Elerond

They were only nation that did their revolution right way, as they first wrote constitution to give people rights and after that they elected new government, which had work in confines of new constitution.

My understanding is that Critical role cast voices some of the companions and addition to that they made voice sets for player made characters using voices that they made for their characters in CC's campaign one. I would note that they all are professional and talented voice actors that are cable to do multiple different and distinct voices and they often voice multiple characters in games which they are involved.

I don't know about that, as in Finland you (a civilian) can buy anything from small caliber pistols and rifles to rpgs, large caliber cannons and howitzers if you have reasonable reason to own such weapon (like filming war movie, weapon collecting voluntary reserve schooling in case of big guns). There are 1.6 million legal owned fire arms in Finland (about 30% of adult population owns a firearm). Between 2003-2011, 17% (185) of all homicides (1091), were committed with firearm (41% of the cases knife or some other edged weapon was used, in 23% of cases no weapon of any sort was used), from which half are legally bought and owned. Big sunk of illegally owned firearms were originally legally bought but have changed hands without doing proper paper work, but also lot of firearms used in homicides have been either stolen or borrowed from their legal owners. In robberies using of firearm is less frequent phenomenon than in homicides, as firearm is used only in 6.3% of robberies. Meaning that it is difficult to say if gun regulations prevent law binding citizens from owning a firearm and how much said regulations effect on crime rates. Wonder what kind of reasons they get for someone wanting an RPG. I know only two people who have got permit to by RPG, one is military officer who run voluntary reserve schooling camps on his free time and he got permission to buy aging rpg's from military to teach people in reserve how to shoot with one. Second one is prob manager on who acquires military probs for move productions, he got permission to buy a rpg for documentary film that wanted to show what kind destruction it does. I think that it depends how you count it. If you count only people who are primary owners of firearms you get 12%, if you count people who have permission to use those weapons then you get that 30%. Because it is often easier to register family's hunting rifle's for example under one person and register other family members co-users of those rifles. As it lets you buy hunting rifles for your kids and they don't need to worry about notify police about their holding location when they move out from their home to go university for example and they can still go to hunt hunting seasons if they want. Also shooting clubs sometimes are registered owners of their members guns because those members don't want to have gun safe in their homes, which means that on paper gun range owner is marked owner of their guns, even though they are really just provide storage for those guns. Such arrangement is done because registered gun owner needs to be able to let police see the gun if any time they ask, which means that if registered owner would like to store their gun on gun range they would need to have access both gun range and gun safe there 24/7. They carry Nephropathia epidemica aka vole fever as it is called here. Which is not very deadly disease as only 0.08% of people who get die, but as about 1700 people get it every year, death toll eventually rises.

I don't know about that, as in Finland you (a civilian) can buy anything from small caliber pistols and rifles to rpgs, large caliber cannons and howitzers if you have reasonable reason to own such weapon (like filming war movie, weapon collecting voluntary reserve schooling in case of big guns). There are 1.6 million legal owned fire arms in Finland (about 30% of adult population owns a firearm). Between 2003-2011, 17% (185) of all homicides (1091), were committed with firearm (41% of the cases knife or some other edged weapon was used, in 23% of cases no weapon of any sort was used), from which half are legally bought and owned. Big sunk of illegally owned firearms were originally legally bought but have changed hands without doing proper paper work, but also lot of firearms used in homicides have been either stolen or borrowed from their legal owners. In robberies using of firearm is less frequent phenomenon than in homicides, as firearm is used only in 6.3% of robberies. Meaning that it is difficult to say if gun regulations prevent law binding citizens from owning a firearm and how much said regulations effect on crime rates.

They will most likely just close company's accounts and cancel all the store credit cards that they have issued to company's customers, which will cause quite lot problems for the company

Thoughts? Seems weird to be coming down from a bank, on the other hand some banks give you a gun when opening an account. Policy-wise, I think it's fine. I'm all for tighter gun restrictions. Banks have put similar restrictions for example for porn and legal gambling quite lot. And sometimes they are just jerks and close accounts, without giving any reason or warning, for businesses involved in mentioned industries. Usually banks target industries that aren't seen favorably by society.

Threatening to fire or firing people who are tasked to investigate him

Video clip of Fox news' development in issue of talking with North Korea https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/974450928714747906

Hong Kong is currently autonomous state of China with lots of privileges that other part of China do not have and Chinese can't actually freelly move to Hong Kong, which is why there are people in China's political leadership that want to end that and assimilate to be same as other parts of China. But because of those privileges and Hong Kong's history being British territory there are lots of western companies in Hong Kong and they don't want see Hong Kong's status to change which is why our governments have been opposed China's actions to take Hong Kong's autonomy and privileges away. Yeah Japan has materials, facilities and know how to produce nuclear weapon in very short period of time, they may actually even have nukes even though they claim opposite, same fashion as Israel.

