Poster's initial comment on the meme
Trump's goal: sabotage government and plunder the economy
Scott Pruitt is an opponent of the environment and the EPA
Andy Puzder is anti-labor, anti-minimum wage and anti-union
Ben Carson is against "giving stuff to the poor"
Betsy DeVos is an anti-science extremist promoting vouchers and creationism
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is a racist right-winger
My Response to posters final comments
Republicans believe Trump's lies and believe what they want to believe
Trumps cabinet picks clearly show that his goal is to sabotage government and plunder the economy for private gain.
The U.S. has hit the trifecta:
Oligarchy is rule by the few.
Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.
Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations.
We have all three."
It's Tyranny of the Minority: Trump got 2.8 million fewer votes than his opponent.
Trump doesn't give a damn about those in the lower 90% and the conman will do everything possible to enrich himself and his Republican cronies at the peoples' expense.
The PROOF is in the PLUTOCRACY:
Trump's Cabinet picks have more wealth than third of American households combined BY JENNIFER CALFAS - 12/15/16
The 17 people filling President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet and similar positions earn more money than a third of households in America combined, Quartz reported Thursday.
The amount of wealth possessed by the 17 picks, at least $9.5 billion, is greater than the 43 million least wealthy households in America.
Quartz included Vice President-elect Mike Pence and Reince Priebus, Trump's chief of staff, on its list.
The wealthiest members of Trump's Cabinet include Education pick Betsy DeVos, who is worth $5.1 billion, and Commerce pick Wilbur Ross, who is worth $2.9 billion. ...
To be added to the list below:
Former Goldman Sachs partner as Secretary of Treasury
President of Goldman Sachs to head Economic Council
From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams:
"The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it." [emphasis added]
Trump's goal: sabotage government and plunder the economy
Trump's plan to sabotage government is already underway. In fairness, this has always been the Republican goal. They don't believe in the purpose of government and see that it blocks their power and avarice, so they want to destroy it.
|These picks oppose what these agencies are designed to do. Let Republican destruction and pillage of the public sector begin.|
Now that they control all three branches of government, they're working on that even before Trump takes office. They claim they have a "mandate" to do this despite the fact that more Americans voted against him than for him ... his opponent got 2.8 million more votes than he did ... so what we have is Tyranny by the Minority.
[Poster's comments are not-indented and on the left in bold]:
The meme illustrates this, but a so-called "conservative" wrote on FB on 12/10/16
Poster's initial comment on the meme:
"Sharing ANYTHING from Occupy Democrats automatically makes your point invalid."
"Seems to me these are true. Do you have evidence it's not?"
His extended reply below trots out typical incorrect, biased "conservative" Republican views and right-wing rhetoric. It illustrates their abject ignorance on macro-economics and their denial of the reality of what these cabinet picks mean.
In every case the views of his cabinet picks have been against the founding purposes of these government agencies.
As well-said by Center for International Environmental Law [CIEL] President Carroll Muffett:
The nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State is unconscionable, irresponsible and potentially catastrophic. But we cannot view it in isolation. Without exception, Donald Trump has nominated a cabinet marked by inexperience, intractable conflicts of interest, and a demonstrated hatred of the agencies they've been tapped to lead and the people they are sworn to protect. Donald Trump appears intent to undo a century of environmental and social progress and return America to the age of robber barons and corporate trusts. Who better to turn to than Exxon, the granddaddy of them all?
From an Attorney General [Jefferson Beauregard Sessions] who sought to suppress Department of Justice inquiries into Exxon to an EPA head [Scott Pruitt] who tried to head off state-level Exxon investigations, to putting Exxon's own CEO [Rex Tillerson] in charge of the country's foreign affairs, Trump is creating a government OF Exxon BY Exxon FOR Exxon.
I disagree that it's all about Exxon, however. Goldmann Sachs has great representation in the Trump regime: Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Pick Is A Hedge Funder And 2nd-Generation Goldman Sachs Partner who is topping off Trump's swamp.
