EPA Destroys Water Quality Records, Deceives Archivist

[GMDino]

So much for this Administration being the best for nature..and openness...and honesty.  

https://www.citizensforethics.org/epa-destroys-water-quality-records-deceives-archivist/?fbclid=IwAR2wrtNbgVuJZaZX6ocpNai0oUC9g-BInW9SU9Sdq2r7smwl2OqK0xnip54

Quote:August 7, 2020

The Environmental Protection Agency illegally destroyed records, deceived the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) about that destruction, and falsely blamed the coronavirus pandemic to escape accountability, according to internal documents uncovered by CREW.


In late 2019, 18 boxes containing Kansas Water Quality Standards Rulemaking records from 1985-2000 were sitting on the sixth floor of an EPA building in preparation for transfer to NARA when a sprinkler head broke, soaking the boxes. EPA facilities attempted to dry the records, but due to miscommunication between facilities and the Office of Water, did not immediately restore the records. Three months later, the records were full of mold, but likely recoverable.


On March 4, 2020, the EPA Records Officer emailed NARA a request for the Emergency Destruction of Records citing that the records were a menace to the health and safety of EPA personnel after facilities management determined they were not salvageable. Under federal law, NARA must evaluate and approve requests to destroy contaminated records. Two days later, without waiting for a response from NARA, EPA destroyed the records. NARA responded on March 10, four business days after the initial request, with a set of questions to conduct a review of the records. Instead of disclosing that EPA had already destroyed documents without NARA’s permission, the EPA Records Officer sent NARA pictures of the damaged documents taken before the documents’ destruction along with answers to NARA’s questions.



Without knowledge that the documents had already been destroyed by EPA, NARA gave a preliminary response advising EPA that it would recommend the records not be destroyed. NARA also told the EPA that they had restored documents that were in worse shape than these and directed them to a vendor who could help. The EPA then appeared to string NARA along by inviting NARA to view the records in person, but claiming that given the coronavirus pandemic they did not have the PPE needed to give NARA access. Despite several requests from NARA for updates on the water damaged documents, EPA did not admit that they illegally destroyed the records. The documents obtained by CREW do not provide information on the situation’s resolution.



Transparency is fundamental for a free and open government. While it is understandable that EPA wanted to destroy the records because they viewed them as a potential hazard, NARA has rules and procedures for contaminated records that EPA should have followed. If an agency can ask for approval to destroy records that they have already destroyed, how can Americans trust their government won’t just destroy records of its own wrongdoing to cover its tracks? If recordkeeping violations are allowed to persist, and agencies are allowed to deceive the Archivist, Americans will lose access to untold amounts of critical information, whether that’s water quality records or records of Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders.

Make one wonder how many other records have been destroyed.

I really wanted to keep them a chance though!  

[bengaloo]

The EPA is a corrupt bureaucracy who cares more about their bank account than the environment, and it has been that way for a loooong time. Trump has nothing to do with that. The EPA has been doing crap like this for many many years no matter who is president. I have had to work closely with this group over the years and if people really knew what they were like, both sides would want them defunded.

[Dill]

(08-08-2020, 02:06 PM)bengaloo Wrote: The EPA is a corrupt bureaucracy who cares more about their bank account than the environment, and it has been that way for a loooong time. Trump has nothing to do with that. The EPA has been doing crap like this for many many years no matter who is president. I have had to work closely with this group over the years and if people really knew what they were like, both sides would want them defunded.

Interesting. Can you offer some examples?

Do you think we could get along fine without the EPA or some office performing its duties?

They have a bank account?

Just wondering.

[bengaloo]

(08-09-2020, 01:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. Can you offer some examples?

Do you think we could get along fine without the EPA or some office performing its duties?

They have a bank account?

Just wondering.

We would be much better off without the EPA. We could get along just fine, and even better without them gobbling up so much money with their scandals and corruption. Take the money they get and put it towards healthcare for all I care.

