EPA Approved Toxic Chemicals For Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show (nytimes.com) 137
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: For much of the past decade, oil companies engaged in drilling and fracking have been allowed to pump into the ground chemicals that, over time, can break down into toxic substances known as PFAS -- a class of long-lasting compounds known to pose a threat to people and wildlife -- according to internal documents from the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. in 2011 approved the use of these chemicals, used to ease the flow of oil from the ground, despite the agency's own grave concerns about their toxicity, according to the documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times. The E.P.A.'s approval of the three chemicals wasn't previously publicly known. The records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by a nonprofit group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, are among the first public indications that PFAS, long-lasting compounds also known as "forever chemicals," may be present in the fluids used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
In a consent order issued for the three chemicals on Oct. 26, 2011, E.P.A. scientists pointed to preliminary evidence that, under some conditions, the chemicals could "degrade in the environment" into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and could "persist in the environment" and "be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds." The E.P.A. scientists recommended additional testing. Those tests were not mandatory and there is no indication that they were carried out. "The E.P.A. identified serious health risks associated with chemicals proposed for use in oil and gas extraction, and yet allowed those chemicals to be used commercially with very lax regulation," said Dusty Horwitt, researcher at Physicians for Social Responsibility. [...] There is no public data that details where the E.P.A.-approved chemicals have been used. But the FracFocus database, which tracks chemicals used in fracking, shows that about 120 companies used PFAS -- or chemicals that can break down into PFAS; the most common of which was "nonionic fluorosurfactant" and various misspellings -- in more than 1,000 wells between 2012 and 2020 in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Because not all states require companies to report chemicals to the database, the number of wells could be higher. Nine of those wells were in Carter County, Okla., within the boundaries of Chickasaw Nation. "This isn't something I was aware of," said Tony Choate, a Chickasaw Nation spokesman. [...] The findings underscore how, for decades, the nation's laws governing various chemicals have allowed thousands of substances to go into commercial use with relatively little testing. The E.P.A.'s assessment was carried out under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorizes the agency to review and regulate new chemicals before they are manufactured or distributed. "[T]he Toxic Substances Control Act grandfathered in thousands of chemicals already in commercial use, including many PFAS chemicals," the report says. "In 2016, Congress strengthened the law, bolstering the E.P.A.'s authority to order health testing, among other measures. The Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, still identifies the Toxic Substances Control Act as a program with one of the highest risks of abuse and mismanagement." According to a recent report from the Intercept, "the E.P.A. office in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer."
In a consent order issued for the three chemicals on Oct. 26, 2011, E.P.A. scientists pointed to preliminary evidence that, under some conditions, the chemicals could "degrade in the environment" into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and could "persist in the environment" and "be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds." The E.P.A. scientists recommended additional testing. Those tests were not mandatory and there is no indication that they were carried out. "The E.P.A. identified serious health risks associated with chemicals proposed for use in oil and gas extraction, and yet allowed those chemicals to be used commercially with very lax regulation," said Dusty Horwitt, researcher at Physicians for Social Responsibility. [...] There is no public data that details where the E.P.A.-approved chemicals have been used. But the FracFocus database, which tracks chemicals used in fracking, shows that about 120 companies used PFAS -- or chemicals that can break down into PFAS; the most common of which was "nonionic fluorosurfactant" and various misspellings -- in more than 1,000 wells between 2012 and 2020 in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Because not all states require companies to report chemicals to the database, the number of wells could be higher. Nine of those wells were in Carter County, Okla., within the boundaries of Chickasaw Nation. "This isn't something I was aware of," said Tony Choate, a Chickasaw Nation spokesman. [...] The findings underscore how, for decades, the nation's laws governing various chemicals have allowed thousands of substances to go into commercial use with relatively little testing. The E.P.A.'s assessment was carried out under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorizes the agency to review and regulate new chemicals before they are manufactured or distributed. "[T]he Toxic Substances Control Act grandfathered in thousands of chemicals already in commercial use, including many PFAS chemicals," the report says. "In 2016, Congress strengthened the law, bolstering the E.P.A.'s authority to order health testing, among other measures. The Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, still identifies the Toxic Substances Control Act as a program with one of the highest risks of abuse and mismanagement." According to a recent report from the Intercept, "the E.P.A. office in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer."
