Technically this isn’t a “rollback” as the regulation was never implemented. A federal judge blocked it back in October.

There is no “Waters of the US Act”. “Waters of the United States” is a legal term, and its definition was altered/clarified by the EPA under the Obama administration. No law is being repealed.

“One that could have been overcome had they run a better candidate.”

Or maybe a large portion of this country just doesn’t like Hillary.

I think it’s more likely that a Trump administration will allow the states to regulate drilling practices as they see fit, which seems to be a more appropriate way to handle it. That way New York can continue to ban fracking, Texas can go apeshit, and everyone’s happy.

Your title and first sentence don’t really jive with each other. And I don’t think anyone was arguing that spills or inadequate processes/procedures didn’t have the potential to contaminate groundwater.

That’s not how block grants work.

Hillary would have had a very difficult time trying to be a “change” candidate. She has been in DC too long and was a part of the current administration for four years. No one would have bought it.

You do realize you just described Jim Crow laws, right?

That’s not how endowments work.

Not to mention their operating expenses were massive $4.5 billion last year (Yale’s was $3.2 billion, for perspective).

I’d like to think it’s possible to care about racial injustice while at the same time not caring what Colin Kaepernick does/doesn’t do.

Maybe instead we should be teaching kindergartners if you throw a pie in someone’s face, you might get your ass whooped.

Oh. Did throwing a pie at his face fix all of that?

My assumption is this exception exists because otherwise the offense could run a play (on a down other than 4th), and if it doesn’t work as intended, draw an intentional grounding penalty and get another attempt at it.

Um, what deregulation? Did Congress shut down the FDA and not tell anyone?

Her children’s lives are certainly worth more than $15,000 a piece, I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise.

You have a point that her life has been permanently and significantly altered, but you are forgetting that Cinemark was not liable for this woman’s injuries. She turned down $30,000 from a company that was not at fault, presumably because it was not enough for her, which looks suspiciously like greed to a lot of…

I believe they are being called greedy because the one plaintiff turned down $30,000 from a company that was not liable for her injuries (which had already been established in state court), likely because she thought she could get more money. That seems to fit the definition of “greed” pretty well.

It’s anything but unrestricted. The government creates incentives for their purchase and so far the FDA has prevented any other entrants into the market. It’s literally a monopoly created by the government.