In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
Sen. Bernie Sanders isn’t afraid to be called a socialist. In fact, the Vermont Independent proudly labels himself a Democratic socialist.
“Do you hear me cringing? Do you hear me running under the table?” Sanders said rhetorically when asked if Democratic socialist is an accurate description.
Sanders is so delighted with his brand of politics that he said in an interview with “The Fine Print” that it would be a “damn good platform” on which to run for president.
"If the American people understand what goes on in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and other countries, they will say, ‘Whoa, I didn't know that!’” Sanders said, pointing out that health care is considered a right, “R-I-G-H-T,” among even the most conservative politicians in Denmark.
Sanders described his credo as a fight to protect America’s working class from what he sees as the threat of an approaching “oligarchic form of society.”
“You have today in America more income and wealth inequality than any time in this country since 1928 and more than any major country in the world,” Sanders said. “So, you got the top one percent owning 38 percent of the wealth in America. Do you know what the bottom 60 percent own? 2.3 percent.”
“You know what that is?" he said. "That's called oligarchy."
Though Sanders isn’t making any secret of his possible 2016 presidential bid, he said he’s still determining whether he could generate a sufficient level of grassroots support on which to build a campaign.
On August 12 2014 05:43 Wolfstan wrote: I am hoping you guys do away with the populist candidates. A pro business leaning president is exactly what the doctor ordered.
We could use a pro-business Congress as well.
A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress...
...what...?
Small and big businesses want all sorts of regulations passed. Or removed. Or modified. And mind you, the two have very different interests in many ways. Big businesses have no real problem with onerous reporting regulations, whereas small business gets hit disproportionately. In taxation and other issues they also differ. And remember, even "big business" is hardly monolithic. Oil and tech companies tend to have very different visions about what society should look like.
Business has more resources to engineer ways around existing regulations than individuals, and "big business" even more. Especially the way the bureaucracy is laid out, where there is significant burden on poor individuals to fully utilize their potential benefits.
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
Please tell me you used the word bridge and Christie intentionally . I think Christie is too scarred politically now though.
On August 12 2014 08:49 Introvert wrote: This is another page to bookmark to compare to what actually happens in 2016.
Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race.
Ill take the other side of that bet. Obama's election engineers seemed to have mastered the art of voter turnout for presidential elections.
I'll take it. You bring up a good point, but I think that by the time November 2016 comes about, everyone will have had quite enough. I hope.
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
I'm not convinced Jeb will be the nominee either, but it can be hard to say. With Christie's stock damaged, he may just jump in- and who knows after that?
It will be interesting to see how Rand does with the establishment. He's established his credentials as a conservative, but he does (and avoids doing) little things here and there that seem to indicate he's trying to avoid pulling a Ted Cruz (enraging the ones with all the money.)
WASHINGTON – The much-debated Keystone XL pipeline could produce four times more global warming pollution than the State Department calculated earlier this year, a new study concludes.
The U.S. estimates didn’t take into account that the added oil from the pipeline would drop prices by about $3 a barrel, spurring consumption that would create more pollution, the researchers said.
Outside experts not connected to the study gave it mixed reviews. The American Petroleum Institute found the study to be irrelevant because regardless of the pipeline, the tar sands will be developed and oil will be shipped by railroad if not by pipeline, spokeswoman Sabrina Fang said.
The researchers estimate that the proposed pipeline, which would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, would increase world greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
The department said this year that at most, the pipeline would increase world carbon dioxide emissions by 30 million tons.
Such emissions have been on the mind of President Barack Obama, who has said his administration would allow the pipeline to be built “only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”
The new estimates, from scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute, were published Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change. Peter Erickson, lead author, said his work implies that the pipeline could basically wipe out reductions from some potential pollution-cutting policies under discussion.
The State Department declined to comment on the research by Erickson and co-author Michael Lazarus.
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
Please tell me you used the word bridge and Christie intentionally . I think Christie is too scarred politically now though.
He's still trying. Visited Iowa not too long ago, still trying to stay afloat while everyone forgets the bridge.
On August 12 2014 05:43 Wolfstan wrote: I am hoping you guys do away with the populist candidates. A pro business leaning president is exactly what the doctor ordered.
We could use a pro-business Congress as well.
A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress...
...what...?
Small and big businesses want all sorts of regulations passed. Or removed. Or modified. And mind you, the two have very different interests in many ways. Big businesses have no real problem with onerous reporting regulations, whereas small business gets hit disproportionately. In taxation and other issues they also differ. And remember, even "big business" is hardly monolithic. Oil and tech companies tend to have very different visions about what society should look like.