This is a Robbery!
Pumpkin: [Standing up with a gun] All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery!
Honey Bunny: Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!
As in Pulp Fiction's opening scene, Trump is all but doing what's portrayed in the movie:
Pumpkin: [Standing up with a gun] "All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery!"
1) "Anti-Environment". [On Scott Pruitt]
Sorry, but no, he's not against the ENVIRONMENT. He's against overbearing and oppressive government regulation of businesses in the name of "protecting the environment", which is merely a canard used to control and "pick winners and losers" in the business realm. There's a difference between being "against the environment" (which implies that he WANTS to pollute and destroy the environment)... versus being "against the government's protection (which is debatable as to whether they are accomplishing that goal) of the environment".
Basically... a total strawman of the man's position, demagoguery at its finest!
Scott Pruitt is an opponent of the environment and the EPA
It's pure delusion to purport he's anything but an enemy of the environment. Obfiously because he says Pruitt is "against the government's protection of the environment". As if "don't proect the environment" isn't being "against the environment".
"Saying Pruitt is against "overbearing and oppressive government regulation of businesses" ignores the crimes against the public by these cost redistributionist, "free market" types.
Pruitt committed perjury and broke the law.
Pruitt lied to senators in saying he did not use a private email server for official state business By Meteor Blades, 2/25/17
Two years before Scott Pruitt was chosen to lead the Environmental Protection Agency that he wants to wreck, Fox 25, the Oklahoma City Fox affiliate, began seeking documents through the Freedom of Information Act relating to his term as Oklahoma attorney general. In the process, the station learned that Pruitt had used a private server for some emails he sent and received relating to official government business. Now the state attorney general's office has confirmed that Pruitt did, in fact, do this.
Although it is illegal under federal law to use private email accounts for official government business, under Oklahoma law, using private email to conduct state business is not illegal as long as those records are included in searches for public documents. However, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Pruitt testified that he didn't use private email for state business: ...
"I use only my official OAG [Office of the Attorney General] email address and government issued phone to conduct official business," Pruitt replied.
A flat-out lie. Or rather, another flat-out lie. ...
Given the average of four unpunished lies a day coming from Pr*sident Trump, it's pretty clear that Pruitt's perjury will scarcely raise an eyebrow.
Anyone who denies the reality of Global Warming is the epitome of anti-environment. Pruitt sues the EPA to prevent limits on CO2 emissions. He, and others like him, are enemies of life on earth as I explain at Trump/Republicans: Worse Than 9/11.
Trump names Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA By Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 12/8/16
Pruitt has spent much of his energy as attorney general fighting the very agency he is being nominated to lead.
He is the third of Trump's nominees who have key philosophical differences with the missions of the agencies they have been tapped to run. ...
"For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn," the release quoted Trump as saying. ...
Pruitt was quoted as saying: "The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses." ...
What Trump, Pruitt, and Republicans call "freedom for American businesses" is the freedom to redistribute costs onto the public -- that's the socialism inherent in "free market" capitalism -- not only in terms of dollars, but also by way of death, injury and sickness. See:
-- Negative Externalities Shift Costs onto the Public
-- Negative Externalities in the Workplace: Sickness, Injury, Death
It's liberals who are pro-clean energy. And it's so-called "conservatives" who are anti-clean energy, but pro-dirty energy. They are all in for the destruction of the environment. What's "overbearing and oppressive" is corporate dedication to wrecking the environment for even greater profits than they already make.
With Republicans supporting massive subsidies for fossil fuel corporations, it's the height of hypocrisy to deny it's Republicans and other "conservatives" who "pick winners and losers in the business realm". Subsidies are exactly about "picking winners."
What Trump just did for Carrier was not to create jobs, but to not lose quite so many and actually "lie his ass off" about how many he "saved".
To bribe Carrier, which is standard "economic development" practice on the pretense that it "creates jobs" in all states, he got Pence to make a $700 million payoff to Carrier along with promises of eliminating regulations. How many people the lack of those regulation will sicken, injure and kill is yet to come.