Only a future problem (Score:1)
So, this will likely poison our grandchildren, but since when has this been a concern to big business. The responsibility of US management is by every possible legal means to increase shareholder value. Indeed, they can be in trouble for not doing so, as this is judged to be an abrogation of their obligation to protect shareholder rights. The Friedman doctrine is one of the two dominant influences on the behaviour of US executives (the other being personal financial interest).
Who knows? Maybe science will d
Probabilities (Score:2, Informative)
So, this will likely poison our grandchildren, but since when has this been a concern to big business.
FTA:
"under some conditions, the chemicals *could* "degrade in the environment" into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and *could* "persist in the environment" and "be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds."
So, in some cases, the substances *could* degrade into a chemical similar to another chemical that might persist in the environment and might possibly be dangerous.
From that, it's going to poison children? OK...
Re: (Score:2)
How far under the ground do your kids go?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How far under the ground does their kids' drinking water come from?
Deep (Score:2)
Fracking goes deep into the bedrock, usually 2-4 miles down. Most aquifers used for drinking water are less than a couple of thousand feet deep.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we know that fracking has polluted drinking water [southernenvironment.org].
The fundamental problem is, if you look at the lists of chemicals in fracking fluid [wikipedia.org], it becomes abundantly clear that they are actually refinery wastes. This is just more of the pollution involved with fossil fuels, being literally pumped into the ground in such a way that it is likely to spread specifically because of the fracturing.
Any agency that would permit fracking does not deserve the name "environmental protection agency", as there is no way
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental problem is, if you look at the lists of chemicals in fracking fluid [wikipedia.org], it becomes abundantly clear that they are actually refinery wastes.
It's not "abundantly clear". There's tons of chemicals involved and many (like NaCl) are not "refinery wastes" as you call them.
Any agency that would permit fracking does not deserve the name "environmental protection agency", as there is no way to do it safely. Period.
The biggest components of fracking fluid are water and sand. Those are non-toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest components of fracking fluid are water and sand. Those are non-toxic.
The biggest component of a poisonous mushroom is water, too. If you get near a point, fucking make it.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest component of a poisonous mushroom is water, too.
Which is why 99% of mushrooms are not poisonous.
If you get near a point, fucking make it.
Please forgive me, I assumed you're smart enough to make the inference.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that deep.
Re: (Score:1)
Americans the worse, ./ cries politics (Score:1)
Wow. ./ has really just become political tribalism for everything?
Jeezus, people, who gives a $#!+ who was in the administration. The point here are the PFAs and what they're going to be doing to us humans.
And for the DuPont-loving-trolls out there, congratulations on further denial of the effects of "C8".
Why so divisive? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why this has to be about politics but basically all the comments are spewing divisive party propaganda.
The take away is the EPA lacked the authority to push for further studies. We need to know how often PFAs are being formed in the process. What are the risk factors and how does it relate to other aspects regarding the environment of the well.
Do I like fracking? No. Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.
This is why China is going to eat our lunch. We, as Americans, are ignorant bigots. Are they doing better at environmental protection? No but when the decision is made based on an informed scientific prospective, they probably will and they sure as fuck won't bicker over party lines because there is one party and that brings a certain unity that the divided USA has forgotten. If half these types got there way we would kick off WWE because it's literally the only way we can challenge the growth China is seeing as a world power.
It's disgustingly juvenile from my countrymen who through their pride brag about having the longest democratic constitution... grow the fuck up guys and let's hope for more of a push to see the lasting effects of the usage of these chemicals in fracking.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have had a point if you didn't bring China into this. They've poisoned over 20% of their arable land with heavy metals. You think that decision was made based on "an informed scientific position"?
Re:Why so divisive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.
This is the wrong question. We should be asking what is the least risky option for meeting our energy needs. As you say we don't know and you would think that if these guys were confident they would be paying for the studies themselves, but for some reason are reluctant to even find out.
We should be doing everything we can to make fracking economically non-viable by offering cheaper alternatives.
