Ragnarok

In point of fact, this guy was sent to prison for reporting on a rape trial. Orwellian for sure, and sad. Thanks for the 1st amendment. You can see what happens where it doesn't exist.

Well, let's see. There are few racial slurs for the Dutch, because the word Dutch in front of anything is a slur. Let's revisit WWII, or as it's know in the Netherlands, the 4 day war. When the country fell (did I mention that took 4 days) the Monarch and most of the government fled to London. Ok, not so weird the Royal family is composed of cowards. The weird part is that this royal family is still in power. Apparently nobody in the Netherlands care. Don't worry though, once Muslims are in the majority in your country, they'll know what to do with the royal family. And you want to tell us how to run our country. PIss off. We'll watch what you do, and do the opposite and come out ahead.

Leftist hysteria could use some calm rational discussion: http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-hahn-epa-scott-pruitt-good-rule-20180511-story.html Here's what the rule would actually do. First, it would require the EPA to identify studies that are used in making regulatory decisions. Second, it would encourage studies to be made publicly available "to the extent practicable." Third, it would define "publicly available" by listing examples of information that could be used for validation, such as underlying data, models, computer code and protocols. Fourth, the proposal recognizes that not all data can be openly accessible in the public domain and that restricted access to some data may be necessary. Fifth, it would direct the EPA to work with third parties, including universities and private firms, to make information available to the extent reasonable. Sixth, it would encourage the use of efforts to de-identify data sets to create public-use data files that would simultaneously help protect privacy and promote transparency. Seventh, the proposal outlines an exemption process when compliance is "impracticable." Finally, it would direct the EPA to clearly state and document assumptions made in regulatory analyses. Here's what the EPA's rule wouldn't do: nullify existing environmental regulations, disregard existing research, violate confidentiality protections, jeopardize privacy or undermine the peer-review process. The costs of compliance with EPA regulations are substantial. A draft report from the White House Office of Management and Budget suggests that significant EPA regulations imposed costs ranging from $54 billion to $65 billion over the past decade. These rules also realize substantial public-health and environmental benefits estimated to range from $196 billion to $706 billion over the decade. Given the stakes for both the cost of compliance with EPA regulations and the real risks that pollution poses to public health and the environment, this rule should be read closely by critics and supporters for what it actually says. Just as transparency in science and evidence are essential, so, too, are intellectual honesty and accurate policy communication. Taking steps to increase access to data, with strong privacy protections, is how society will continue to make scientific and economic progress and ensure that evidence in rule-making is sound. The EPA's proposed rule follows principles laid out in 2017 by the bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking — humility, transparency, privacy, capacity and rigor — and moves us toward providing greater access to scientific data while protecting individual privacy. Instead of throwing stones, the scientific community should come together to offer practical suggestions to make the rule better. For example, the rule should recognize the incentives for scientists to produce new research. Scientists need to have time to produce and take credit for their research findings. Thus, there will inevitably be a trade-off between the production of new insights and the sharing of data with others, including regulators. The EPA should also establish use restrictions and a secure data infrastructure so that confidential business and personal data are adequately protected. Finally, it should set procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of this rule. Done right, this could improve government policy not only in the United States but also around the world. It's still hard to tell how this rule will affect EPA decisions, but one thing is clear: The rule will make the evidence by which we make policy decisions more transparent. The policy might not be perfect, but its benefits will likely far outweigh its costs.

Science should be transparent and reproducible, not secret. I don't see how anybody can argue with that. When Michael Mann published his infamous hockey stick, it took the better part of a decade to pry the data behind it out of him, at which point it was easy to prove that the graph was garbage. It's a good thing that those days are over. And the egregious practice of sue and settle has been ended as well. Reigning in an out control EPA has been one of the great successes of the Trump administration.

That is the left wing spin, which of course is nonsense. Do you really think the purpose of this rule is to reveal people's private medical information? The high priests at the EPA have been talking to the gods, and telling us mortals what it is the gods say we have to do. The "scientists" at the EPA have been conducting studies. We just have to trust them; don't worry your pretty little head about the data. People on both sides of the aisle should cheer transparency in climate science. It is long overdue.

Yeah, the nerve of that guy Pruitt. Did you see his latest outrage? Insisting that studies that EPA uses publish their data and methodologies. I mean, people are just going to try to find something wrong with it. Outrageous. That's not how we do things at the EPA.

