GOP scraps environmental regulations

that was likely included in there on purpose by trump's enemies to make him look bad
but maybe it makes coal mining companies reveal too much about themselves

No one in this thread has said a thing about global warming besides you
There literally is nothing wrong with caring about the environment

Gay.

>'THEY STOPPED THE GOOD 'REGULATION THAT STOPS COMPANIES FROM DUMPING COAL INTO STREAMS'' and forces them to disclose payments made to foreign governements relating to mining and drilling
100% UNBIASED
0
0
%

U
N
B
I
A
S
E
D

WEW

Try harder, moishe.

Nice try but your tactics are all too transparent.
Never mind what you think it was "aimed at". What does the bill actually say?
In other words:
[citation needed]

I agree.

Let's embargo China and India.

I'll go find out since no one else is. Stop sageing, you kike.

I've seen too much hyperbole being passed off as fact by the kike media, often times completely making up words and claiming Trump wants to deport all Mexicans or denied the Holohoax.

I appreciate (((Time's))) interpretation of the bill that was "aimed at preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams" but I'd love to see the actual text. I have a feeling it's not remotely what Time magazine is claiming, which is why they were forced to paraphrase and exaggerate.

And anyway deporting spics and banning muslim immigration are far bigger priorities right now. If this is the compromise we have to make temporarily, it's still 100000x better than Hillary Clinton.

Wew

Here

federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/20/2016-29958/stream-protection-rule

That's the summary, I'm reading through it now.

They also removed USDA violation reporting. Now you have to FOIA info to see if labs, etc. are abusing animals.

How was this a bad rule?

What the rule's achieved goal claims and what it actually does are usually pretty different things, see Obamacare.

Good, puts another roadblock in the way of muh peta faggots who try to shut down research.

It's more than a few paragraphs. You're just looking at the parts that make people feel good, read the rest of it. The overall problem is that it is overreaching in nature and is a stepping stone for the EPA to declare all waterways on private property under their complete domain. Once they have that they can shut down any and all development that they want to. The EPA and many in the left generally are anti-growth (or as they call themselves degrowth, or something like that). This should have been done at the state level as different regions have different needs. But they went federal with it and took rules meant for say Virginia steep slope mines and applied them across the country. It's a power grab pure and simple with the fig leaf of "we're trying to keep those ebil coal companies from dumping toxins in your rivers goyim" while at the same time their donors from the "alternative energy" sector get to crush their competition and present wind/solar/etc as cheaper than Coal.

Nigger, read through the link I posted. All this rule would have done is stop (((corporations))) from dumping toxic shit into streams. Holla Forums is not the GOP, we're not kikes, there is no reason for us to defend this.

Kill yourself, you fucking kike.

Someone want to remind me again of the provision in the constitution that grants the federal government oversight over environmental regulation of streams?

Some streams, and many rivers that run through multiple states? Sure.

ALL STREAMS carte blanche? No. You can be a yuge environmentalist and still support the constitution, state's rights, and a restrained federal government. Coal being thrown into local streams sounds pretty shitty. The local or state government probably should decide to look into stopping such activity. The feds need to keep their noses out of where they don't belong.

So yes, , I will defend this.

You shills are really terrible at this

Not caring about animals is degenerate as fuck, do you know that animal abusers were thrown in work camps along with the kikes?

So, more power to local politics where people may actually get involved instead of big government where money rules? Will it work?

Ok cool, we'll test out new drugs on your children first. Can't go around "abusing" animals amirite?

I didn't say abuse animals my point is these kiked out orgs like PETA need to have every roadblock in their way. Despite what they may have started as or what their charters say PETA like the Sierra club are merely marxist front groups these days.

Classic slide thread Jew CREW.

While polluting the water is certainly bad, the GOP has to be funded somehow. With all the Jews and big tech companies funding the Dems the GOP has to pander to energy companies or the dosh would simply dry up.

We don't need "new drugs". Drugs are bad.

Its not even that, the article states that the republican reasoning behind this is the shwlving of the regulatory burdens to the state. And seeing that each state have to deal with diferent corcustances, a stiuation that allows regulations to be tailored for each state is a better solution, a federal regulation about stream contamination cna have a different effect on texas than it will on california, removing the blanketing regulations will allow a more flexible response to issues surrounding coal.

Sorry, just waking up.

...

Humanization of animals is degenerate.

These tbh, the EPA is basically on a mission to make rural life illegal, take a look at Agenda 2030 to see their end game. These alphabet soup departments are full of unelected radical leftists who can't be fired and use their department to push leftist policies on everyone.

archive.is/VuJIB

???

"Once an unelected bureaucrat unfairly adds these folks to the federal background check system, they are no longer able to exercise their Second Amendment right," he said.

"These are not people just having a bad day," Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., said. "These are not people simply suffering from depression or anxiety or agoraphobia. These are people with a severe mental illness who can't hold any kind of job or make any decisions about their affairs, so the law says very clearly they shouldn't have a firearm."