This is why China is going to eat our lunch. We, as Americans, are ignorant bigots. Are they doing better at environmental protection?
Disagree. There are plenty of Americans who understand the problems, but politics makes actually fixing them very difficult. And by politics I mean money, since the fracking industry has more political buying power than most of the groups opposing them.
Also, China is arguably doing better. They installed more wind energy than the rest of the world combined over the last few years, have decent public transport systems and are leading in electric vehicle development and sales. More over they are on track to peak much lower than the US in terms of per-capita emissions. They are on the up-side of the curve but what matters is how high the peak is and how soon it comes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your critical of a worthy question is fair and on point. As you agreed though we need to know the risks associated here to find the least risky option. Likewise I almost added that the reluctance of the companies to be forth coming means they probably did some preliminary studies and found it wasn't positive light they wanted to share.
If enough Americans really understood the problem, I think we could give a better fight to deal with politics and the corruption in it from lobbying. Americans can be stubborn
Re: (Score:2)
I pretty much agree with you but you posted AC, so I am not going to get into specifics.
Re:Why so divisive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to 2020. ${BAD_THING} happened. We need to identify ${PERPETRATOR}, and above all we need to make sure that ${PERPETRATOR} == ${OTHER_TEAM}. Because we all know ${MY_TEAM} is perfect and better suited to run the country. You do want the best possible country right, or do you instead hope we turn into ${COUNTRY_WE_HATE_DU_JOUR}
Re: Why so divisive? (Score:2)
It's a bingo.
It gets tiring though and the whole black and white blame game is really a pedantic way to view all human actions.
Re: (Score:1)
As if totalitarian government and totalitarian business were not essentially the same thing.
Both are contrary to liberty, justice, and rule of law.
But those of us who do consistently do believe in those things have no home in politics. Not here in the U.S., and not in most of the rest of the world either.
There just aren't frackin' enough of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I mean besides my perspective of what kind of politics will work in the modern world with climate change, I have pretty much decided my political leanings have no place. So going to a country where I basically have no political say wasn't a big deal -- it didn't seem like I was losing a lot, which again isn't to discuss the potential gains of a political system where the vast majority have no say given the average level a democractic citizen is both informed and well educated.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I like fracking? No. Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.
Could you expand on that? Why exactly don't you like fracking? Is it because it might be causing environmental problems and we don't know? Or because we ought to be using less carbon-based fuels so anything which makes them cheaper should be avoided? Or something else?
I'm honestly curious. To clarify, I take the pragmatic perspective. Fracked oil and natural gas lets us avoid using coal and tar sand oil, and it gets us less involved in foreign energy supplies with all the political entanglements that create
Re: (Score:2)
I had to do some follow-up to verify the downsides I was thinking of.
The big ones I consider is potential to contaminate water sources, total water usage, and the release of methane. In all these cases, a well-designed, maintained, and researched well can avoid these potentials. The industry doesn't seem very responsible in these regards though. So maybe my issue is that there needs to be more oversight.
Your point of avoiding the foreign energy suppliers is a big deal though because of the political entangl
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's not my point at all. I am an American who may never again set foot again in my home land. I will have kids who have foreign citizenship. I have checked out and not just the I smoke pot to avoid having to think critically about the average amount of bullshit boiling out of an American's head but as in, all my skills and all my economic gains go into a foreign countries pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain the logic from the government banning a particular chemical to government storm troopers going around busting heads?
New Files... (Score:2)
New Files...from a decade ago.
Wow, I'd not want to know the old files from a millennia ago, give or take an eon or two...
Make sense, fracking new files.
JoshK.
Greenpeace got it wrong with chlorine (Score:2)
If Greenpeace had picked Fluoride instead of Chlorine tor a blanket ban they would have been spot on. PFAS put PCBs to shame persistence wise.
It's hard to find an use for fluoridle chemistry not putting significant amounts of super-persistent pollutants into the environment. Leave that shit locked up in minerals ffs.
Re: (Score:1)
If Greenpeace had picked Fluoride instead of Chlorine tor a blanket ban they would have been spot on.
That's a false dichotomy if I ever heard one.
