|
|
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Let's try, one recent example.
Scott Pruitt was Trump's appointee for the position of the Head of EPA.
Ok, let me fill you in.
Pruit was Oklahoma's AG for a number of years. During the time he held this position, he sued the EPA no less than 14 times block clean air and water safeguards from, you guess it, the EPA. Investigations showed that in every suit except one, at least one of Pruitt’s co-litigators contributed to Pruitt’s campaign or a political action committee affiliated with Pruitt – directly, or via an employee or member..
Trump appointed this man as the head of the EPA.
In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?
After you gave that opinion, here are some more facts to consider, ofcourse in hindsight as he has already resigned
https://www.axios.com/go-deeper-the-...5dc32a1fd.html
http://fortune.com/2018/07/05/scott-...signs-scandal/
In general I don't have an opinion because I need more information to be well informed.
Things that jump out:
The co-litigator campaign contributions is a good example for why government power should be restrained.
I'm a fan of making the head of the EPA somebody who doesn't like the EPA. I'd prefer the agency not exist and an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the federal government is prohibited from operating within that space (adding to our rights).
|
Reply With Quote