It was created largely in response to those gas lines in the mid 1970s. We've been over this already.
Ah. Sarcasm. So didn't the Department of Energy just consolidate several agencies under one aegis? Are you suggesting that breaking them back out into separate entities would be more efficient and save money?
No, I prefer to correct people who claim Clinton wasn't corrupt or as corrupt as Trump. The problem is still there, but the attempt to claim Clinton would have been an improvement is just intellectually dishonest, not to mention it doesn't accomplish anything. Trump is going to be President, this bullshit isn't any different than the birther fantasy that Obama would somehow be magically disqualified from being President.
That was Reagan's favorite tactic. He appointed people to head agencies they hated so as best to undermine it. Ideologically those people had a field day but largely their incompetence backfired and resulted in people voting more democrats into Congress to provide greater oversight and thus curb the administration's frequent ideological excesses.
What bullshit? That Trump doesn't have major conflicts of interest? Or that Hillary does? Or the difference in scale? I don't think we can quantify Trump's corruption as President, or Hillary's. As far as intellectual dishonesty, there are solid numbers there: Trump wins handily.
They weren't cabinet-level departments before. They were separate agencies under various other cabinet-level departments, much like all the components of the DHS other than the TSA. So breaking up the DOE and sending the various agencies back under their original roofs would indeed reduce overhead.
Aside from how when Sanders referred to black unemployment they called it true,and when Trump cited essentially the same amount they listed it as false. You know, easy to verify stuff like that.
Dayton thinks it's like his stool - splitting it into several chunks means it won't block the pipe. Creates a lot more stink though.
Which is why people love to demand an unbiased source. It's much easier to avoid actually discussing an issue if you can claim that it might not exist. Dayton is another fool who tries to wriggle out in that fashion.
Not only doesn't he attend national intelligence briefings, he exhibits a complete lack of any: The Chinese government said Saturday it will return a U.S. naval drone seized last week in the South China Sea, a step toward defusing maritime tensions between the two Pacific powers. President-elect Donald Trump reacted to the news by telling them he doesn’t want it back. “We should tell China that we don’t want the drone they stole back.- let them keep it!” he tweeted Saturday evening. The comment could prolong one of the most serious incidents between the U.S. and Chinese militaries in recent memory, potentially complicating ties ahead of Trump’s inauguration. What a maroon.
Yes, a maroon with a Twitter Account. He's still a month away from office and already the shit is flying. After the Taiwan clusterfuck, he demanded (on Twitter) to know why, if the US sold billions of dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan, he shouldn't accept a congratulatory telephone call. Someone replied: "Yeah, international diplomacy is weird that way. Maybe you should read up on it before you get us all killed with your fucking twitter account."
Nigel Farage wants to be a bridge to Trump. At this point, I think we can safely say a bridge ain't gonna cut it - we need a fucking warp drive.
because specific reasons which I've been sharing with anyone open to rational thought for six months. That you wish to be blind does not prove there's nothing to see.
oh please. The resistance to normalization of extraordinary circumstances is vital. If no one finds it worthy of contention tha, for example, Trump is well situation to profiteer from virtually every decision he makes, it moves the ball of what is considered "normal" in a dangerous direction. You don't have to harbor the illusion he'll be prevented from taking office to call bullshit when bullshit appears.
As we've come to expect from Trump apologists, that allegation relies on a whole bunch of distortions, as well as just plain ignoring things that aren't convenient. Sanders' statement was this: "For young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who are between the ages of 17 and 20, if they happen to be white, the unemployment rate is 33 percent. If they are Hispanic, the unemployment rate is 36 percent. If they are African-American, the real unemployment rate for young people is 51 percent." His source used the U-6 unemployment rate, which conservatives should be familiar with because that's the rate they keep insisting should be used instead every time we point out how much unemployment has fallen under Obama (although that has fallen too) ... and Politifact correctly noted the problems with that. Trump's statement was this: "If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent." Trump, who you'll note had a different and higher number to be fact-checked, arrived at this measurement by counting every single person who doesn't have a job as unemployed, including high school and college students who aren't looking for a job. I think we can agree that it makes little sense to count people who aren't looking for work -- such as high-school students in that bracket, and stay-at-home parents and retirees in others -- as "unemployed." So the Trumpsters take two different statements and call them "essentially the same," then expect us to ignore the fact that one of them actually was demonstrably more false than the other. In other words, even their attempt to discredit the fact-checkers turns out to be based on lies.
And a paaaarrttridddgggeee in a pear treeeeeeeeee! Oh, and a fuck up the arse without lube. God bless us, everyone!!