How many do you want? You sure you really want to go down this rabbit hole lol? Back in the late 90's I worked for a non-profit org who was cleaning up streams and monitoring pollution in streams to protect streams that hadnt been polluted yet from logging and mining sites. The EPA was horrible. They were harder to work with and much worse than the companies who were logging and mining. We got more help from mining companies than we did the EPA. They take payoffs from the companies that pollute and turn a blind eye when they get the money. You pay to play with them, just like many gov agencies. And their worst years may have been in the Obama administration actually.

Here is just a tiny little bit of sample on the EPA. There are many many more if you care to research for yourself. Dont use Google though because they purposely hide most of the real articles since they are also compromised and corrupt to the core. To find real truth that doesnt fit the leftist narrative, you'll have to use a different search engine. Funny how that works. Good luck with your findings. They do have a bank account. So do their employees lol...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-epa-idUSBRE9BH1F420131218
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/03/03/top-five-epa-transparency-scandals-during-the-obama-administration/
https://www.columbiatribune.com/article/20140809/Opinion/308099919
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#49b0657d21ad
https://drcolbert.com/shocking-emails-reveal-epa-corruption/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g36-MXLutSk
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/09/whistleblower-epa-officials-covered-toxic-fracking-emissions-years
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/epa-air-pollution-decision-threatens-public-health#.WJDjYdIrKUk
https://www.naturalnews.com/042387_EPA_corrupt_officials_money_laundering.html
https://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-OIG_NCWARN_Complaint_6-8-16.pdf
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/epa-says-it-released-3-million-gallons-of-contaminated-water-into-river

[Dill]

(08-10-2020, 09:59 AM)bengaloo Wrote: Here is just a tiny little bit of sample on the EPA. There are many many more if you care to research for yourself. Dont use Google though because they purposely hide most of the real articles since they are also compromised and corrupt to the core. To find real truth that doesnt fit the leftist narrative, you'll have to use a different search engine. Funny how that works. Good luck with your findings. They do have a bank account. So do their employees lol...

One big part of the "leftist narrative," so far as I grasp it, is that corporations run the U.S. because politicians rely on their campaign donations to get elected and re-elected. So our elected really come to represent those big donor's interests, and not the ordinary folks who elect them.

If the "leftists" are correct, then it would make sense that EPA is a special target of those corporate interests, given its potential to impose regulatory costs on many industries. That is, we might expect it to pay EPA officials to look the other way, or to challenge and dilute its regulation through control of members of Congress.

Your links, which are not hidden by Google, seem to be mostly about that sort of corruption--i.e., about how the extraction lobby and the auto industry have captured the government agency created to monitor them, bit by bit. 

Also, the FOIA requests and other complaints in your links appear to be lodged primarily either by "leftist" environmental groups like NC Warn, who want the EPA to do its job, or fronts for the Extraction Lobby and the auto industry, like Global Warming. org., whose goal, among other things, is to convince Congress and voters that auto emissions regulations are arbitrary and unfair.

From what I can tell from you links, though, the "worst years" of the EPA for the extraction industry were under Obama, who sought greater environmental protections and regulation of emissions. Trump would likely agree. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=F36C50604CDC94CA4B905E3C00E98064&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

I am puzzled that your response to lack of transparency and apparent industry capture of this agency is not to root out the corruption but to get rid of agency itself. You seem to be saying we could get along without environmental regulation altogether. You don't think more Love canals would follow, nuclear accidents, the return of acid rain?

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 11:43 AM)Dill Wrote: One big part of the "leftist narrative," so far as I grasp it, is that corporations run the U.S. because politicians rely on their campaign donations to get elected and re-elected. So our elected really come to represent those big donor's interests, and not the ordinary folks who elect them.

If the "leftists" are correct, then it would make sense that EPA is a special target of those corporate interests, given its potential to impose regulatory costs on many industries. That is, we might expect it to pay EPA officials to look the other way, or to challenge and dilute its regulation through control of members of Congress.