Proof that poisoning the planet is not political (Score:2)
Funny though: the first thought on reading the headline was "Who was President?"
This shows that really it is all about the profit. Whichever government is in power, it is big business that runs the show one way or another. Money is the power behind the scenes whichever talking head happens to be in power.
Maybe the way to approach an election is to look deeper than the candidates and try to see who and which companies are lending support and what their interests are.
And that's something the media really s
Energy and its Barons rule the world (Score:2)
Toxic chemicals? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish people would stop saying "toxic chemicals". Toxicity is a property of dose, not something a substance is or is not.
TFA was very light on actual numbers and specifics, such as "how toxic?", "how deep might the PFAS form?", "do we have any evidence the chemicals make it to the surface or groundwater supplies?", "they could form but do we have any evidence they actually do?", and so forth.
I mean c'mon, we're talking petroleum. That's pretty toxic stuff just by itself and it's a "forever chemical" too, having been hanging out in the rocks for 100 million years. You'll have to work harder than that to convince me the relativ
The wording is suspicious. (Score:2)
So,
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what companies used them because that information has never been made public. We don't know for sure what happens to the chemicals because, even though the EPA scientists recommended additional testing, those tests were either never done or never reported. We didn't even learn the chemicals had been approved until just now, 10 years after it happened. And we still wouldn't know if it weren't for a nonprofit using the Freedom of Information Act to discover things the government chose not to
Hmm ... (Score:1)
Fracking Exempt from Many Regulations (Score:2)
Here's a link to the stuff fracking/oil and gas are exempted from:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/def... [nrdc.org]
Re:damn Obama admin (Score:5, Insightful)
The EPA is given its own regulatory authority. In theory, there's too much to do to require Congress or Presidential approval for each individual action. In practice, a lot of things get swept under the rug and revolving doors staff the EPA with industry insiders. I haven't read the documents, but it may show who in the EPA was pushing this through and who was against. Hard to draw conclusions without actually reading what the FOIA request contains.
Regarding Biden, he's specifically made PFAS threats to water supply a priority as far back as January. And probably found out about its approval by the EPA when everyone else did.
Re: (Score:3)
Read for yourself, though. According to the report, even the results of the FOIA request were heavily redacted. It's going to take some time to find out who the heroes and villains are here.
Re:damn Obama admin (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.psr.org/wp-content... [psr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, EPA rubber stamping long before Trump
---
For years, attorney Bilott, environmentalists, and even the
state government of Michigan have raised concerns that
EPA was not adequately protecting the public from PFAS
pollution.118 EPAâ(TM)s approval of three chemicals for use in oil
and gas operations that regulators believed could degrade
into PFOA-like substances raises additional concerns about
the agencyâ(TM)s commitment to protecting people and the
environment from dangerous substances.
By the time EP
Words of a man who's never seen a candle, I guess (Score:1)
Have you ever wondered how a candle wick remains relatively unscathed for hours despite being on fire, with the fire being located ABOVE the melted wax? Or how a paper towel can soak up a spill despite being located ABOVE the spill?
I mean, clearly not, genuine intellectual inquiry is obviously not going to be one of your preferred pursuits, but humor my use of rhetoric here.
Re:More environMENTAL fear porn for the non-educat (Score:4, Informative)
When 3M was making Scotchguard here in Minnesota they dumped PFOA and PFOS into the ground and it is contaminating well water in the area. Fortunately, Minnesota regulators caught it and 3M gets to pay for the mess. But it most certainly gets into wells for drinking water.
As far as the dichotomy between oil wells for fracking and drinking water wells: if I recall correctly, aquifer drill depth and oil well depth are similar, and the big Ogalalla aquifer is directly under all of those fracking wells in Oklahoma. So yeah, there is reason for concern.
Re:More environMENTAL fear porn for the non-educat (Score:5, Informative)
In theory you can line the wall of the well with impermeable materials to prevent oil coming up the well from making it into aquifers, but in practice you only need one break in the lining at the right depth to cause a lot of problems.
