US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1396

Voters from two Northern California cities were deciding Tuesday whether to impose a tax on sugary drinks, but beverage industry groups have spent upwards of $11 million to oppose the ballot measures. Thus far, no U.S. city has managed to approve legislation taxing sweetened beverages, meaning "yes" votes in San Francisco or Berkeley would be a national first.

San Francisco’s Proposition E would impose a 2-cent per ounce tax on beverages with added sugar such as sodas and sports drinks, and Berkeley’s Measure D would impose a 1-cent per ounce tax on sugary drinks.

Both measures would exempt diet sodas, milk, non-dairy creamers, alcoholic beverages, infant formula and naturally sweetened drinks such as fruit juices.

Economist Ted Egan has told San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors that the city’s residents currently drink 3 billion ounces of sugary beverages annually, and that the tax would increase the price of each drink by 23 to 26 cents, resulting in a predicted 31 percent reduction in soda consumption.

But the American Beverage Association has been spending mightily to make sure the propositions don’t pass. The industry organization has invested $9 million on campaigns to oppose San Francisco’s measure, about $19 per eligible voter, and at least $2.1 million — or $27 per eligible voter — in opposition to Berkeley’s measure.

In San Francisco, the $35 to $53 million that Egan estimates the taxes would raise would be directed to nutrition and physical education programs through the city’s school district and the parks and recreation departments, according to the ballot measure.

On November 05 2014 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:


Why? Has any person gotten sick who was not coming from West-Africa or was involved in treating the people?

On November 05 2014 04:40 xDaunt wrote:

No one is claiming that Obama is responsible for ebola. There are people who are claiming that the federal government's response to ebola -- which Obama ultimately is in charge of -- has been idiotic.

IMMIGRATION EXPERT: OBAMA ADMIN RESPONSIBLE FOR LETTING EBOLA PATIENT INTO U.S

"This is ideology as a sport ... as the leftists blame [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry and the sequester, the right also blames Obama for spreading Ebola," Gutfeld observed. "We had somebody on this very network who said that

Ablow, a member of Fox News' "Medical A-Team," appeared on the October 14 edition of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show. He had previously written a column alleging that President Obama is not forcefully confronting Ebola and helping calm fears about the disease because he "may literally believe we should suffer along with less fortunate nations."

With him, you know, attending a church where the pastor said 'God Damn America' and the rest of it. It all fits, doesn't it? ... How can you protect a country you don't like? Why would you?"

When asked why Obama wouldn't impose a travel ban on flights from Africa, Ablow responded that Obama's "affinities, his affiliations are with them. Not us. That's what people seem unwilling to accept. He's their leader ... we don't have a president." He added: "We don't have a president who has the American people as his primary interest."

Why would you attack us? We're not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy, who has names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein. Surely you won't attack us now because we've got a shield here of a guy who, as the leader of our country says we're bad. So leave us alone. We get the message."

ABLOW (AS OBAMA'S "PSYCHE"): "You miserable people have destroyed so much in the world in terms of good things, and now you're going to build a wall? Really? To insulate yourself from things that are devastating other nations when your gains are ill-gotten? And the very fact that you can build a wall -- you're using wealth that you never should have had to build it. This is just another manifestation of you didn't build that, business. Right? You didn't build the right to make yourself immune from something that is devastating a country with lesser resources."

On November 05 2014 05:08 oneofthem wrote:
it honestly takes a lot of specialist knowledge to get a proper perspective on the politics of today, no simple solutions. most people just go with their first impressions. of course, incumbent always gets blamed for economy.

Obama’s list of second-term leadership crises is a formidable one: the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov; long waits at Veterans Affairs hospitals; Edward Snowden’s disclosures of the National Security Agency’s secrets; a pileup of foreign children along the southern border; Islamist terrorists marauding across Syria and Iraq and beheading foreigners, including Americans; and the arrival of the Ebola virus in the United States.

On November 05 2014 04:53 xDaunt wrote:

No, but that's not the point. The issue is the effective management of risk.

On November 05 2014 05:14 Doublemint wrote:


If there was something even remotely resembling an outbreak or AT LEAST some actual cases you might have a point.

It's basically distorted perception, (stupid?) people falling for an attention whore media.

//edit: But you definitely have a point with Obama being a terrible manager, and the lack of people in his camp making up for that.

On November 05 2014 05:18 xDaunt wrote:

There doesn't have to be an actual outbreak to see where the federal government has been faltering with its response to ebola. Simply looking at the inconsistencies and related problems in the local responses shows plenty regarding the lack of effective federal oversight of what is clearly a federal problem.

On November 05 2014 05:14 xDaunt wrote:

It's not like we're talking about isolated incidents of potential incompetent when it comes to Obama and his administration. Here's a laundry for the just the past two years from WashPo:



The bottom line is that there hasn't been much, if anything, that Obama has effectively managed. At some point, pointing the finger at others won't work any more, and we're probably at that point. Obama is the common denominator for many problems, which is a fact that isn't lost on people anymore.

On November 05 2014 05:53 oneofthem wrote:

i count mebbe three events that you could argue about being obama's fault. rest are just incidents.

On November 05 2014 04:53 xDaunt wrote:

No, but that's not the point. The issue is the effective management of risk.

On November 05 2014 05:18 xDaunt wrote:

There doesn't have to be an actual outbreak to see where the federal government has been faltering with its response to ebola. Simply looking at the inconsistencies and related problems in the local responses shows plenty regarding the lack of effective federal oversight of what is clearly a federal problem.

On November 05 2014 05:56 xDaunt wrote:

Sure, you could argue that some of those items are "incidents" that were not directly caused by anything that Obama did. It is much hard to argue, however, that Obama has managed those "incidents" well.

On November 05 2014 06:07 oneofthem wrote:
the handling gets blamed because of the publicity of the incidents, not particularly because of wrong handling. there are some exceptions such as the SA children episode

On November 05 2014 06:24 oneofthem wrote:
well i'm not sure if obama's prior or post ISIS policies were right, and the important part was mostly prior with the syria business, but if anything that list of incidents just highlights the eventful couple of years this administration went through.

it's like gettingi thrown into a washing machine while they are trying to paint a watercolor. there's also the whole government shutdown business that evidently didn't cost republicans much.

On November 05 2014 06:27 wei2coolman wrote:

most of the criticisms of obama's policies were pre ISIS, in regards to handling syria. But, I've always thought that was sort of silly, because the proposed policies that obama "should" have enacted would have looked fucking absurd to the general public at that time, because the threat wasn't well known.