Your links, which are not hidden by Google, seem to be mostly about that sort of corruption--i.e., about how the extraction lobby and the auto industry have captured the government agency created to monitor them, bit by bit. 

Also, the FOIA requests and other complaints in your links appear to be lodged primarily either by "leftist" environmental groups like NC Warn, who want the EPA to do its job, or fronts for the Extraction Lobby and the auto industry, like Global Warming. org., whose goal, among other things, is to convince Congress and voters that auto emissions regulations are arbitrary and unfair.

From what I can tell from you links, though, the "worst years" of the EPA for the extraction industry were under Obama, who sought greater environmental protections and regulation of emissions. Trump would likely agree. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=F36C50604CDC94CA4B905E3C00E98064&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

I am puzzled that your response to lack of transparency and apparent industry capture of this agency is not to root out the corruption but to get rid of agency itself. You seem to be saying we could get along without environmental regulation altogether. You don't think more Love canals would follow, nuclear accidents, the return of acid rain?

Interestingly enough, that whole narrative about corporate spending isn't really true. The research doesn't support it. However, where the EPA corruption, and corruption within the government in general, really shines is in access via the revolving door. The real biggest issue with the EPA is its reliance on industries to self-regulate a lot of what they do thanks to the government really being toothless in enforcing the regulations. This has created a culture of apathy within the EPA.

This is just what I've been told by some folks I know in the agency.

[Dill]

(08-10-2020, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, that whole narrative about corporate spending isn't really true. The research doesn't support it. However, where the EPA corruption, and corruption within the government in general, really shines is in access via the revolving door. The real biggest issue with the EPA is its reliance on industries to self-regulate a lot of what they do thanks to the government really being toothless in enforcing the regulations. This has created a culture of apathy within the EPA.

This is just what I've been told by some folks I know in the agency.

Research doesn't support the claim that corporations spend billions on lobbying and campaign contributions targeting representatives who can create favorable legislation for them? Or that they do but don't get results? What research? 

What makes the EPA/government "toothless" in enforcing regulations?

Again, just wondering. Not an expert in EPA issues and history. Still, it seems like I am always reading about corporations regulated by the EPA who effectively court sympathetic Senators and Representatives with campaign money.
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/01/wheeler-spins-barrasso-in-his-revolving-door/

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Research doesn't support the claim that corporations spend billions on lobbying and campaign contributions targeting representatives who can create favorable legislation for them? Or that they do but don't get results? What research? 

The research indicates that there isn't any real correlation between campaign spending or spending on lobbying and favorable policy results.

The work of Frank Baumgartner, specifically this one, is the best source to look at. The general takeaway is that the only statistically significant thing that resulted in positive policy outcomes was having mid-to-high level government allies (that already sided with you) or having revolving door lobbyists that had previously been embedded in the system. Campaign spending is literally almost 50/50 on wins and losses.

(08-10-2020, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: What makes the EPA/government "toothless" in enforcing regulations?

This is the result of hostile policy makers that have made it difficult for the EPA to do their thing.

(08-10-2020, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, just wondering. Not an expert in EPA issues and history. Still, it seems like I am always reading about corporations regulated by the EPA who effectively court sympathetic Senators and Representatives with campaign money.
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/01/wheeler-spins-barrasso-in-his-revolving-door/

This is why the EPA has become rather toothless, but those wins aren't because of campaign spending. The revolving door is one of the biggest issues, especially because that is another issue that is supposed to be regulated but isn't.

[bengaloo]

(08-10-2020, 11:43 AM)Dill Wrote: One big part of the "leftist narrative," so far as I grasp it, is that corporations run the U.S. because politicians rely on their campaign donations to get elected and re-elected. So our elected really come to represent those big donor's interests, and not the ordinary folks who elect them.

If the "leftists" are correct, then it would make sense that EPA is a special target of those corporate interests, given its potential to impose regulatory costs on many industries. That is, we might expect it to pay EPA officials to look the other way, or to challenge and dilute its regulation through control of members of Congress.