Business has more resources to engineer ways around existing regulations than individuals, and "big business" even more. Especially the way the bureaucracy is laid out, where there is significant burden on poor individuals to fully utilize their potential benefits.
See, this is the problem with zero-sum thinking. Yes, legislative inaction screws the poor more than anybody else. But there is no class war between the poor and the rich. Honestly, the rich don't generally care that much about the poor (which is itself the problem). Rich people are all fighting against one another to try to get the best deal they can for whatever their personal position happens to be. Sometimes that fucks poor folks (see Hobby Lobby), but sometimes, it's really good for them (think Immigration reform). And, to put this out there, "the rich" and "business" are hardly synonymous terms.
But legislative inaction is bad for everybody, not just one side in a zero-sum game.
On August 12 2014 05:43 Wolfstan wrote: I am hoping you guys do away with the populist candidates. A pro business leaning president is exactly what the doctor ordered.
We could use a pro-business Congress as well.
A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress...
...what...?
Small and big businesses want all sorts of regulations passed. Or removed. Or modified. And mind you, the two have very different interests in many ways. Big businesses have no real problem with onerous reporting regulations, whereas small business gets hit disproportionately. In taxation and other issues they also differ. And remember, even "big business" is hardly monolithic. Oil and tech companies tend to have very different visions about what society should look like.
Business has more resources to engineer ways around existing regulations than individuals, and "big business" even more. Especially the way the bureaucracy is laid out, where there is significant burden on poor individuals to fully utilize their potential benefits.
See, this is the problem with zero-sum thinking. Yes, legislative inaction screws the poor more than anybody else. But there is no class war between the poor and the rich. Honestly, the rich don't generally care that much about the poor (which is itself the problem). Rich people are all fighting against one another to try to get the best deal they can for whatever their personal position happens to be. Sometimes that fucks poor folks (see Hobby Lobby), but sometimes, it's really good for them (think Immigration reform). And, to put this out there, "the rich" and "business" are hardly synonymous terms.
But legislative inaction is bad for everybody, not just one side in a zero-sum game.
I don't think it's a zero-sum game at all. I think it's a game of resources, which businesses simply have more of. Also, I'm talking strictly talking money here. Businesses pool resources of many individuals and economic activity, thus generally have more money available than the average person. Having access to that kind of cash and credit is something most people do not have, except for rich people. They are not synonymous all the time, but they are in this instance.
As for the things that benefit both, duh, no shit. There are also things governments do that can hurt both. We're talking about inaction though.
President Barack Obama suggested he will appoint more than one additional Supreme Court justice before he leaves office.
Speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Friday in Massachusetts, Obama said Democrats need to maintain control of the Senate because a faction of the Republican Party only thinks in terms of ideology and power. He hinted that the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court may hang in the balance.
“That's why I need a Democratic Senate," Obama said. "Not to mention the fact that we're going to have Supreme Court appointments and there are going to be a whole host of issues that many people care about that are going to be determined by whether or not Democrats control the Senate.”
Obama’s comments came as polls show Republicans likely to take control of the Senate after November's elections.
There have been calls for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81, to step down so that Obama can appoint another justice before he leaves office, but Ginsburg recently dismissed those suggestions. Ginsburg is the oldest justice, followed by Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who are both 78 and were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
What a bizarre and vaguely ominous way to start the article. It seems clear to me in the details that he's making a political statement, the kind of thing where he'll say whatever it takes to fire up the base and juice up Democrats to vote. But Obama doesn't control the timing of Supreme Court retirements, unless he's planning to drone strike Scalia and Kennedy...
Yeah, if you follow the thread to the base that statement has nothing at all to do with what actually happened.
Basically, Obama said he'd like to have democrats in control of the senate (duh). And then mentions that there will be appointments to the supreme court. And somehow that leads to "President Barack Obama suggested he will appoint more than one additional Supreme Court justice before he leaves office."
Comcast and Time Warner Cable are sponsoring a dinner honoring FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn at a time when the agency is weighing whether to approve a multibillion-dollar merger between the two companies.
Comcast will pay $110,000 to be a top-level “presenting sponsor” at the Walter Kaitz Foundation’s annual dinner in September, at which Clyburn is receiving the “diversity advocate” award, according to a foundation spokeswoman. Time Warner Cable paid $22,000 in May to the foundation for the same event, according to a Senate lobbying disclosure filed at the end of last month. The foundation supports diversity in the cable industry.
There are no rules preventing businesses from helping to honor regulators in this way, and both companies say they have supported the foundation for years.
But one watchdog is pointing out the appearance of a conflict.
