WH Delayed Enacting Rules/Regs until after Election

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
There are always stories about this kind of thing with every president. The "news" here was that it was "soooooo" much worse this time than previous, and that depends on these unnamed SEVEN people.
Click to expand...

It is "sooooo" much worse this time. No other POTUS delayed regulations on a signature piece of legislation that affected such a vast number of voting citizens.

He/they purposely withheld knowing they would not be re elected if the truth was out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
You don't find it odd that a GOP-aligned newspaper writes a story claiming to have talked to SEVEN former administration officials about this, not one of whom they name, but they talked to plenty of former Bush people who said that whatever it is they were told, its worse under Obama than Bush?

Come on. Grow up.

Certainly if we knew who they were you could see where they worked and when, and whether they REALLY had input or a role in such processes, not to mention the circumstances under which they left the employer they now claim to have the dirt on.

Imagine if MSNBC claimed that seven former GOP administration officials claimed to have the inside skinny on the next GOP presidential hopeful, but won't name them or give one iota of information about them or whether they were truly in a position to know what they claim to know.

You'd be at least a little skeptical.
Click to expand...

LG gonna LG

The Washington Post is a "GOP-aligned newspaper" - laughable.

Also there's this from the article

Those findings are bolstered by a new report from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent agency that advises the federal government on regulatory issues. The report is based on anonymous interviews with more than a dozen senior agency officials who worked with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which oversees the implementation of federal rules.
Click to expand...

Continue to be a troll or administration shill
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
hog88 said:
It is "sooooo" much worse this time. No other POTUS delayed regulations on a signature piece of legislation that affected such a vast number of voting citizens.

He/they purposely withheld knowing they would not be re elected if the truth was out there.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. If its that easy, let's check the claim of at least one or two of the seven.

Wait, what's that? We can't because none of them are identified so we can verify they even worked for the government agency they claimed?

Convenient.

Just another conservative media hit job on Obama that no one cares about but Fox and their usual minions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
Article says current and former. To not name one of the seven suggests either the writer is exaggerating what they are saying, or, shall we say, "interpreting" it.
Click to expand...

And again, news agencies do NOT reveal their sources. Why?

Because when administrations change sometimes the old members come back in to the new one. And when that happens, it's best not to be known as the guy that spilled the beans any chance he or she gets to the press.

Everyone knows there are leaks to the press in DC. Maybe they have the suspicion of who they are. But at the same time, no news agency is going to go all out and release said info unless they are grinding an axe.

So again, you cannot be that dumb.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
LG gonna LG

The Washington Post is a "GOP-aligned newspaper" - laughable.

Also there's this from the article



Continue to be a troll or administration shill
Click to expand...


Link to that report?

The article says the nameless, faceless, and therefore unverifiable claims they are reporting on are "bolstered" by this report. What does "bolstered" mean? What, exactly, did the report say? Did it say that there was more pre-election delay under Obama than prior administrations? Did it conclude the reasoning was political?

Or is it more likely that use of the phrase "bolstered" here is intended to give credibility to that which is INHERENTLY not credible?

Shoddy, fake, journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
blah blah blah. If its that easy, let's check the claim of at least one or two of the seven.

Wait, what's that? We can't because none of them are identified so we can verify they even worked for the government agency they claimed?

Convenient.

Just another conservative media hit job on obama that no one cares about but fox and their usual minions.
Click to expand...

lg...

Head_up_ass.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Link to that report?

The article says the nameless, faceless, and therefore unverifiable claims they are reporting on are "bolstered" by this report. What does "bolstered" mean? What, exactly, did the report say? Did it say that there was more pre-election delay under Obama than prior administrations? Did it conclude the reasoning was political?

Or is it more likely that use of the phrase "bolstered" here is intended to give credibility to that which is INHERENTLY not credible?

Shoddy, fake, journalism.
Click to expand...

The Washington Post - home of shoddy, fake journalism.

Jay Carney - giver of truth.

Makes sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
Grand Vol said:
It's always political. No matter if its GOP, DNC IND or the freaking Green Party.

It's always politics...



The same shoddy fake "journalism" that stated Christie closed down bridges for political reasons?
Click to expand...


I agree with your first comment.

As to Christie, honestly, I'm having trouble understanding the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
volinbham said:
The Washington Post - home of shoddy, fake journalism.

Jay Carney - giver of truth.

Makes sense
Click to expand...


Don't misunderstand. I am sure that this administration, like those before it, delayed all sorts of things, including administrative regs, that they thought might hurt them in the upcoming election. That's the nature of the beast since the regs are executive and he as the executive has the discretion on when to propose and implement.

What I take issue with is a "news story" saying this administration did it more, or to a further degree, than prior administration officials, in turn relying on 7 people who we don't even know where they worked or even what they said, followed by commentary from GOP officials, followed by vague claims that some other report "bolsters" this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
I agree with your first comment.

As to Christie, honestly, I'm having trouble understanding the story.
Click to expand...

Umm, what's so hard to understand? There was a road closure for a traffic study, somehow that turned into a political statement which it wasn't.

How hard is it to understand the shoddy journalism on the part of Maddow claiming things that aren't?
 
#40
#40
Grand Vol said:
Umm, what's so hard to understand? There was a road closure for a traffic study, somehow that turned into a political statement which it wasn't.

How hard is it to understand the shoddy journalism on the part of Maddow claiming things that aren't?
Click to expand...


I heard someone forced to resign over it. Whats that about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Link to that report?

The article says the nameless, faceless, and therefore unverifiable claims they are reporting on are "bolstered" by this report. What does "bolstered" mean? What, exactly, did the report say? Did it say that there was more pre-election delay under Obama than prior administrations? Did it conclude the reasoning was political?

Or is it more likely that use of the phrase "bolstered" here is intended to give credibility to that which is INHERENTLY not credible?

Shoddy, fake, journalism.
Click to expand...

LOL! You've gone from being mildly annoying to three stooge-esque funny.

LG: An attorney from Florida who can sniff out racism from the most mundane of thoughts and/or word combinations, yet in an instant can dismiss a credible report if it makes Obama look like a jackass.

Wipe your chin, bud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#44
#44
DC_Vol said:
LOL! You've gone from being mildly annoying to three stooge-esque funny.

LG: An attorney from Florida who can sniff out racism from the most mundane of thoughts and/or word combinations, yet in an instant can dismiss a credible report if it makes Obama look like a jackass.

Wipe your chin, bud.
Click to expand...

I bet his closing arguments are comedic gold.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top