Your links, which are not hidden by Google, seem to be mostly about that sort of corruption--i.e., about how the extraction lobby and the auto industry have captured the government agency created to monitor them, bit by bit. 

Also, the FOIA requests and other complaints in your links appear to be lodged primarily either by "leftist" environmental groups like NC Warn, who want the EPA to do its job, or fronts for the Extraction Lobby and the auto industry, like Global Warming. org., whose goal, among other things, is to convince Congress and voters that auto emissions regulations are arbitrary and unfair.

From what I can tell from you links, though, the "worst years" of the EPA for the extraction industry were under Obama, who sought greater environmental protections and regulation of emissions. Trump would likely agree. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=F36C50604CDC94CA4B905E3C00E98064&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

I am puzzled that your response to lack of transparency and apparent industry capture of this agency is not to root out the corruption but to get rid of agency itself. You seem to be saying we could get along without environmental regulation altogether. You don't think more Love canals would follow, nuclear accidents, the return of acid rain?

Actually those articles are buried by Google and much harder to find by using them. They are top results for other search engines. As are many other topics that dont fit the narrative. Dont get me wrong I was raised a democrat by life long democrats, but what is going on with news suppression is undeniable. I just cant see how anyone cant see that. Its as plain as the sun rising.

That is a small sample size. There are articles dated back to the early 80's if you really go down the rabbit hole. But for me, what I see with my own eyes is enough. Ive dealt with them, or tried to. They are just as money and power hungry as the worst of them. Most gov agencies somehow become like that though. You asked for examples and you got it. A little ny times article about orange man bad isnt changing anything for me. The NY Times has had to retract a lot of fake stories in the last handful of years. They used to be one of my fav. They should change their name to the DNC Press Club nowadays. Partisanship is killing the nation and diving people.

I supported Obama. But I'm willing to admit when someone I liked was a total fraud and failure, and willing to admit someone I didnt like is doing better than I expected. I dont tote any party line, and am largely non partisan after Obama especially. My mind is open to all of them now. I would honestly like to see Trump defund the EPA entirely. It would be a lot of money savings for a country with a lot of struggling people. Not just the EPA but the corruption within most gov agencies is so bad, without it, we could have healthcare for all and wipe everyones student loans out to boot. But sadly, too many people want to prop these agencies up and ask for MORE of it. More? More government corruption? The more power we give them, the more they take. It needs to be stopped from top to bottom and on all sides of the political aisle.

[Dill]

(08-10-2020, 01:00 PM)bengaloo Wrote: Actually those articles are buried by Google and much harder to find by using them. They are top results for other search engines. As are many other topics that dont fit the narrative. Dont get me wrong I was raised a democrat by life long democrats, but what is going on with news suppression is undeniable. I just cant see how anyone cant see that. Its as plain as the sun rising.

That is a small sample size. There are articles dated back to the early 80's if you really go down the rabbit hole. But for me, what I see with my own eyes is enough. Ive dealt with them, or tried to. They are just as money and power hungry as the worst of them. Most gov agencies somehow become like that though. You asked for examples and you got it. A little ny times article about orange man bad isnt changing anything for me. The NY Times has had to retract a lot of fake stories in the last handful of years. They used to be one of my fav. They should change their name to the DNC Press Club nowadays. Partisanship is killing the nation and diving people.

Thanks again for the response and the links. I'm not challenging the corruption charges. I am just asking why the response should be to abolish an agency whose mission is to insure clean air and water, rather than fix it. It is not a private entity like the Trump Foundation or Trump University, set up to scan the public for individual profit, but an integral part of environmental monitoring and regulation enforcement for the nation, important to "the people's business." They also clean up pollution from chemical dumps and the like. Who would do that if they were gone?

The links you sent me include groups who expose corruption because they want the EPA to work for the common good, and groups who don't want the EPA to work for the common good, because they profit from its dysfunction and impotence. One way the latter do this is by creating the dysfunction/corruption they decry in government, in part by reducing government oversight. Then as the dysfunction intensifies, they use that as an argument for still more reduction. "Government is the problem."