The point is that he bribes Carrier, instead of punishing it for offshoring jobs with tariffs as he boasted in his campaign. He's not just a liar, he's set records as being a damn liar.
These people whine about the need for energy for fossil fuels and have propagandized Americans with their chants for "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "Drill Here, Drill Now". What they don't tell them is that much of that oil is for EXPORT ... not for here in the U.S.
Trump's goal with the Pruitt selection is to plunder U.S. resources for private gain and to hell with the national interest. See US Oil Exports Soar as imports decline. Less oil imports are a good thing, but the enormous increase is exports shows it's a lie that drilling in the U.S. -- and on public lands -- is done in the national interest. Most of this is thanks to fracking and to hell with clean water and air.
Trump has been consistent in his denial from the get-go. The guy he appointed to oversee the EPA transition is just as bad as Pruitt. Contrary to this headline, Ebell is a denier, not a skeptic.
Trump taps climate-change skeptic to oversee EPA transition By Brady Dennis, Washington Post, 11/11/16
President-elect Donald Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the regulations it has put out under President Obama are "a disgrace." He has vowed to roll back Obama's signature effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, known as the Clean Power Plan, and to scrap a litany of other "unnecessary" rules, especially those imposed on the oil, gas and coal sectors.
The man planning how a Trump administration can obliterate Obama's environmental legacy is Myron Ebell, a Washington fixture who has long been a cheerful warrior against what he sees as an alarmist, overzealous environmental movement that has used global warming as a pretext for expanding government. Ebell has argued for opening up more federal lands for logging, oil and gas exploration and coal mining, and for turning over more permitting authority to the states. And he has urged the Senate to vote to reject an international climate accord signed last year in Paris.
The self-described public-policy wonk has for years made his home at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative policy group that once received considerable funding from ExxonMobil. More recently, the organization has been funded in part by Donors Trust. The Virginia-based organization, which is not required by law to disclose its contributors, is staffed largely by people who have worked for Koch Industries or nonprofit groups supported by the conservative Koch brothers.
Ebell, who is not a scientist, has long questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is fueling unprecedented global warming. He also has staunchly opposed what he calls energy rationing, instead arguing that the United States should unleash the full power of coal, oil and gas to fuel economic growth and job creation. ...
Scott Pruitt has spent his career fighting the rules and regulations of the agency he is now being nominated to lead.
Scott Pruitt Will Make America Great Again - For Polluters BY BILL MOYERS, 1/31/17
President Trump's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency might put it on the endangered species list.
Scott Pruitt's office deluged with angry callers after he questions the science of global warming, By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, 3/11/17
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's phones have been ringing off the hook - literally - since he questioned the link between human activity and climate change.
The calls to Pruitt's main line, 202-564-4700, reached such a high volume by Friday that agency officials created an impromptu call center, according to three agency employees. The officials asked for anonymity out of fear of retaliation.
By Saturday morning calls went straight to voice mail, which was full and did not accept messages. At least two calls received the message that the line was disconnected, but that appeared to be in error.
EPA spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said in an email that the agency "has logged about 300 calls and emails."
While constituents sometimes call lawmakers in large numbers to express outrage over contentious policy issues, it is unusual for Americans to target a Cabinet official. ...
2) "Anti-Labor" [On Andy Puzder]
I'll grant you this, if you take "Labor" to mean Labor Unions. But that's NOT the actual position he holds. He's been criticized as "anti-labor" in terms of being against non-union worker protections put in place by government. He's against minimum wages, which is being INTERPRETED as being "anti-worker", and then translated by these meme into being "anti-labor", which is then re-interpreted by the reader as being "anti-Union"... and this is something I can reasonably assume is a deliberate use of muddy language to again wrongly characterize the man's positions.
Oh, and being against the minimum wage is actually pro-worker if you consider that a raise in minimum wage actually causes unemployment... a known fact in economics.