“I think that the timing is curious,” said Carrie Levine, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which noted the corporate sponsorships in a blog post Monday. “They’re honoring an FCC commissioner at the exact same time they’re trying to get approval for a merger. And that doesn’t look so good.”
The contributions come as FCC and Justice Department officials review the $45 billion megadeal, which would give Comcast control of about 30 percent of U.S. pay-TV subscribers and about 40 percent of the country’s broadband market. The two firms are pitching the deal as a way to increase investment in cable and Internet technology, but public interest groups oppose the deal because they say the combined company will have too much control over the market.
On August 12 2014 08:49 Introvert wrote: This is another page to bookmark to compare to what actually happens in 2016.
Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race.
Ill take the other side of that bet. Obama's election engineers seemed to have mastered the art of voter turnout for presidential elections.
I'll take it. You bring up a good point, but I think that by the time November 2016 comes about, everyone will have had quite enough. I hope.
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
I'm not convinced Jeb will be the nominee either, but it can be hard to say. With Christie's stock damaged, he may just jump in- and who knows after that?
It will be interesting to see how Rand does with the establishment. He's established his credentials as a conservative, but he does (and avoids doing) little things here and there that seem to indicate he's trying to avoid pulling a Ted Cruz (enraging the ones with all the money.)
I think Rand has an outside chance of winning the GOP nomination, but I just can't see him winning the general election. He holds or at least has held in the past some pretty fringe positions. Being against the part of the civil rights act that desegregated lunch counters comes to mind. Barring something unexpected, I don't imagine he'll be the guy that gets the GOP establishment endorsement. He's a long shot, which is my point but it kind of seems like everybody in the GOP is a long shot right now. It's hard to imagine a Bush winning a national election and Christie's bridge scandal looks like it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. Somebody's got to win that nomination though. I'm expecting a wild race and that's the only prediction I feel comfortable making.
On August 12 2014 08:49 Introvert wrote: This is another page to bookmark to compare to what actually happens in 2016.
Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race.
Ill take the other side of that bet. Obama's election engineers seemed to have mastered the art of voter turnout for presidential elections.
I'll take it. You bring up a good point, but I think that by the time November 2016 comes about, everyone will have had quite enough. I hope.
On August 12 2014 11:06 jellyjello wrote:
On August 12 2014 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 12 2014 04:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive.
Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things
I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets).
It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election...
Jeb has zero chance at winning the GOP primary. Everyone knows the entire Bush family is a sheep in disguise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice?!
I can't believe people are putting Bachmann and the likes (phony talk show style politicians) with legitimate conservatives like Rand Paul. But, whoever wins the next presidential election, the quality of past achievements is going to be crucial. For that reason alone, I'd vote for a governor rather than someone from the Senate. I wouldn't mind Christie, although he is far from being conservative, only because he's proven that he can bridge the gap and get things done politically. Or Jindal from Louisiana, or Kasich from Ohio. Leadership from the White House is what this country needs the most right now.
I'm not convinced Jeb will be the nominee either, but it can be hard to say. With Christie's stock damaged, he may just jump in- and who knows after that?
It will be interesting to see how Rand does with the establishment. He's established his credentials as a conservative, but he does (and avoids doing) little things here and there that seem to indicate he's trying to avoid pulling a Ted Cruz (enraging the ones with all the money.)
I think Rand has an outside chance of winning the GOP nomination, but I just can't see him winning the general election. He holds or at least has held in the past some pretty fringe positions. Being against the part of the civil rights act that desegregated lunch counters comes to mind. Barring something unexpected, I don't imagine he'll be the guy that gets the GOP establishment endorsement. He's a long shot, which is my point but it kind of seems like everybody in the GOP is a long shot right now. It's hard to imagine a Bush winning a national election and Christie's bridge scandal looks like it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. Somebody's got to win that nomination though. I'm expecting a wild race and that's the only prediction I feel comfortable making.
The Bush thing would be insane, and everybody would hate a Bush v Clinton race, but he is the most moderate Republican prospect on offer. As for Christie, it's an uphill battle, but if we've all decided to ignore the *many* Clinton scandals on the grounds she was never directly implicated, I think Christie could manage the same.
On August 13 2014 05:33 DannyJ wrote: They all have hilariously damaging flaws. A Bush, a Libertarian and a sweaty fat man. It's going to be great!
If any of them even run that is...
You seen Christie lately? Down about 85 lbs. That definitely helps make him more of a contender. I am hoping to see him at the debates. Between him and Rand Paul there is a lot of calling of 'bullshit' on other candidates positions.
EPT
