That works for American football/gridiron, doesn’t it? Since there’s no female alternative? I don’t think I’m seeing any actual NFL players here, but they’ve certainly made it to the collegiate level:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_gridiron_football_players

Not until it gets to a Circuit Court or SCOTUS, unfortunately.

Whoa. This is huge, no?

Your mistake is assuming it’s your speech they care about.

It’s sad how true that is.

😁

You laugh, but that’s exactly what they’re claiming, without a hint of irony:

“The businesses in our state, including those in manufacturing, have a proven track record of supporting North Carolina’s economic vitality and doing so responsibly. It is important that we do not hastily pass regulations without fully accounting for both the positive benefits and potential negative impacts proposed rules would have on the state and its business community.”

Yeah it’s potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn’t necessarily say it’s coating the surface of the ocean. It’s diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what’s typically seen diluted in sea water, so it’s essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.

But yes, your point is well taken that they’re facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.

Yeah it’s pretty squarely in their wheelhouse.

Does it do the following?

• the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

• the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

• in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

If so, then:

• the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this subsection.

Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

The fact that they’re leaning on the “arbitrary and capricious” argument means that they don’t have another grounded legal theory for why it’s an exceedance of EPA’s authority. They’re throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that’s going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It’s a hail mary, plain and simple.

I think both things can be correct at the same time. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of evidence to support the former argument, which means they don’t have to openly engage with the latter. The closest we got to the veil coming off was 2016, but whether or not we agree with them that the left can win elections, the fact of the matter is they generally don’t except in the most ideologically homogenous districts.

I also question whether or not we’ll ever see significant, sustained net approval of a President in the internet/social media age. Information is so decentralized and echo chambered now that there will simply never be a shortage of media describing why President ______ is bad and everyone is poor and in mortal danger.

Some more effective than others…

You simply can’t have a conversation like a human being, can you?

You can’t simply bring yourself to say, “There are policies we can champion that are more than ‘not Trump.’”? It’s a very straightforward part of human dialogue.

“Can someone give me a spoon?”

“Thank you for the spoon.”

It’s incredible how difficult it is for you to say something so innocuous.

You asked for someone to show you something. I showed it to you. Can you acknowledge it exists without changing the subject?

Again, these are policies that actually happened. So are you acknowledging that there are, in fact, policies we can champion which are more than “not Trump?”

You can acknowledge that they exist without endorsing them, and I’d prefer not to chase your divergent threads until you can directly address the response I provided to you.

It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just “not Trump”

There are always policies they run on.

So…you were wrong, then? There are policies we can champion, but you just don’t like them? Or you don’t believe they actually happened? Because many of these are in the past, which means “seeing them follow through with them” won’t work anymore.

Ok. Can we start with an acknowledgement that there are policies we can champion that are more than “not Trump”, since that’s what you asked for?

It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just “not Trump”.

Maybe an acknowledgment that there are actually policies we can champion that are more than “not Trump”, since that’s what you started with?