So that's strike 2.
Andy Puzder is anti-labor, anti-minimum wage and anti-union
The man is both anti-labor and anti-union and that's because the ignorant don't understand how national policies are designed to depress wages at the bottom to between zero and subsistence level. Being against minimum wages and unions is exactly anti-worker!
This comment perpetuates the lie "that a raise in minimum wage actually causes unemployment... a known fact in economics".
It's the epitome of ignorance because of not understanding what issues are relevant to macroeconomics vs. microeconomics.
In microeconomics an increase in the price of a product/service will lead to less of that product/service. That does not apply to the minimum wage.
A higher minimum wage means more spending, more economic activity and more jobs. I have quite a long article on this and won't repeat it here. See
Why Unions and a Minimum Wage are Necessary, 5/14/14. Unions and a minimum wage are absolutely necessary. That's because the number of jobs in what's called the "labor market" is manipulated by federal-level policies. U.S. wages are depressed by illegal corporate collusion to drive down wages, offshoring, importing foreign workers, using prison labor, using slave labor, and hiring undocumented workers without labor protections that allows wage theft.
3) "Anti-giving-stuff-to-the-poor". [On Ben Carson]
Probably the easiest thing to totally debunk.
Carson has his own private charity, the Carson Scholar's Fund. Where he gives stuff to poor people.
He's ACTUALLY "anti-forcing-you-to-give-stuff-to-the-poor-via-the-coercive-violence-of-the-state"... but that doesn't make a very cogent demonizing sound byte.
Ben Carson is against "giving stuff to the poor"
Brain surgeon or not, Ben Carson is ignorant on things not in that field and he has no clue about his ignorance. He talks about evolution, invoking physics, the big bang, probability theory, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Watch the video at the BuzzFeed link below or see a a transcript of some of Carson's comments here.
Ben Carson: Big Bang A Fairy Tale, Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil by Andrew Kaczynski and Molly Ward, BuzzFeed News, 9/22/15
"I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct."
Carson was rightly ridiculed by ... Donald Trump:
Ben Carson is back -- and so are his controversies By Eric Bradner, CNN, 12/6/16
Trump had ferociously mocked and ridiculed Carson over the stories about his youth while on the campaign trail. Trump once likened Carson to a child molester, said his anger was pathological and once even grabbed his own belt buckle to skewer Carson's claim that he attempted to stab someone once but was thwarted by hitting the person's belt.
"How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" Trump asked.
Also from the link above on Pruitt there's this.
Ben Carson, named to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has expressed a deep aversion to the social safety net programs and fair housing initiatives that have been central to that agency's activities.
Carson doesn't believe in the HUD mission.
What Ben Carson gets wrong about segregation in America By Tracy Jan, Washington Post, 12/7/16
Carson dismisses ... government intervention.
"These government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality create consequences that often make matters worse," Carson wrote in a Washington Times op-ed. "There are reasonable ways to use housing policy to enhance the opportunities available to lower-income citizens, but based on the history of failed socialist experiments in this country, entrusting the government to get it right can prove downright dangerous."
Carson, Who Called Fair Housing a 'Failed Social Experiment,' Tapped to Run HUD by Lauren McCauley, Common Dreams, 12/05/16
Under Dr. Ben Carson, 'millions of low-income Americans and residents of color could stand to lose critical protections and housing resources'
New York Times columnist Emily Badger ... explained:
Mr. Carson and other critics call efforts to dismantle them "social engineering," but these places were created through policies that can themselves be labeled social engineering: redlining that denied blacks mortgages; policies that concentrated public housing in poor, minority communities; government decisions to locate highways that isolated them further. While many of these policies were first put into place decades ago, communities remain shaped by them today.
Carson himself was raised poor in southwest Detroit, but in his biography he rails against "able-bodied...indignant people" who did not work and were reliant on government programs, ignoring many of the policies that led to their condition. ...