Oil wells are heavily pressurized due to the mass of all the material we drill through to get down there. Conventional wells you just collect the oil that the pressure ejects naturally from rather porous deposits, but with fracking you are literally fracturing the rock to get at the oil. Those cracks can create their own path to other layers under ground, or exert pressures on the bore hole, potentially creating that path for oil to get into the aquifer. Even with older, more conventional wells, the settling that takes place as the oil is removed can lead to fracturing of the layers that normally keep the oil separate from the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More environMENTAL fear porn for the non-educa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a conventional well that is all tapped out is not truly empty. (There is just insufficient residual pressure to push the oil still down there up the pipe against gravity) Not all of the fracking fluids come back up the well. Some stay down there to displace the mass that was removed. You may not need to leave as much fracking fluid in the well as you pulled out oil/gas, but it's not anywhere close to zero either.
Re: (Score:2)
More Coonservative fear porn for the non-educated (Score:2, Insightful)
If I place a sponge onto a plate of water, in time the whole sponge will get wet.
If I pour water into a cup, the water level will rise.
If I drink out a straw and there is a hole in the straw, the straw leaks.
Fracking works by adding extra pressure to an area. Pressure will often overcome gravity and move materials upward.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump derangement appears to work both ways. Must be the chemicals in the MAGA hats causing brain damage.
Re: damn Obama admin (Score:1)
The reality is that presidents are probably not to blame for this, yet it's a near certainty the 'Trump administration' prefix would have been added to the EPA if this had happened under Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm. What was that phrase on a former President's desk? "The buck stops here"?
Yeah, if this had been done under Trump, people would be raising holy hell about the EVIL of the Trump admin. But because it was the Obama admin, it'll be entirely blamed on some mid-level bureaucrats.
Alas, the buck stopped at Obama's desk, just as it stopped at Truman's desk (imho, the last good President we've had).
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes... [knowyourmeme.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.dictionary.com/e/m... [dictionary.com]
So much shit was blamed on Obama that the phrase was soon turned around used sarcastically to say "Thanks Obama" for the most random stuff, to ridicule people with Obama derangement syndrome.
Better think twice before giving people shit for blaming stuff on Trump, while also pretending that your side is so much morally super
Re: (Score:1)
Re: damn Obama admin (Score:2)
Yes, because an Internet meme that was used for comedy more than anything else is comparable to four years of hysterics over orange man.
Re: (Score:2)
With Fracking in general it is hard to find the heroes and villains are even with all the information.
Fracking was suppose to happen well below the water line, and When done correctly and safely those chemicals will not interact with our needed supply, just tract Natural Gas. Also it allowed for mining in a small space where relatively "small" property owners could get a Fracking well installed and they make money from their land.
Natural Gas from Fracking burns cleaner than coal, and was a big part of the
Re: damn Obama admin (Score:2)
This is why we need communism. Instead of an appointed bureaucracy and elected representatives, we can all sit in front of weeks of highly technical testimony. And then vote on every measure as classless equals.
Remember, next week we will be deciding on whether or not to approve Boeing's 777X cerification plan. So study up on your avionics software.
No. It's not. (Score:3)
This is no different from shaming Californians from taking showers that last more than five minutes during water shortages, ignoring the fact that residential water use is less than 15% of the state's water supply, with agriculture and industry using the vast majority of the water. Half the population of California could move
Re: No. It's not. (Score:1)
Half the population of California could move out tomorrow and you wouldn't even notice the difference in water usage.
Half of the population of California doesn't bathe anyway, so ...
Re: (Score:2)
And an insignificant difference if there are a trillion cows shitting on your car. A very small percentage of global CO2 emissions come from personal ICE vehicles. The vast majority is from industry and military.
Re: Well isn't oil a toxic chemical already? (Score:2)
Oil degrades on human timescales, PFAS will be removed by subduction.
Re: (Score:2)
PFAS are a class of chemicals that don't react with anything. This allows them to easily accumulate to dangerous levels.
Re: (Score:2)
If they reacted with nothing then they would not be dangerous.
The current science indicates that they do break down very slowly, and yet can interact with humans and/or our microbiome in very harmful ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Silicone is pretty non reactive but plenty of people have destroyed their bodies with bad silicone injections.