The "orange man bad" article doesn't appear to make any "retractable" allegations, so this is not about the NYT's credibility.Trump IS reducing environmental regulations and opening previously closed public lands to oil exploration, right? Surely that reduction will have a greater negative affect on the EPA's ability to monitor and enforce environmental regulations than Obama's attempts to enforce regulation--assuming clean air and water is the goal. It seems to me he is doing to the EPA what he did to the CDC. In addition to massively cutting personal, he has also eliminated funding for climate research. We'll see the results down the road.

(08-10-2020, 01:00 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I supported Obama. But I'm willing to admit when someone I liked was a total fraud and failure, and willing to admit someone I didnt like is doing better than I expected. I dont tote any party line, and am largely non partisan after Obama especially. My mind is open to all of them now. I would honestly like to see Trump defund the EPA entirely. It would be a lot of money savings for a country with a lot of struggling people. Not just the EPA but the corruption within most gov agencies is so bad, without it, we could have healthcare for all and wipe everyones student loans out to boot. But sadly, too many people want to prop these agencies up and ask for MORE of it. More? More government corruption? The more power we give them, the more they take. It needs to be stopped from top to bottom and on all sides of the political aisle.

This puzzles me a bit too. You introduce "fraud" as a standard which disqualifies support for a president, but see Obama as the "total" embodiment of that, while embracing the "stable genius" Trump, the deal maker who was going to make Mexico pay for a wall, denuclearize NK, and give us healthcare package much better than Obamacare.

As far as shifting the EPA's relatively meagre (8-9 billion) budget towards healthcare gains or student loan relief, I'm thinking that the same folks who want all that EPA regulation and enforcement rolled back, the same folks who have done their best to repeal or neutralize Obamacare, would convert any money saved by abolishing the EPA into tax cuts.

[GMDino]

I was reminded by another story this morning on NPR that really since the 80's some in government (Republicans) have operated under the "idea" that we have too many rules and we can just trust people to do the right thing and then we had the Savings & LOan scandal, multiple Wall Street crashes due to bad actors, the housing market collapse, etc.

There are rules for a reason:  Greedy people will take advantage of any situation to better themselves to everyone else's detriment.

The EPA is no different.  The department has done great good.  If there are those who are taking advantage and breaking rules they need to go, not the department itself.  We have seen what businesses and individuals will do to the water and air without a care except if they can save/make more money for themselves.

[bengaloo]

(08-10-2020, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks again for the response and the links. I'm not challenging the corruption charges. I am just asking why the response should be to abolish an agency whose mission is to insure clean air and water, rather than fix it. It is not a private entity like the Trump Foundation or Trump University, set up to scan the public for individual profit, but an integral part of environmental monitoring and regulation enforcement for the nation, important to "the people's business." They also clean up pollution from chemical dumps and the like. Who would do that if they were gone?

The links you sent me include groups who expose corruption because they want the EPA to work for the common good, and groups who don't want the EPA to work for the common good, because they profit from its dysfunction and impotence. One way the latter do this is by creating the dysfunction/corruption they decry in government, in part by reducing government oversight. Then as the dysfunction intensifies, they use that as an argument for still more reduction. "Government is the problem."

The "orange man bad" article doesn't appear to make any "retractable" allegations, so this is not about the NYT's credibility.Trump IS reducing environmental regulations and opening previously closed public lands to oil exploration, right? Surely that reduction will have a greater negative affect on the EPA's ability to monitor and enforce environmental regulations than Obama's attempts to enforce regulation--assuming clean air and water is the goal. It seems to me he is doing to the EPA what he did to the CDC. In addition to massively cutting personal, he has also eliminated funding for climate research. We'll see the results down the road.