The FB comments perfectly express the typical "coercive-violence-of-the-state" rhetoric of insane libertarians . They don't understand major aspects of either economics or business. [See Reality: The Dagger in the Black Heart of Libertarian Ideology]
This "give-stuff-to-the-poor" is the perverse message of what's called "Compassionate Conservatism". This is a fraud as I explain at Compassionate Conservatism: thinly-veiled cover for greed.
This sick view essentially says "don't feed the animals because you'll make them dependent".
Ben Carson on Slavery:
Carson compares slaves to immigrants coming to 'a land of dreams and opportunity'
"That's what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less," said Carson, speaking extemporaneously as he paced the room with a microphone. "But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
So slaves living the nightmare of being abducted into slavery "had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
Slaves didn't "work even longer, even harder for less". They worked for NOTHING under threat of beatings and death.
Carson is one sick piece of work and a fool.
What "compassionate conservatism" ignores is that not only are people not animals, but who really gets the "free stuff". Some facts showing it's the wealthy who are the "takers":
1. There's hidden spending that's even greater than military spending ... tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.
-- 50.6% ($617B) of Tax Expenditures going to the top 20% are more than military spending ($599B, 54% of Discretionary Spending)! !!!! WTF???
-- 16.6% of Tax Expenditures going to the top 1% ($203B) are over twice that going to the bottom 20% (7.7%, $94B)
-- Tax Expenditures ($1.22T) are 10% greater that ALL Discretionary Spending ($1.11 Trillion, funded by income taxes)! WTF???
Turns out the situation with Tax Loopholes (Tax Expenditures) is that the Holes are bigger than the Loop. There's more on this at the link.
2. Beyond this, see U.S. policies that drive people into poverty and keep them there and make the wealthy even richer.
3. And remember the unpaid-for $700B TARP bank bailout? Who do you think that bailed out? The lower incomes or the wealthy? For damn sure the lower incomes didn't have money in those banks, so it was the wealthy who really got bailed out.
This Rolling Stone article is long and sobering.
Secrets and Lies of the Bailout by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 1/4/13.
It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul - right?
It was all a lie - one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in - only temporarily, mind you - to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. The result is one of those deals where one wrong decision early on blossoms into a lush nightmare of unintended consequences.
But the most appalling part is the lying. The public has been lied to so shamelessly and so often in the course of the past four years that the failure to tell the truth to the general populace has become a kind of baked-in, official feature of the financial rescue. Money wasn't the only thing the government gave Wall Street - it also conferred the right to hide the truth from the rest of us. And it was all done in the name of helping regular people and creating jobs. "It is," says former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky, "the ultimate bait-and-switch." ...
On paper, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was simple: Treasury would buy $700 billion of troubled mortgages from the banks and then modify them to help struggling homeowners. Section 109 of the act, in fact, specifically empowered the Treasury secretary to "facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures." With that promise on the table, wary Democrats finally approved the bailout on October 3rd, 2008. "That provision," says Barofsky, "is what got the bill passed."
But within days of passage, the Fed and the Treasury unilaterally decided to abandon the planned purchase of toxic assets in favor of direct injections of billions in cash into companies like Goldman and Citigroup. Overnight, Section 109 was unceremoniously ditched, and what was pitched as a bailout of both banks and homeowners instantly became a bank-only operation - marking the first in a long series of moves in which bailout officials either casually ignored or openly defied their own promises with regard to TARP. ...
So what exactly did the bailout accomplish? It built a banking system that discriminates against community banks, makes Too Big to Fail banks even Too Bigger to Failier, increases risk, discourages sound business lending and punishes savings by making it even easier and more profitable to chase high-yield investments than to compete for small depositors. The bailout has also made lying on behalf of our biggest and most corrupt banks the official policy of the United States government. And if any one of those banks fails, it will cause another financial crisis, meaning we're essentially wedded to that policy for the rest of eternity - or at least until the markets call our bluff, which could happen any minute now.
Other than that, the bailout was a smashing success.
True cost of the bailout is $21 billion!!!