Here's the thing. Most of the right (including me) is utterly convinced that we have an out of control and criminal DOJ and FBI covering up it's own crimes with a fake investigation into Trump and Russia. The left is utterly convinced that Trump somehow conspired with Russia. It's laughable to me, but they believe it. And they see the DOJ and FBI and Mueller as the heroes in this drama. And no rational dialog is possible between the 2 groups. The left has kinda taken over this board, and well, it's not like you can have a real debate here. Now, I'm not actually proposing this (cause it wouldn't work) but it would almost be better to have a left and right board. The lefties can breathlessly discuss Trump's crimes and how close they are to actually uncovering Trump's crimes. And the right could breathlessly discuss Comey's crimes, and how close we are to uncovering the real dirt on the DOJ and the FBI. Better than the mindless insult fest this has become.

Oh, our government does something. It screws over taxpayers to the benefit of special interest, without any regard for fiscal responsibilities. They have us fighting over which one gets the bigger share of the pie, but really, it hardly matters at all. The system is broken, mainly by parties infinite ability to spend more than they take in.

Sigh, OP is right. That's why the political board is just so uninteresting now. No rational discussion is possible. Not much point in posting or reading. There's more interesting stuff elsewhere.

From Powerline: The main basis, or pretext, for investigating Trump’s ties to Russia became the dossier ginned up by his political opponents. Political operatives can always gin up something about the other side that sounds improper (e.g. Obama was born outside the U.S.) or even sinister (e.g., the Clintons had Vince Foster killed). If that’s all it takes to get the FBI to spy on the political campaign of the out-of-power party’s candidate — and that’s all it seems to have taken here — then the Watergate break-in does begin to look like a second-rate burglary by comparison.

Like it or not, a significant number of Americans are actually happy these days. They are making money. They feel safe, and they agree with with the president’s protectionist trade policies, his call for more American jobs, even his immigration stance. The jobs growth reports, the North Korea summit and the steady economy are beating out the Stormy Daniels scandal and the Robert Mueller investigation in Middle America, hands down. So you are not going to win back the House by making it all about him. Rather than stoking the base by attacking Trump, Democrats need to come up with a platform that addresses the average voters’ hopes and concerns. Not just the needs of underdogs or whatever cause happens to be the media flavor of the week. Democrats need to look like the adults, not like another pack of screaming kids on the playground. ---former san francisco mayor Willie Brown

I really have never understood how Obama got 500 million in cash without Congress even knowing. Hope Iran rats out all the politicians who got money.

If posting the truth gets you negged to oblivion, so be it. If you want an echo chamber, you are succeeding.

Take it to No Sex at All, or the Aggie board.

If it's about Iran, I'll take Iconoclast every time. I don't see how anybody who watched how North Korea played out could be for the Iran deal. We paid the Norks billions for empty promises that were soon broken. Obama followed the same script, he just paid a hundred times more. This deal is unfathomable, even for Obama. There is simply no reason to continue pretending to believe Iran isn't continuing their nuclear program.

How long before a federal judge in Hawaii orders the Korean War must continue? — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 27, 2018

An article in the Wall Street journal a while back put it pretty well. "The only thing I like about Donald Trump is all his policies".. And of course, Melania and Ivanka.

Justice was on the record saying they would follow Comey's recommendation.

No, 'cause I know the lying weasel didn't offer up anything of value. You can't explain away the inexplicable.

Well?

Well, it's unusual for a Congressman to speak the obvious truth so plainly, but this shouldn't surprise anybody. It's the way both parties operate.

Well, maybe the news hook already existed, but the one the media ran with was that the FBI briefed the President on the dossier...

And Hugo, when you get to the part where Comey discusses in detail why he accepted the proffer from Paul Combetta that he erased all of Hillary's emails all on his own, how about posting that page?

Some may not think he is honest because he is not honest. When you go around talking about how honest your are ALL the time, it's a red flag that you are dishonest. And anybody who says "I don't do weasel moves" is most likely a weasel. Case in point. He briefs Trump on the dossier, while knowing and telling the President that CNN is looking for a news hook to publish it. Do you think Comey was really unaware that he was providing it? So he tells the President he "doesn't do weasel moves", while actually doing the ultimate weasel move to a man he despised. Shameless. As for his honesty, well, an honest guy runs an honest investigation. His investigations of Hillary was a sham and a coverup. It is unprecedented to offer immunity to targets in an investigation who proffer testimony that doesn't incriminate anyone else. It has the exact same effect of offering them immunity in exchange for refusing to incriminate Hillary. And it's an insult to our intelligence for him to be out there pretending he ran an honest investigation. I'm happy he is such a lying dishonest weasel though, because if he would have done the right thing and indicted Hillary for her obvious crimes, we'd probably be looking at President Biden right now. No way Biden loses the midwest. Trump won mainly because men just detest Hillary.