Home | About | Donate

Samantha Bee Skewers Trump's EPA Chief in Segment Titled "Scott Pruitt vs. The World"


#1

Samantha Bee Skewers Trump's EPA Chief in Segment Titled "Scott Pruitt vs. The World"

Common Dreams staff

"Putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA was like putting the fox in the henhouse. I'm sorry—for future viewers, foxes and hens were two animals that lived on earth before climate change rendered them extinct."

Samantha Bee

#2

According to Samantha Bee in this video, it was Jill Stein voters who are to blame for Trump.

Not the Democratic Party for nominating:

  • The only candidate who could’ve lost to Trump.
  • A candidate who has never risen in polling across her three elections.
  • Someone who ignored every warning…

In any case, I’m happy if I helped Hillary lose. I think in multiple future election cycles and anything I can do to grab power from corporatist establishment Dems is precisely what I’ll do.


#3

I’m curious if you ever read the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, and compared it to the Republican Platform - particularly in matters of the environment, but also to wage-earning USAns?

I’ve included them below:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117718.pdf

Voting is not supposed to be an outburst of infantile emotion and self-absorbed obsessions with emotional needs from a position of white privilege. It is about making a choice that is available that preserves options and strategies to make progress.

People who voted for Jill stein in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin may very well have sealed humanities’ fate.


#4

Drama queen much, there Yunzer?

Oh, by the way, here’s what your losing candidate advised:


#5

Thank you, once again…for shooting holes through SK’s ongoing (ad nauseum) trite trash lambasting HRC and peddling propagandist swill about the 2016 election while choosing conservabot websites for his sources. He, too will suffer the consequences of DJT and his henchmen’s dismantlement of our democracy, destruction of our environment, and provocation of nuclear war. There is no life on our planet that is immune to this ongoing tragedy.


#6

Guess living in a cave or your basement has its benefits, SK. Every hour of ever day you can peruse any number of conservative websites like townhall to dig up and disseminate your invective in order to validate your distorted, misguided, misleading, and sometimes glaringly FALSE information/opinions. Save your comments for Parry’s consortium BS or Russia Insider or Breitbart where they will be well received. They have no place on CD.


#7

The article quotes Debbie Dingell’s op-ed published in the Washington Post.

I guess if you don’t like Debbie’s message, you can shoot the messenger. Meanwhile, your beloved Ds still don’t have a brand people want to vote for. Here, this is from sources comfortably within your D-Party bubble:


#8

As long as you’re happy, that’s all that matters.


#9

I agree, but still Clinton ran a poor campaign. It was as if she didn’t read the Democratic platform.


#10

She bashed Bernie Sanders and his supporters as well, all during the campaign primaries and beyond. I have no respect for her and find absolutely nothing of value in her show. She fails MISERABLY to represent true Democrats and especially WORKING CLASS people. She has no clue. Being a Clinton supporter gave her cause to demean all those whom did not agree with her, even Democrats.


#11

No, the Electoral College IDIOTS sealed humanity’s fate. Jill had nothing to do with that.


#12

First of all, it is completely unreasonable to use 100% conversion of Stein voters to Clinton voters (i.e. if Stein had not been on the ballot, who would you have voted for - exit poling said overall, that the answers were (from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/):

The exit polling asked voters they would have cast ballots for if there were only two candidates (Clinton and Trump). A quarter of Johnson voters said Clinton, 15 percent said Trump, and 55 percent said they would not have voted. Numbers were similar for Stein voters, with about a quarter saying they would have chosen Clinton, 14 percent saying Trump, and 61 percent saying they would not have voted.

So for both Stein and Johnson voters, the most reasonable conversion to surplus votes on top of Trump’s is only 10% of the third party vote. (Thus surprised me - I figured Johnson and Stein voters would differ).

But even if you allow for 100% conversion of Stein (and zero for Johnson which is the way it is typically framed), Clinton still wouldn’t have won PA (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three). I don’t know why we keep hearing this fake news - has there been any vote total updates I don’t know about?

I also challenge anyone who is pushing this line to consider if it is really the best strategy. Do you think people who switch back and forth between Green and Democrat depending on the quality of the Democrat running (and I’m one) are going to be persuaded by berating? You’d be better off trying to persuade the much larger group of Democratic voters who peel off to the Republican side or the number of eligible voters whose life would be better if Clinton were in office but who didn’t vote. Even better yet is to campaign for Ranked Choice Voting where many Stein voters would be willing to rank Clinton above Trump on their ballot (I’d say more than 10% surplus since it isn’t the same as the exit polling question). Even better is to push for Democratic Party reform so we end up with a better process (and hopefully a better nominee).


#13

I watched the video here and I was surprised to see the clip of Chris Wallace questioning Pruitt on clean air issues (separate from CO2). Is that from April (http://deadstate.org/chris-wallace-confronts-trumps-climate-change-denying-epa-chief-what-if-youre-wrong/)? I haven’t watched the whole Fox news piece, but now I wonder now if giving up on CO2 for 3 years and fighting tooth and nail about air quality for direct human health (asthma, premature death, etc.) can move the ball forward in one direction at least. Do any of Chris’s viewers agree with him that non-CO2 pollution is bad?


#14

There was a nice “adventure” movie in the early 60’s “Sands Of The Kalahari” where a bunch of white people were shown being terrorized by a troop of angry baboons.
In the end, most of the party escaped, with the final film shot of the villain who tried to mess with everybody being descended on by the big vicious baboons, message was they tore him to death. Karma.

See ya, Scott Pruitt