Oh, nevermind ... direct your ire at SNAP Benefits of $74.1B though all Tax Expenditures are $1.22T, 16.5X SNAP Benefits.
The bank bailout cost US taxpayers nothing? Think again by Moira Herbst, The Guardian, 5/28/13
Don't buy the line that the 2008 bailout gamble paid off. The banks have politicians and taxpayers firmly in their pockets
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report (pdf) with what seemed like good news: the bailout of 2008 - which fronted $700bn in taxpayer funds to prop up the financial institutions that brought the economy to the brink - ended up cheaper than expected. The price tag was revised down to $21bn from $24bn.
The picture was even rosier once you looked past how much it cost to bailout General Motors and insurance giant AIG. The cost of the bank bailout alone is, in fact, projected to be "almost nothing", as Politico's Morning Money blog put it. So insignificant was the harm done to taxpayers that Politico put "bailout" in quotation marks.
So, the hullabaloo was apparently for nothing. Far from being victims robbed of their tax dollars, the American public is essentially a winner in the bank rescue scheme - a shrewd investor who (involuntarily) played her cards right.
This is the line the banks and the US Treasury would like us to swallow. It is, of course, totally false. The bailout cost us plenty, and continues to do so. Sadly, it is the gift that keeps on giving to the very banks that drove our economy over a cliff - and took trillions in housing wealth, retirement funds and millions of jobs with it.
First of all, $21bn is no bargain. It's a hefty sum for a government we're constantly told is broke - and needs to cut everything from air traffic controllers to Medicare, and from meals for needy seniors to public defenders and housing aid. Broke - but somehow able to front $700bn for reckless, wildly mismanaged banks.
Second, we might not have been so lucky. The government took a massive gamble with our money and demanded almost nothing in return. Even if we didn't max out our potential losses in this particular gamble, we easily could the next time around.
Which brings us to the third way the bailout continues to cost taxpayers: the poisonous legacy of "too big to fail". When rushing to help Citigroup, Bank of America and others, the government told the public, "We have no choice; if one of them goes down, so goes the entire US economy." It also sent an unmistakable message to the biggest banks:
"When you find yourself teetering on the brink of disaster, fear not. We have your back."
After the rescue, we then failed to hold banks accountable. Not a single top financial executive has faced criminal charges for the fraud that inflated and popped the housing bubble. (Way off his talking points in March, Attorney General Eric Holder basically admitted that some banks are just too big to prosecute.) It's the ultimate moral hazard: banks are gambling wildly in the casino, but we're on the hook for their worst losses.
I won't even go into the last 2 in that much detail... 3 strikes already... so why bother, right?
4) She's not anti-science... [On Betsy DeVos]
Betsy DeVos is an anti-science extremist
TRUMP EDUCATION NOMINEE BETSY DEVOS LIED TO THE SENATE by Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, 1/18/17
Newly elected Democratic Sen. Margaret Hassan pressed DeVos on these claims. She asked DeVos directly if she was on the board of her mother's foundation during the period in which large donations were made to Focus on the Family. DeVos said that she was not on the foundation's board.
When I heard that, I pulled up the 990 tax documents of the Prince Foundation, which I investigated for my book "Blackwater." Betsy DeVos was clearly listed as a vice president of the foundation's board, along with her brother Erik, for many years, at least until 2014. DeVos was a vice president during the precise period Hassan was referring to. I then began a tweet storm about this lie: ...
At the very end of the hearing, Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the committee, allocated the small time she had left to Hassan, who proceeded to reference the 990 tax forms. DeVos then made an astonishing claim. These government tax forms, filed by her own mother's foundation, were incorrect. For years. Many years. "That was a clerical error. I can assure you I have never made decisions on my mother's behalf on her foundation's board."
The idea that her own mother's foundation would accidentally list her as a vice president for years as result of a clerical error is just not believable. The Democrats should go to town on this obvious attempt to mislead the Senate. This alone should disqualify DeVos, though there is a vast ocean of other reasons they could fish from.