This puzzles me a bit too. You introduce "fraud" as a standard which disqualifies support for a president, but see Obama as the "total" embodiment of that, while embracing the "stable genius" Trump, the deal maker who was going to make Mexico pay for a wall, denuclearize NK, and give us healthcare package much better than Obamacare.

As far as shifting the EPA's relatively meagre (8-9 billion) budget towards healthcare gains or student loan relief, I'm thinking that the same folks who want all that EPA regulation and enforcement rolled back, the same folks who have done their best to repeal or neutralize Obamacare, would convert any money saved by abolishing the EPA into tax cuts.

Honestly, environmental sciences is my background, and I really have a lot of opinions on regulation, over-regulation, defunding, etc. I will say this, we dont need the kind of regulation that most people think we do, simply because by the nature of progress, technology is progressing in a way to make things cleaner, safer, more efficient, etc, without any regulation involved. Its just what people want. The problems a lot of people deal with now are leftovers from the ways things used to be done, and largely they are not done that way anymore, EPA or not. But companies still do shady things, and I get that. The problem is, what good do regulations to if the EPA can be paid off to ignore them? Often times the fines in place are not enough to outweigh the profits made, so they are completely disregarded. The EPA did some good things in the beginning and we needed some air quality regs --but we didnt need a new agency to get it lol. I am not against, very sensible, easy to understand basic regulations, but honestly the best way to go about all of it is just with regular people. Property owners. As of now we do have property rights in America. Landowners should be the ones suing these companies, and they should be allowed to. But the gov is largely pay to play across the board. They make it too hard to do that, because they protect big business who pay them, lobby and fund their campaigns. The truth is, if a stream is polluted by a mining company,. then everyone wh lives on that stream should be able to sue that company and it should be easy. No EPA needed. The DNR, is the best choice for anything related to that stuff. They have a waaay better record at dealing with conservation and doing it from a more fair and balances position. The EPA is rampant. They are a bunch of power hungry zealots, and should be completely defunded, imo. We dont need them to have some very basic regs in place to protect the water and air. We definitely dont need a bunch of shady backdoor deals going down behind the scenes. They are robbing us of money we need worse in other areas, like healthcare for instance.

Obama lied a lot, period. So many things he ran on he went the other way once he was elected. He extended the patriot act, he even created an even worse bill called the NDAA which is a massive invasion of civil rights. He was supposed to be all about civil rights!! He went after reporters too --like Sheryl Atkinson for starters. But many others also. Obamacare sucks, plain and simple. I'm not against healthcare at all, but what he did is not sustainable. Then he handed out billions and billions of dollars to "green energy" companies and they were all out of business very shortly after. That is our hard earned tax dollars! Imagine how many poor people couldve benefited from that money? Why isnt that talked about more? And also, he was our first black president in a country where blacks only make up about 13% of the population. Why in the living heck did racial tension increase under his rule? Electing the first black president shouldve put the "America is racist" argument to bed, but instead it got 10 times worse. I listened to him. He was the most divisive president Ive ever seen or heard in my life. Ever. Trump is not even close to creating the racial division Obama did, its just the liberals are stuck and cant hear because of their hate. Obama was the real divider and it hurt our country. His economics also sucked, plain and simple. Nothing about America improved under him it just got more chaotic and worse. He was a liar and a fraud. I was all about Obama or at least the idea of him, but he turned out to be Bush version 2. Fk him. And now its coming out that he spied on Trump and tried to undermine an elected president and all of that russia garbage were just lies? I hope he goes to jail. We dont need that in this nation.