Interesting discussing. I dont think China will conquer Japan you greatly underestimate Japan. Japan dont even need USA to defend vs China. Australia would likely make their BETA military alliance with Japan to full military alliance if China will harass them. Australia is not a poor country. I am sure they can increase the military budget if the demand rises and Japan is constantly increasing military budget already. Hong Kong? Their autonomy is already taken away step by step and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to start a war with China and nobody wants to attack China based on whatever happens in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is doomed anyway its fate is sealed and it is doomed. Taiwan? Taiwan is an interesting chapter. History goes that communists stayed in mainland and nationalists moved to Taiwan. Taiwan has been very stubborn in resisting main land China. Regarding Taiwan future I find it very hard to predict for some reason don't know why Taiwan seems to do better then say Hong Kong with China mainland authorities. Taiwan is so much resisting so I would not sign out the possibility of civil war Taiwan vs mainland. I think they mainly try diplomacy. If China tries to take Taiwan by force there will be war and Taiwan hates China: Yes China can go have their wargames with Taiwan that would result in massive military casualties to China mainland and a destroyed Taiwan not a great way to improve China economy and in the aftermath there can be lingering guerilla warfare with terror attacks from pissed of Taiwanese people who have lost the war. Who speak about China conquering Japan? China has now for quite long time wanted to build military bases closer to Japan in order to have more military threat towards them. If you think that Taiwanese or Japanese hate China that is quite mild comparison to hate which lots of Chinese feel towards Japan, because of what Japanese did for Chinese in WW2. It is historical issue that still causes lots of disputes between China and Japan. If you look Finnish attitudes towards Russians and then increase disdain/hate by ten folds you may get picture of how lots of Chinese feels about Japanese. In war between Japan and China, China would eventually win because of it fast larger resources (over 10x more people, much more natural resources, much more factories and other production facilities, larger capacity to produce ships, air planes and missiles. And not vulnerable to total aerial and naval blockade), but if China actually tried to conquer Japan, that war would end in usage of nuclear weapons which would make whole thing pointless. So there is quite low change that such war will ever happen in any other form than in form of a cold war. In war between China and Taiwan, China would most likely just blockade Taiwan and force it surrender by bombarding it if outside forces don't come to help Taiwan. China lets currently Taiwan keep its partially recognized state (Taiwan isn't currently fully independent country because China claims sovereignty over, which makes diplomatic relations with Taiwan quite complicated, which is why only 20 countries actually recognize Taiwan as country) because they don't want jeopardize their trade and other agreements with other countries, but that attitude would change if USA broke one of those agreements for example by attacking to NK. Also Taiwan's stubbornness to resist China isn't necessary in magnitudes that you think, because there are big sunk of Taiwanese who actually want Taiwan to become part of China (20-30% in polls but under actual military threat it could rise or lower somewhat). Yeah, China taking over by force Taiwan and Honk Kong and other territories it wants would hurt its economy and foreign relationships, which is why they have not done so, but even though economy is big factor in political decision it isn't only one, which is why we even talk about USA's possible strike/war with NK. Or why we, rest of EU and USA have several kinds of sanctions towards Russia. Why we have trade restrictions towards China and lots of other countries which human rights situations we don't approve. Meaning that you should not underestimate China's willingness to hurt their economy in order to forward their other political/ideological ambitions.

China is worlds 3rd biggest military power after USA the first and Russia second. Japan do not want to threaten only NK. Japan wants to threaten China so they have said. Japan has done military alliance with Australia... Japan is the country that is most growing in military power currently in the region. China do not want war with USA to much to loose in that war. In addition if China and USA would start full nuclear war against each other that would be the end of mankind. But would USA declare war to China, if China takes away Taiwan's and Hong Kong's autonomies and taking direct control over lots of world's electronic manufacturing or if China takes over Senkaku Islands and builds their military base there in order to make it easier to strike to Japan there, or if China increases their naval power South China sea and so on? And what would Australia do if China threatens to block their imports and exports? Meaning that China and USA don't need to go in full on war in order to have fight over things that effect big economical and political impacts.

