual authoritarians don't have to understand what they're doing at all. Trump does what he does due to deep narcis…

Someone making decisions “in order to crush the population into submission” definitely does have to understand what he’s doing. That’s what “in order to” means. Indeed, the public has to understand it too; how else will someone with a PFAS-weakened immune system know who they’re supposed to submit to?

[deleted]

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#489

Post by daveguy »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #486
daveguy wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely missing the point because you are pushing an agenda. Go back and read a little more carefully. And see if you can comprehend this concept: when there's a 60% consensus on a topic and everyone votes for it, that topic wins overwhelmingly. There are a lot of those issues like that in the Trumpty Dumpty clown show. That's why they're trying to choose their voters with gerrymandering. Damn Skippy, peop…

Are you predicting that Alabama and Mississippi are going to go Blue in 2026 and 2028? And in 2026, even if people in Mobile Alabama have higher turnout - it still won’t matter because if gerrymandering. If there is “60% consensus” and those people are in a state that’s already Blue, it doesn’t make a difference. We haven’t even brought up the fact that every state has 2 Senators meaning that the most populous states…

You are clearly having reading comprehension issues. That or just twisting words for internet argument points. Either way, I think we aren't getting anywhere in this conversation. So, you have a great day!

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#490

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

daveguy wrote: post #489
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you predicting that Alabama and Mississippi are going to go Blue in 2026 and 2028? And in 2026, even if people in Mobile Alabama have higher turnout - it still won’t matter because if gerrymandering. If there is “60% consensus” and those people are in a state that’s already Blue, it doesn’t make a difference. We haven’t even brought up the fact that every state has 2 Senators meaning that the most populous states…

You are clearly having reading comprehension issues. That or just twisting words for internet argument points. Either way, I think we aren't getting anywhere in this conversation. So, you have a great day!

I’m not. What you are saying makes little sense given the realities of the electoral college, the Senate having two senators, and how easy it is to gerrymander because democratic votes are concentrated.

The votes of the more left leaning part of the electorate are disadvantaged and diffused because of it. California and New York are represented by the same two Senators as North and South Dakota.

Post reply on HN