Also from the link above on Pruitt there's this.
Betsy DeVos, named education secretary, has a passion for private school vouchers that critics say undercut the public school systems at the core of the government's mission.
Trump picks charter school advocate Betsy DeVos as education secretary BY CAROLYN THOMPSON, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/23/16
The pick underscores Trump's campaign promises to put 'school choice' at the center of his efforts on education.
... DeVos' support of school choice goes back more than 20 years. She was politically involved in the passage of Michigan's charter school bill in 1993 and worked on an unsuccessful effort to change Michigan's state constitution to allow tax-credit scholarships or vouchers. She has described that loss as her biggest setback. ...
How Trump's Education Nominee Bent Detroit to Her Will on Charter Schools By KATE ZERNIKE, New York Times, 12/12/16
... A believer in a freer market than even some free market economists would endorse, Ms. DeVos pushed back on any regulation as too much regulation. Charter schools should be allowed to operate as they wish; parents would judge with their feet. ...
She wrote a Detroit News op-ed arguing to "retire" Detroit Public Schools and "liberate all students" to use tax dollars to attend public or charter schools of their choice. ...
... leaders of the Republican caucus ... warned that the DeVoses would finance primary challenges against Republicans who defied her, as they had done to one who voted against the bill to lift the cap on charter schools five years earlier. ...
Her husband has long been a proponent of creationism, also known as "intelligent design": Husband Of Trump's Education Secretary Once Promoted Intelligent Design In Schools.
Vouchers mean more teaching of creationism:
Politico: A Major Push to Expand Voucher Programs Will Mean More Creationism in the Classroom by by Hemant Mehta, patheos, 3/25/14
It's not enough for private Christian schools to teach Creationism in the classroom; many states are now supporting voucher programs that use taxpayer funds to help students attend these schools. We've posted about the problem before, and now Politico has issued a "special report" on the issue:
Taxpayers fund teaching creationism By STEPHANIE SIMON, Politico, 03/24/14
Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.
It's an excellent primer on the issue if you haven't studied it before. It's also a warning of the dangers of voucher programs that don't exclude religious schools. More and more states are calling for these programs under the guise of "school choice" and it's important that we oppose the calls at every opportunity. As we've seen, it's just another way Creationists are working to push their views by way of federally-funded subsidies.
To believe that her push for vouchers for private schools won't lead to more teaching of creationism is to deny reality. Her policies clearly promote anti-science creationism.
DeVos made her millions from Amway; the company settled for $56M a lawsuit that it's a pyramid scheme:
Amway agrees to pay $56 million, settle case alleging it operates a 'pyramid scheme' By Chris Knape, mLive.com, 11/03/10
Amway this morning announced a deal to pay $34 million in cash and provide $22 million worth of products to settle a 2007 class-action suit alleging the company and some of its top-level distributors operate an illegal pyramid scheme.
The proposed settlement filed Wednesday would cover former Amway/Quixtar distributors, whom the company calls independent business owners, between 2003 and the day the settlement is approved.
The suit alleged the company used unfair and illegal business practices that mislead distributors about their ability to make money and how much it would cost to be part of the business. ...
The settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt, but settlement language says the company "stipulates that certain reforms in its business instituted after the filing of this action have been motivated" by the case. ...
5) Sessions is not against equality under the law... he broke the back of the KKK in Alabama.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is a racist, right-wing extremist
This explains that he's not at all for "equality under the law."
CAREER RACIST JEFF SESSIONS IS DONALD TRUMP'S PICK FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL by Alice Speri, The Intercept, 11/18/16
IF ANYONE HAD doubts that Trump's presidency would return white supremacy to power, Friday's announcement that the president-elect has tapped Alabama Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (named after a Confederate general) to head the Department of Justice should settle the question.
There is no other way to describe Jeff Sessions but as a career racist.