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks. It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo. So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day. edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything. Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points, from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. Here is what I think you go wrong and you are from Finland like me so I don't consider you an super expert, not saying I am super expert but I was curious about USA people thoughts on the matter. China would not attack USA if USA attacks North Korea. There is risk of China envolment of course if whole region erupts into chaos Japan currently even have a valid more or less military alliance with Australia and that military alliance is pretty much against China. Japan really hates China and Japan has steadily grown as military power in recent years. If China attacks USA we pretty much have a hornet nest World War 3 on horizon. Look I have played Battlefield 3 and was thinking of maybe buying cheaply Battlefield 4 that is USA war against China and Russia. I tell you what if China attacks USA on basis that USA attack Northkorea then Japan and Australia will support USA they hate very much China. China best interest in conflict USA vs NorthKorea is to stay out of the military action. Best response it is pretty much about Trump what he decides also if he decides war there will be war and I don't believe one minute China will declare war on USA if USA attacks NorthKorea and don't accidentally attack China forces. If you realistically want to eperience USA vs China war then you can buy Battlefield 4 computer game. China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so. Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks. It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo. So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day. edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything. Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points, from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is.

Probably why you're on the outside, I guess. But really they should just up and leave Atlanta, might as well complete the overreaction circle and Hartsfield isn't that great an airport. Wonder if the people in Georgia would wonder why their state decided this was something worth leaning on a private company for....but then again it is the South. Georgia was already in it way to remove said fuel tax credit, so this is case where Delta took easy PR points by removing discount that nobody really used and Georgia's legislature tried score PR points by supporting NRA by promising action that they already decided to do, which may backfire against them as now other states' legislatures have opportunity to score cheap PR points by promising relatively cheap tax initiative for Delta and massive PR victory if Delta actually decides to move.

Pretty much, this cop was old though so maybe he's not like the guys that think all cops need shaven skulls and raybans While I honestly would like to think I would, maybe not - is amazing how a second's hesitation can end up with a minute's inaction. Pretty sure everyone would want to be the hero that saves people's lives - though you're not going to save everyone as you're reacting to gunfire. And when you consider that incident lasted only six minutes, there really is no time for inaction if you want to try prevent them.