I probably want a lot of what you want. I want peace and prosperity for all. I want a good economy, safety, solid, affordable healthcare, a clean environment, etc. But more big government isnt going to get us there. Regular people are far more effective. I put my faith in the small non-profit orgs out there volunteering to clean things up. Getting the locals on board, fundraising, etc. We dont need more "authority" or more policing, etc. We need less of it, and we need people, all of us to unite and step up to the plate and do our part. Freedom only works if you actually use it. A lot of ppl however, just want to sit back on their macs at starbucks and ask for more big government control, which drains our money and opens up more doors for corruption. Get off their asses and go clean up some trash. Ive been volunteering for over 20 years. I've been featured on 4 PBS specials for that very thing and you may have even seen me on one lol. I'll tell you what, the people I see out there getting their hands dirty are the sportsman. Hunters and fisherman makeup the largest part of the folks I've worked with who are willing to get their hands dirty and open their minds to work together for a common goal. Coal mine workers. Those guys are amazing and they do care way more than they get credit for. They do way more than these environmental computer-addict zealots who have giant internet voices. That is the real truth from my eyes. Id like to see that change.

[Dill]

(08-11-2020, 12:53 PM)bengaloo Wrote: Obama lied a lot, period. So many things he ran on he went the other way once he was elected. He extended the patriot act, he even created an even worse bill called the NDAA which is a massive invasion of civil rights. He was supposed to be all about civil rights!! He went after reporters too --like Sheryl Atkinson for starters. But many others also. Obamacare sucks, plain and simple. I'm not against healthcare at all, but what he did is not sustainable. Then he handed out billions and billions of dollars to "green energy" companies and they were all out of business very shortly after. That is our hard earned tax dollars! Imagine how many poor people couldve benefited from that money? Why isnt that talked about more? And also, he was our first black president in a country where blacks only make up about 13% of the population. Why in the living heck did racial tension increase under his rule? Electing the first black president shouldve put the "America is racist" argument to bed, but instead it got 10 times worse. I listened to him. He was the most divisive president Ive ever seen or heard in my life. Ever. Trump is not even close to creating the racial division Obama did, its just the liberals are stuck and cant hear because of their hate. Obama was the real divider and it hurt our country. His economics also sucked, plain and simple. Nothing about America improved under him it just got more chaotic and worse. He was a liar and a fraud. I was all about Obama or at least the idea of him, but he turned out to be Bush version 2. Fk him. And now its coming out that he spied on Trump and tried to undermine an elected president and all of that russia garbage were just lies? I hope he goes to jail. We dont need that in this nation. 

Hey Bengaloo, sorry I am late getting back to this. It is a great post, a substantive response covering a wide range of issues I am interested in.

I'll have to respond in parts, so for the moment I just want to address your remarks on Obama. So far as I know, Atkissan's accusations were never substantiated, right? They are still just allegations. It is not clear from you post why Obamacare sucks. It still seems to me a good faith effort to improve healthcare in the US. Many can't do without it now. Many of its "bugs" stem from opposition and sabotage at the state level. 

I assume you are referring to the Solyndra scandal when you speak of billions to energy companies that went out of business. That seems like another good faith effort to jump start a green energy industry. Some gambles don't work out. O saved Chrysler, not Solyndra.

As far as putting the "America is racist" argument to bed, I think I have addressed that. No one should be surprised at "blacklash." Just because many or even most Americans no longer find race an in issue for politicians doesn't mean that all are on board now. People who were angry that we had a black president with a Muslim name--why can't they be responsible for "dividing" the country? I am still not getting an example of what you "heard" from him that sounded racially divisive. If someone asks me why I think Trump is racially divisive, I can point to statements about Mexican rapists and his current insistence on calling the COVID virus the "China virus." And many more examples, like his support for birtherism. But you say Obama was worse, so what statements or actions would you offer as evidence? Provide examples of what liberals "cannot hear."

The "economics sucked" is also not clear, as he inherited a terrible recession, but by 2010 had the country on a path of recovery, recording job growth and an expanding economy every quarter thereafter. Trump inherited this upward trend.

Finally, it is not "coming out" that Obama spied on Trump and tried to undermine an election and the "Russia garbage" was just lies. That's pretty much a narrative limited to certain news sources like Fox and OAN, and Trump, Guiliani, and Barr. For the last two years, it's been "breaking news" which never really breaks because there is no "there" there. We've had half a dozen threads on this conspiracy.