asked 4 times so far: no answer. there must be some rule in the white house against acknowledging climate change

To bad pollution cant go into the people who voted for it.

"A new deal with who if they won't sit at the table?"

Pruitt: "Well that's up to them."

Uhhh ok?

"Why did you celebrate at a French restaurant last night?" lol

one of the worst pressers this year

Spicey!!!...looking green.

America is carrying the weight of China's pollution? What does that even mean?

Obviously Trump sucks, but the bolded is the sort of thing people say to to get internet high-fives, not something that anyone could actually think. Climate change could kill tens of millions of people, should people who arguably have a shot at being persuasive just not try to make a pitch for doing something about it because Trump is a sexual predator? It's absurd.

Just purchased land for my future coastal , winter get away home in Iowa .

Sure. I get it. But you could imagine sins worse than sexual predation or stoking white racial animus. Replace Trump with David Duke or Bashar al-Assad or something. We could agree *at some point* becoming part of an advisory council or consulting with really bad people, even on important issues -- that becomes unacceptable, right?

I noted that with respect to Trump, I agree he is a terrible moron but I can appreciate others might come to a different conclusion and try to serve their government and humanity with honor by trying to persuade terrible morons to do the right thing. So I'm not here to spit fire at Elon Musk or Bob Iger and I can appreciate what they tried to do (assuming they had honest, non cynical intentions).

But I can certainly imagine scenarios with people even worse or less systemically constrained by Trump where any sort of service becomes an unacceptable moral proposition. And I can understand the Trolly/Riverman/etc. point that Trump has crossed that threshold and left it behind him already. I personally do not think we have crossed that point and you could continue to be in some sort of advisory or government service role and make the best of it without becoming complicit.

Would a politician who runs on complete transparency and truthfulness have a chance? Like, somebody squeaky clean that can prove the things he says are true? Someone who never lies to the public, regardless of qualifications?

Clearly the threat of invasion by reindeer is too much for Putin to handle

I thought for sure Feinstein's brain would explode when placed in a spot between Republicans on one side and security interests on the other. I'd be shocked if she hasn't at some point in the past defended the CIA for this same behavior.

The lack of education is why people elected GWB in the first place.

ofc not

Truth tellers eventually tell people things they don't want to hear and as a result can never win office.

That would be hard to do as the report has never been ordered to be returned and sealed away before now.

Stephen Moore (Trumpist) getting OWNED HARD by Jeff Sachs just now on CNN.

"Every word out of everyone's mouth for the last 2 days has been a lie. It's disgusting corruption. You, Stephen are on the take from the Koch Brothers at the Heritage Foundation." (paraphrasing) Yikes.

so? This doesn't change anything I said. NASA to him is space stuff, I'd guess in case he can get a trump tower on moon or mars.

Bernie had a pretty good shot at it. Seems like a massive uphill battle though as you got all the special interests and even media working against you.

Sorry, by "this same behavior" I meant the torture described in the memo that she now calls "a dark chapter in our history" or whatever.

No, I got what you meant. It's easier and more fun to attack allies because they can actually feel shame at some point.

FDR shipped thousands of tanks to Stalin, and Stalin did a lot of things worse than sexual assault. The distinction is not how bad the person you are associating with is, it's whether your involvement furthers the badness of the person you're involved with or not. It's bad to be a concentration camp guard because you think you're less monstrous than the replacement-level concentration camp guard. If Trump or Assad or Hitler call you up and ask you what their global warming policy should be, you can permissibly tell them that they should take it seriously and try to rein in carbon emissions.

Look at my post again and breathe a little. I was attacking Trump for being a moron, not you.

Can you show the math that proves not all republicans are ******ed please?

These arguments are just awful

What if you know ahead of time that Assad is never ever ever going to do anything to stop climate change not matter what you tell him and also you know that cozying up to him helps legitimize is regimes?

I mean, this isn't John McCain in the White House. You'd be more likely to persuade Hitler to be nice to Jews than to talk this administration into reducing CO2 emissions.