Re: (Score:2)
They accumulate to dangerous levels in cells. They don't need to react to cause changes in chemistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is where it is because it's in reservoirs of sorts
Fracking is about cracking rock
That means breaking these reservoirs.
We already know that fracking fluids can thereby contaminate drinking water, because it's happened.
The questions you are asking betray a deep misunderstanding of the issues at hand.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL AC gets modded up for bashing Republicans while commenting on a story about something the Obama administration did. Good grief. This is off-topic at the very least, and clearly troll material.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Prove it. All of europe says you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Re: (Score:2)
In most elections, no candidate is truly evil*. Both sides use moralistic language to get you to turn off your brain and vote with your emotions instead of your intellect. It's convenient, because it means we don't have to think about large complicated topics and can instead simply label people as "good" and "Bad" and go back to watching too mu
Re: (Score:2)
Voting based on intellect is like eating based on satiation - if you had any, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
I mean, I get it. The people praising the emperor's exquisite new fashion are just as embarrassed as the naked emperor when the obvious is pointed out. But come on, man, you can't tell me you're any happier writing that condescending "tut tut, silly child" spiel as I am reading it.
Your choices are Wimp or Shrimp, and your reward is a pie in the face either way. Don't vote, it only encour
Re: (Score:1)
Libertarian, not Republican here. But many (not all) Republicans will agree with the following.
Yes. I absolutely and positively do want to end democracy.
I want liberty, justice, and rule of law. These all require limited government. Democracy is its very opposite. Democracy is where whoever most effectively manipulates the masses ends up ruling with no restraint, no accountability, and no limit on their power.
Sound familiar? It should, because, in spite of the framers' best efforts to prevent this, th
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is where whoever most effectively manipulates the masses ends up ruling with no restraint, no accountability, and no limit on their power.
Sound familiar? It should, because, in spite of the framers' best efforts to prevent this, that is increasingly what we have now.
Oh, my sweet summer child.
The framers wanted to keep themselves and their ilk in power. That's why they gave the vote only to landed white men.
Re: Thanks Obama! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In my view, "democracy" GUARANTEES that the most powerful will rule. Because they will always control the vote, and if they don't, they will control the people who count the vote, and the people who "educate" the voters, and the people who "entertain" them and the people who "fact check" them and the people who "report" the "news" and the people who provide them "health care" and the people who decide who their "friends" are allowed to be on "social media" and pretty much anyone and everyone else whose con
Re: (Score:2)
There are countries out there that practice direct democracy, and there are those that practice oligarchy with a democratic veneer. Maybe you can do a comparison and see how each side does in terms of GDP per capita, median income by PPP, and average happiness.
You can even do this between states. California for example, allows legislation and constitutional amendments to be created via election. New York is the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
It's comical how Libertarians try to throw stones at socialism but only hit capitalism right in the face. It's not "the mob" throwing $1.5 trillion into the capitalist dumpster fire that is the Pentagon each year. It's not Social Security and Med
Re:fuck your BlueMaga bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
An unarmed Boomer parade through the Capital was going to overthrow the most militarized government on the planet?
Whether it was likely to succeed or not, it was an attempt to alter the outcome of the election, which makes it a coup attempt by definition. And they came planning to kill the vice president, and kidnap members of congress. They had a walkthrough ahead of time to identify targets of interest, and panic buttons were removed ahead of time from the offices of two members of congress. It was pathetic, it was ham handed, it was incompetent, basically like everything Trump has ever done. But it was still a coup attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Its hilarious that a few of these “patriots” died from heart attacks. The mild physical activity of walking was too stressful.
Re: (Score:2)
You go to coup with the losers you have, not the heroes you want.
Re: (Score:2)
More BlueMaga bullshit, by definition. Did you forget the Great Liberal Insurrection of 2018 when they stormed the Kavanaugh hearings? Or....one was no more an attempt to overthrow the government than the other. Just because RedMaga spent last year insisting BLM protestors were trying to burn cities to the ground, doesn't mean BlueMaga needs to lose its damned mind in
Re:fuck your BlueMaga bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
A protest does not a coup make.