Following an election that at times seemed to be a referendum on race, Sessions's appointment at the helm of the agency that's supposed to protect all Americans' constitutional rights should terrify anyone with any respect for civil liberties and our justice system.
This is not the first time Sessions has earned a presidential nomination as an administrator of justice. In 1986, President Reagan tapped him to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, but at the time the Senate found him too racist for the post, and he became the second nominee in 50 years to be denied an appointment. ...
To say that "he broke the back of the KKK" refers to how "his office investigated the 1981 murder of Michael Donald, a black man who was kidnapped, beaten and killed by two Klansmen who hanged his body in a tree." That his office didn't ignore that responsibility doesn't mean he was anti-KKK, given he "joked" about how the KKK was "OK" ... very funny.
9 Terrible Jeff Sessions Quotes About Everything From Donald Trump To The KKK By CATE CARREJO 11/18/16
Unsurprisingly, Sessions seems to be a climate change denier. "Carbon pollution is CO2, and that's really not a pollutant; that's a plant food, and it doesn't harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases," Sessions said during a 2015 Senate hearing for EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. ...
Another racist moment that popped up during Sessions' confirmation hearing was his lax stance on the Ku Klux Klan. One of his staffers, Thomas Figures, testified that Sessions derogatorily called him "boy" and joked about the KKK in front of him. Sessions' former co-workers also testified that he joked that he thought the hate group was "OK," until he learned that they "smoked marijuana." ...
He [Sessions] voted no on expanding the definition of a hate crime to include LGBT victims, voted against repealing "don't ask, don't tell," and voted yes for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. ...
An existential threat to Life on Earth "doesn't harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases" ... yes ... that's the threat.
Poster final comments
Oh, and I highly doubt ANY of them are actually Anti-LGBT... but I suppose they could be considered that if you define it as "failing to totally celebrate and endorse the LGBT, and failing to think they deserve parades every day for being so brave and special and OMG Awesome!"
But yeah, one final note... It's not my job to defend any of these allegations. The burden of proof is on the claimant... and none of these allegations have any citations, evidence, proof, etc... they ALL play into your own pre-conceived biases... which makes you a very poor "free thinker"...
My Response to posters final comments
Of course Republicans are anti-LGBT. This is obvious. Look at their anti-marriage equality and bathroom law insanity.
This guy's views obviously do not comport with free thinking even on creationism because of his absurd defense of DeVos.
He's especially not free thinking because of his ignorance of economic realities. Free thinking on economics is why I gave this talk on Systems Thinking for Free Thinking about the 'Free Market'.
I prove that the meme is factual with citations and evidence. All the poster's comments are based, not on facts or sound economics, but on his preconceved, incorrect, and perverse biases. This makes his views on Trump's cabinet selections idiotic.
Republicans believe Trump's lies and believe what they want to believe.
Nearly a third of Republicans think Donald Trump won the popular vote by TAYLOR LINK, Salon, 12/9/16
According to a Pew Research survey, 32 percent of Republicans do not know that Hillary Clinton earned more votes
Most Americans know the results of the presidential election. According to a Pew Research survey, a majority of Americans can accurately identify President-elect Donald Trump as the winner of the Electoral College tally and Democratic contender Hillary Clinton as the winner of the the popular vote. Nearly a third of Republicans, however, inexplicably believe Trump won the most individual nationwide votes.
After quizzing voters on the results of the election, Pew Research found that 32 percent of respondents who lean Republican incorrectly named Trump the winner of the popular vote. In comparison, about 8 in 10 Democrats (81 percent) said that Clinton won it.
A lot of factors can explain the knowledge gap between Democrats and Republicans. For one, it might not be a knowledge gap at all. Many Republicans may know that the official tallies indicate Clinton won the nationwide vote, but have adopted a conspiracy theory - pushed by the president-elect himself - that insists that millions of votes were fraudulent, thereby disqualifying Clinton as the winner of the popular vote. ...
Trumps other picks:
President of Goldman Sachs to head Economic Council
Former Goldman Sachs partner as Secretary of Treasury