There's already a number of schools throughout the nation that have police officers working most or all of their day there. A complete waste of taxpayer money at the very least in most cases, but these folks are very well paid, and generally have very cushy jobs. They occasionally get off their butt to taze a kid or two who might have mouthed off to them, but other than that they sit around a lot. One such school is my old high school. Fortunately for me, I went there before the police state era and the likes of 'no child left behind / communism core' insanity thoroughly engulfed the school. The extreme reaction to school shootings have been around a long time, since the post Columbine era. Parkland for example was one of those schools that had police officer working there all day, and then when it come to time to stop bad guy with gun he decided not to risk his life to prevent said bad guy from killing students he was there to protect. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/22/armed-sheriffs-deputy-stayed-outside-florida-school-while-mass-killing-took-place/?utm_term=.6fc6f24f40aa Armed sheriff's deputy stayed outside Florida school while mass killing took place FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The armed school resource officer assigned to protect students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School took a defensive position outside the school and did not enter the building while the shooter was killing students and teachers inside with an AR-15 assault-style rifle, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Thursday. Israel said he suspended School Resource Deputy Scot Peterson on Thursday after seeing a video from the Parkland, Fla., school that showed Peterson outside the school building where the shooter was inside and attacking. “What I saw was a deputy arrive at the west side of Building 12, take up a position, and never went in,” Israel said. He said Peterson was armed, and was in uniform, and should have gone into the building during the 6-minute event, which left 17 people, most of them teenagers, dead. When asked what the deputy should have done, Israel said: “Went in and addressed the killer. Killed the killer.” Peterson, 54, a resource officer at the school since 2009, resigned after Israel suspended him. Israel said two other officers have been placed on a restricted assignment pending an internal investigation relating the school shooting. They could have done more, they should have done more,” Israel said. “It’s a fluid investigation. They are on restrictive duty.” Attempts to reach Peterson on Thursday were unsuccessful. Paperwork released by the sheriff’s office showed that Peterson, hired in July 1985, signed his retirement paperwork on Thursday afternoon. Israel said that Peterson was in an office dealing with a school-related issue when the first shots were fired on Feb. 14 and that he got on his radio and then moved toward the outside of the building where the shooting was taking place. When asked what he is seen doing on the video, Israel replied: “Nothing.” “I think he took up a position where it looked like he could see the western-most entry into the building and stayed where he was,” Israel said. “Never went in.” Israel said he “clearly” knew there was a shooter inside, something that made him “sick to my stomach.” “There are no words,” Israel said. “These families lost their children. We lost coaches. I’ve been to the funerals. I’ve been to the homes where they’re sitting shiva. I’ve been to the vigils. It’s just, there are no words.” The revelation about the deputy comes as law enforcement officials and authorities have faced intense criticism for whether they missed previous chances to prevent the massacre. The FBI was warned last month about the alleged shooter’s potential for violence at a school, but failed to investigate that tip, while school officials, social services investigators and the sheriff’s office had multiple encounters or troubling warnings about him over the years. Israel’s description of Peterson as an armed, trained officer who was present for a mass killing but did not confront the shooter also comes as President Trump, in response to the Parkland massacre, has suggested arming teachers as a way to deter possible threats, while the National Rifle Association has also pushed for more armed guards in schools. Trump has frequently suggested in response to mass shootings that more law-abiding people with firearms could help stop a shooter and the head of the NRA has repeatedly suggested the same. However, Israel’s announcement Thursday suggested that even if a person is armed, trained and available to help, that may not stop a mass killing that unfolds in a matter of minutes. The deputy’s decision to remain outside breaks with police tactics for responding to active-shooting incidents. Ever since the 1999 attack at Colorado’s Columbine High School, authorities have emphasized the importance of pursuing the attacker or attackers quickly in an effort to eliminate the threat and prevent additional deaths. “Columbine resulted in new approaches in which patrol officers are being trained to respond to active shooters as quickly as possible,” the Police Executive Research Forum, a think tank backed by major-cities chiefs, wrote in a 2014 report. Of course, this approach brings with it inherent issues, the report continued, because “a faster response is more dangerous to responding officers. Patrol officers who quickly move to confront an active shooter face a high likelihood of being shot themselves.” Officers involved in responding to these shootings have later described the terror they felt. A report released by the Justice Department after the San Bernardino, Calif., terror attack quoted an officer who described checking room after room in the conference center where the shooting occurred, expecting to find the shooters behind the final doors. “I don’t want to say I made peace, but I was ready to go,” the officer said. “We got into one room, and it was empty. We had a quick breath, and in we went to the last room. I was never so excited to not see anybody.” Reviews like that Justice Department study are regularly conducted after mass shootings, allowing officials to study how officers responded in order to determine what others can improve upon. Following the shooting rampages at the Washington Navy Yard, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and the Virginia Tech campus, authorities reviewed what they did and sought ways to improve future responses. Peterson is mentioned as part of a 2016 social services agency investigation into Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old identified by police as the gunman. According to a Florida Department of Children and Families report detailing that investigation, Peterson was approached by investigators and “refused to share any information … regarding [an] incident that took place with” the teenager. That same year, the sheriff’s office revealed Thursday, it was told about “third hand information” from a “neighbor’s son” suggesting that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school,” although the specific school was not listed. The sheriff’s office said a deputy contacted the caller, determined that Cruz had knives and a BB gun and sent the information to the school resource officer — presumably Peterson. It is unclear whether he investigated.

In Finland we changed our gun regulations to be morelike our car regulations after school shooting: 1. Person needs to be over 18 or over 20 in case of pistols and revolvers 2. Person needs to pass mental evaluation (which is done for majority by our military during enrollment [as we have compulsory military service]) and get green light from interviewing police officer who handles their gun permit case 3. People whose medical records show drug abuse and other things that may interfere in person's ability to handle guns, will most likely be denied permit 4. When person seeks permit they need to state purpose for why they want to buy the gun. 5. There are five accepted purposes, hobby shooting, hunting, sport shooting, job and weapon collecting 6. In case of hobby shooting you need to show testimony from certified gun trained that you have practices shooting continuously for 2 years (if you served in military during that time half of your service time is counted). In case of hunting you need to show testimony from your hunting club that you have actively participated in type of hunting where such gun is needed. In case of job you need to show certificate that you now how to handle gun and testimony from your employer that job requires a gun. In case of collecting weapons you need weapon collector permit (which is its own quite lengthy process to acquire). 7. Gun which you seek permit needs to be suitable to purpose which you seek it, meaning that its caliber, ammunition capacity or other features can't be such that it has unnecessary firepower or is too effective in stated purpose. 8. Person seeking gun permit needs to have storage space for the gun/s which police has accepted to be suitable for storing guns or parts of guns which you seek permit.

My understanding is that THQ Nordic is just Nordic with a name change, not the old THQ. I'd be surprised if they had any of the management of THQ on staff, honestly. Yup, Nordic Games just changed its name to THQ Nordic as they believe that it increases their brand recognition

Most likely there are republicans who are happy about this turn of the events, but members of GOP in congress and Trump have parroted narrative about how stock market growth shows what economy growing under their leadership and for said narrative big stock market drops isn't best turn of the events.