I already explained why it was a coup attempt. If you have a hard time reading what I wrote, it's not because I didn't spell correctly.
Re:fuck your BlueMaga bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to prevent the government from certifying the results of an election, in order to ensure that the loser ends up winning, is a text book definition of a coup attempt. That they failed is irrelevant to what it was. If I try to pick the lock to your front door, and you chase me off, it is still an attempted B&E, even if I showed up with the wrong tools to pick your lock, and failed to even make it through the door. The Jan 6th morons did far more than that.
You can keep trying to pretend it was just a protest, but we both know that neither of us really believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only a therapist, you need a psychiatri
Re: (Score:2)
Not only a therapist, you need a psychiatrist. 1/6 rioters didn't do a damned thing Kavanaugh rioters [usatoday.com] didn't do in 2018. Again: a bunch of unarmed Boomers aren't going to overthrow jack, anymore than a bunch of pussy hat wearing shitlibs could invade and tear down the Pentagon. Most of the 1/6 protestors did nothing more than wander around and take selfies with friendly cops. They didn't split up into groups to try and chase down representatives for something something stop certification that happened in two hours anyway.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of the 1/6th of attendees sitting out the illegal shit, they are not morons. I said, everything up until they stormed the capitol was fine, and that not being able to tell the difference between a protest and a coup was what made one a moron.
I find it interesting that your own numbers condemn 5 in 6 people as having done at least something wrong. I don't know why you apparently feel that roughly 17% of attendees at a coup attempt not actively partici
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your average something wrong: [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Was there intent to prevent the certification of Biden's win so that Trump could remain in office? YES!
Did they attempt to do so by forcing their way into an active session of congress? YES!
That's it! That's all that i
Re: (Score:2)
That's BlueMaga fever dream, not reality. If that were remotely the case, all the shitlib media would be talking about is Facebook Post A and Twitter Message B calling on RedMaga to stop certification. They aren't.
Liberals
Re:fuck your BlueMaga bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Being mad about the election results is perfectly normal. Marching to DC is normal. Having a rally is normal. Marching to the Capitol building is also normal. If that was where it ended, there'd be no issue from me. However, storming the capitol, breaking windows, entering the capitol building without permission, trespassing and stealing from the capitol building, and attempting to lynch members of congress, all while attempting to pressure the members of congress to overturn a fairly won election are not.
I'm sorry if it offends you, but people who show up to a rally and can't see when it crosses over the line to a coup attempt are morons. People who think that you can livestream federal crimes without consequence are morons. Regardless of party affiliation.
And if anyone is dead set on ignoring the plight of others it is Trump supporters. He spent 4 years fucking over immigrants (including the legal ones), the poor (which includes many of his own supporters), racial minorities, religious minorities, and anyone else who wasn't white and rich and they voted for him anyway. I see the plight of poor uneducated white voters (Trumps Base). After all, that's where I grew up. I support policies to help them out too, but they've bought into the racial bribe, that if the government can keep minorities of all stripes marginalize, well then at least being white makes them special. And that specialness is more valuable to them than their own welfare. If they were starving and someone offered everyone a decent meal, they'd refuse it in favor of eating a proverbial shit sandwich, grinning the whole time, it it meant those "others" don't get to eat at all...Bro
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Democrats have shoved their heads up their asses for five years about Trump and Russia doesn't mean you need to respond in kind. Biden was part of the administration that started a cold war [brookings.edu] with China FFS.
Biden is an unrepentant segregationist who didn't want his kids growing up in a "racial jungle". He spent much of his Senate career working with Strom Thurmond to pass racist crime bills that have locked up millions. Crime bills he was still touting while runnin
Re: (Score:2)
How does any of that make him "center-right"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. The only difference between the parties is what types of corporations they like.
Generally, DNC people love Hollywood and Wall Street (at least recently).
Re: (Score:1)
But, um... Injecting PFAs directly into ground wells is a little different than your examples, no?
One point where you're wrong? PFAs aren't "new demons": DuPont has known about their effects since the 1950s. Their instructions even then said that those chemicals not to be flushed into surface water or sewers. Disposal by incineration.
Re: (Score:1)