She makes some obvious points about life in West Virginia. She has no chance of beating entrenched big-money Democrat Joe Manchin in the Senate primary. However she may help drive the discussion towards some of these issues by entering the primary.
You explained nothing, you ignored the actual EPA findings that Pruitt the oil lobbyist ignored. You are making the same arguments that every rubber barron has made for centuries, fuck the local media commentary, they are all paid for by the very corrupt swamp.
Either you can read in-depth factual information or stick to political talking points from biased individuals... and remain ignorant. You have regularly selected to remain ignorant. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance.
It is amusing "The Young Turks" fantasize that Democrat Joe Manchin is going to lose the Senate primary to this woman who has raised under $50K in campaign donations against the Senator who has over $ Million cash on hand. It simply serves once again to demonstrate how disconnected "The Young Turks" are from reality. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2018&id=WVS1
Amusing... urging you read commentary form our former Democratic governor, the left-leaning News & Observer, and liberal WRAL news outlets on the EPA actions in North Carolina -- somehow this is equated with spewing corporate talking points -- without you even reading a single one of them. Let me give you some help - a good number of the articles probably agree with your perspective. However many of these articles provide in-depth information completely covering the issues rather than just your biased political talking points which are factually incorrect. Well... Ignorance is bliss.
inb4 sanctions for going against Trump https://www.motherjones.com/environ...m-an-epa-ban-now-corteva-will-stop-making-it/ Trump Rescued a Nasty Pesticide from an EPA Ban. Now Corteva Will Stop Making It. “This is a victory for our kids, farmworkers and rural communities nationwide.” Back in 2017, in the early days of the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected a proposal by its own scientists to ban chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide suspected of causing to lower birth weights, lower IQs, attention deficit disorder and other developmental issues in children. The decision generated outrage and inspired several states—Hawaii, New York, and most recently, California—to ban it. On Thursday, the pesticide’s top US supplier, Corteva announced it would stop making the chemical. “Due to this reduced demand, Corteva has made the strategic business decision to phase out our production of chlorpyrifos in 2020,” the company said in a statement. The decision marks quite a reversal from the company’s push to keep chlorpyrifos on the market, detailed by this Union of Concerned Scientists’ report. Corteva’s corporate predecessor, Dow, cultivated a chummy relationship with the Trump administration, as I laid out here: The company contributed $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee, the Center for Public Integrity notes. In December, Dow Chemical Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris attended a post-election Trump rally in the company’s home state of Michigan, and used the occasion to announce plans to create 100 new jobs and bring back another 100 more from foreign subsidiaries. Around the same time, Trump named Liveris chair of the American Manufacturing Council, declaring the chemical exec would “find ways to bring industry back to America.” (Dow has another reason beside chlorpyrifos’ fate to get chummy with Trump: its pending mega-merger with erstwhile rival DuPont, which still has to clear Trump’s Department of Justice.) The Trump administration ultimately blessed the Dow-DuPont merger; Corteva was spun out of the combined company in 2018 as a standalone seed-pesticide firm. Corteva’s decision to halt pesticide sales came on the same day that California’s ban on the chemical took effect. Generic versions will still be available to farmers in states where it’s not banned. But its abandonment by its biggest marketer and champion will make the pesticide harder to come by, and could ultimately spell its demise, said Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “This is a victory for our kids, farmworkers and rural communities nationwide,” she said. “After years of pressure and increasing public concern, the end of chlorpyrifos is finally in sight.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf EPA asked to justify proposal to limit power of its science advisers An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to limit what information is provided to its independent Science Advisory Board (SAB) is raising alarm bells with lawmakers, spurring a large information request from the House Science Committee. A December memo from EPA staff to the board, first reported by E&E News that month, proposes centralizing power in the board’s chair, cutting SAB’s other roughly 40 members from weighing in on what EPA policies the board should review. Science Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) says it now appears that measure may have been retaliatory, as shortly after that the SAB released draft reports questioning the scientific underpinnings of four major deregulatory efforts from the agency. “I am particularly troubled by the timing of this draft memorandum as it appears to be a retaliatory reaction to recent draft SAB reports that are critical of several proposed rulemakings being promulgated by the Agency,” Johnson wrote in the letter. “I have serious questions not just about what practical effects the draft memorandum would have on the SAB’s utility to EPA and the general public, but also about its legality,” she wrote. The SAB, traditionally a team of the nation's top scientists, is asked to weigh in on the EPA’s largest proposals. It has also been a repeated target of changes under the Trump administration, first under former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who barred people from sitting on the board if they received any EPA grant funding, calling it a conflict of interest. The move blocked a number of academics from sitting on the board, skewing its composition to include more industry-affiliated scientists. Johnson said EPA’s efforts to limit decisions over what the SAB reviews to the chair are not legal. The law requires EPA to give needed decision making documents “to ‘the board’ rather than any individual designated by EPA, and authorizes ‘the board’ rather than any single member to review them,” Johnson wrote in her letter. In a January interview, SAB Chairman Michael Honeycutt told The Hill the changes from EPA put him in a difficult position. “No one person has all the expertise necessary to make that decision because EPA just deals in so many areas of science. No one person can know all that information,” Honeycutt said. He went back to EPA and pushed back against leaving decisions about what to review to just the chairman, suggesting instead those choices be made by an eight-to-10 member interdisciplinary group. The memo from EPA also states that other SAB members could still submit comments on any proposed rule not selected for review by the chairman, but those comments would be private, allowing the agency to skirt the kind of public criticism from members that was just seen in December. At the SAB’s January meeting, Honeycutt told other members of the board that the agency was pushing for a faster review of its policies, asking SAB to be more timely and efficient in returning its feedback, an area Honeycutt said could have room for improvement. Johnson’s letter says the law requires EPA to provide the SAB with any materials it needs to review a policy. “The SAB is free and independent to initiate any reviews it sees appropriate and necessary according to its own preferred timeline and scope,” she wrote. Johnson asked EPA to justify the proposal and provide a full legal analysis to back its requests by March 3. The EPA emphasized that it was a draft proposal that was circulated with SAB members. "The letter from House Science is based on a draft proposal that was circulated with SAB members in late November 2019. The purpose of the draft was to garner comment and input from the SAB on a new process for engaging the SAB on proposed rulemakings that is timely, consistent, and considers the work and expertise of the EPA’s other advisory committees," and EPA spokesperson said. "The Administrator values the input of the SAB, hence circulation of a draft memo to seek comment before implementing a new process."