4% drop is clear indication that investors don't believe that current economic measures will bring growth at least on short-term view, so they are shorting stocks. Which is not best development for Trump and GOP who marketed their tax cuts to bring economical growth, as markets are betting opposite effect, even though stocks it is probable that stock will soon turn back to growth after prices have drop enough for shorters to start buy stocks again, such drop will most likely reflect badly on GOP's claims about economical growth which isn't necessary thing that you want to happen during election year.

Funny thing is that if you compare NASA's study and Australian's study, it is NASA's study that gives worse prediction about global warming, because both studies seek does melting of Antarctica's ice contribute in sea level rise which both studies acknowledge to happen, which mean that NASA's study which says that Antarctica's is currently increasing which means that it should lower sea level (0.23 mm according to the study), but as sea level actually rose during study's time frame it means that water has to come somewhere else than Antarctica, which means that other glaciers has lost much more mass than predicted and as most of those glacier are much closer populous areas it means that global warming effect on those areas has been worse than predicted (in IPCC report).

The Hill is news paper, owned by registered republicans

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-growth-east-antarctic-ice-sheet.html Scientists have known for over a decade that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing mass and contributing to sea level rise. Its eastern neighbour is, however, ten times larger and has the potential to raise global sea level by some 50 metres. Despite its huge size and importance, conflicting results have been published on the recent behaviour of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. A study led by a group of NASA scientists, that was published in 2015, suggested that this part of Antarctica was gaining so much mass that it compensated for the losses in the west. Determining what the largest ice sheet on the planet is doing is vital for our understanding of the factors that are influencing present day, and future, sea level rise. To address this question, a team of scientists led by the University of Bristol and including the University of Wollongong, Australia have studied the problem by combining different satellite observations within a statistical model that is able to separate the processes related to ice mass changes over the continent. Professor Jonathan Bamber from the Bristol Glaciology Centre which is part of the School of Geographical Sciences, said: "We used similar data sets to the NASA team but added other satellite data from a mission called the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) to help solve for mass gains and losses. "We then conducted different experiments, using similar assumptions made in the NASA study but found that in every experiment, mass loss from the west always exceeded gains in the east." The researchers concluded that over the study period, 2003-2013, Antarctica, as a whole, has been contributing to sea level rise and that the gains in East Antarctica were around three times smaller than suggested in the 2015 study. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-growth-east-antarctic-ice-sheet.html#jCp

I thought that EPA was initialism of Environmental Protection Agency, but it seems that it more of Executive Priorities Agency http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/371190-records-show-epa-chiefs-role-in-removing-climate-web-pages Records show EPA chief’s role in removing climate web pages Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt was personally involved in the process to remove sections on climate change from the agency’s website, records obtained by a green group show. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said the records it obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show a high degree of involvement by Pruitt in the April process of removing climate sections and replacing several of them with a section on President Trump’s executive order to roll back the Clean Power Plan. Environmentalists have been highly critical of the EPA’s decision to remove the pages, some of which still haven’t been replaced and instead forward to a page about the removal process. In one April email to colleagues in the EPA’s communications office, Lincoln Ferguson, an adviser to Pruitt, asks how close they are to removing and replacing the Clean Power Plan section. “The Administrator would like it to go up ASAP. He also has several other changes that need to take place,” Ferguson wrote. J.P. Freire, then the head of communications, responded, “You can tell him we ... are just finishing up.” Ferguson then asked if the change could happen that day: “Just asking because he is asking.” In another email change, Susan Fagan in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Information asks another staffer if people searching for the Clean Power Plan can be directed to the section on Trump’s climate executive order, which the staffer obliged. The EDF said the records further prove the danger in hiding the climate information from the public. “Obscuring information thwarts meaningful public participation in EPA’s work to protect Americans’ health and safety,” Ben Levitan, an EDF attorney, said in a statement. “It reinforces serious concerns that Pruitt has predetermined that he will repeal the Clean Power Plan, and that the current rulemaking process is a sham.” EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the changes and said that the old information is still available to the public. “We are constantly updating our website to reflect new initiatives and projects of the agency,” he said. “Of course the site will be reflective of the current administration’s priorities — with that said, all the content from the previous administration is still easily accessible and publicly available-through the banner across the top of our website: www.epa.gov.”

We had presidential elections today here (current president was elected for another term ), only interesting thing in results was that people rejected only Nato supporting candidate who got less than 2% of votes.