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.
As the primary dates stand now, Cruz has a decent shot at being in the lead after March 1st.
And if Rick Perry doesn't run. Texas going on March 1st is pretty significant.
Then on March 15th.. Jeb Bush is going to winner-take-all Florida.
So whoever is the 3rd horse in the race (Walker?) has got to deal with two opponents pretty much guaranteed large chunks of delegates.
March 1st to March 15th will shake things out to a 2-person race. Then the winner will get picked at the end April. All the calendars are crazy now with some significant states up in the air but it looks like 30+ states will go before the end of April.
it's Jeb Bush worst nightmare as Cruz forces him to go further and further to the right. Same for Walker.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he didn't know what the Republican party's environmental platform is, but he does know that GOP inaction on climate change is Al Gore's fault.
"You know, when it comes to climate change being real, people of my party are all over the board," Graham said after a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations while responding to a question about whether Republicans could work with Democrats to address climate change.
"I said that it's real, that man has contributed to it in a substantial way," Graham continued. "But the problem is Al Gore's turned this thing into religion. You know, climate change is not a religious problem for me, it's an economic, it is an environmental problem."
The senator then said that Republicans do not have a clear stance on climate change, or a plan to address it.
"I think the Republican Party has to do some soul-searching. Before we can be bipartisan, we've got to figure out where we are as a party. What is the environmental platform of the Republican Party? I don't know, either," he said.
Graham, who has said before that environmental policy could be a problem for the GOP in 2016, indicated that he would like to help the party develop an environmental platform.
Interesting but obvious and disappointing for being barren of statistical analysis, the whole reason 538 exists.
IMO Cruz is the pace horse to make sure other candidates stay conservative rather than flirting to expand the base. He may also be a nice straw man for Democrats, drawing fire away from the candidate party bosses actually want and making that person seem not so bad as a conservative. It seems quite necessary in the social media age to distract like this. A long front runner will draw too many rumors and too much bad publicity.
The really interesting question is whether Democrats will play the same game with Clinton. Let her draw all the negative reporting while they prep another candidate.
Interesting but obvious and disappointing for being barren of statistical analysis, the whole reason 538 exists.
IMO Cruz is the pace horse to make sure other candidates stay conservative rather than flirting to expand the base. He may also be a nice straw man for Democrats, drawing fire away from the candidate party bosses actually want and making that person seem not so bad as a conservative. It seems quite necessary in the social media age to distract like this. A long front runner will draw too many rumors and too much bad publicity.
The really interesting question is whether Democrats will play the same game with Clinton. Let her draw all the negative reporting while they prep another candidate.
k thanks for the additional information, I don't follow these things that much. I personally don't see Clinton not winning the democrat primary unless she seriously messes up somewhere but we'll see
You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
On March 25 2015 14:36 PineapplePizza wrote: Am I the only person here confused by the choice of Clinton for the democrats? She seems incredibly uninspiring.
Considering how close Romney got to Obama in 2012, the thought of such a weak pick going up against...even these clowns...is terrifying.
the last thing I'd say about Clinton is that shes a weak pick for the dems in the draft. Shes got favored banked more then she does money. Her husband and the outgoing obama will give her credibility out the ass. Not to mention being able to pull on the history of being the first women president.
Sometimes US Pol is frustrating and full of vitriol, so why don't we all unwind with a humorous Netanyahu ad. His political strategists decided that humor was more likely to draw attention rather than 'just another political ad.'
On March 24 2015 12:08 oneofthem wrote: are you a netanyahu cheerleader now?
I'm getting there. You watch the movie and laugh, watched and not laugh, or read title and skipped it?
On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote: You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
The mystical land of europe, where cops don't put full clip into suspects, don't neglegt injured people, and where it is the law that you have to administer first aid. - how does it work?
On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote: You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
What? Not my point. I'm suggesting that cops be trained to provide first aid if possible to those that they use their weapons on.
On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote: You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
You do realize that they're capable of, you know, like, not doing that? A cop who shoots like a panicked teenager shouldn't even be allowed in the field anyway.
On March 25 2015 20:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: seems like a pretty done deal that it's gonna be clinton.. bill's popularity has never been higher has it? he's gonna win it for her I feel.
On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote: You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
What? Not my point. I'm suggesting that cops be trained to provide first aid if possible to those that they use their weapons on.
On March 25 2015 14:37 Sermokala wrote: You guys do realize that the people cops shoot are going to be dead 100% of the time? You can't treat someone whos taken a clip or more of hollowpoint rounds even if they are 9mm. (most cops are shifting to .45 caliber for stopping power now) You can't pry out a hollowpoint round they just turn into shards of burning hot metal ripping through your body.
putting them in handcuffs kicking away the gun is done for the safety of everyone else. the last thing you want is a guy on crack wildly shooting after he recovers from the initial shock but is still bleeding out. I can see a point for k9 handlers as they can probably help a lot with the excess bleeding from those dog bites but still you're absolutely mental if you except cops to treat people they shoot.
They're first responders as it is and the shit they see from that is half the reason why they're how they are today.
Guns aren't deathrays, even 9mm hollowpoints. The vast majority of gunshot victims survive. Modern medicine is amazing.
On March 25 2015 14:36 PineapplePizza wrote: Am I the only person here confused by the choice of Clinton for the democrats? She seems incredibly uninspiring.
Considering how close Romney got to Obama in 2012, the thought of such a weak pick going up against...even these clowns...is terrifying.
Yes, you are one of the only people confused. Why do you think she is weak? It's difficult to meaningfully discuss a candidate's strength so far from election day but if you want statistics then she is polling ahead of every single Republican candidate in every single poll that I have seen, many by large margins. That would make her a strong candidate by most people's definition.
On March 25 2015 14:36 PineapplePizza wrote: Am I the only person here confused by the choice of Clinton for the democrats? She seems incredibly uninspiring.
Considering how close Romney got to Obama in 2012, the thought of such a weak pick going up against...even these clowns...is terrifying.
Yes, you are one of the only people confused. Why do you think she is weak? It's difficult to meaningfully discuss a candidate's strength so far from election day but if you want statistics then she is polling ahead of every single Republican candidate in every single poll that I have seen, many by large margins. That would make her a strong candidate by most people's definition.
The polls don't really tell the whole story though, because she's the only name the dems have right now, while the republicans have tons of possible choices. So, for now, the republican base is split among like 5 candidates while the dems only really have Hillary. Once the republican primaries are done, she won't have such a strong lead.
The Supreme Court hears a challenge Wednesday to Obama Administration rules aimed at limiting the amount of mercury and other hazardous pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired utility plants. The regulations are being challenged by major industry groups like the National Mining Association, and more than 20 states.
The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton Administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush Administration, and then revived and adopted in the Obama Administration.
The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year.
They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.
Mercury is considered one of the most toxic pollutants because studies show when it falls from the atmosphere, it readily passes from fish and other sources to a pregnant woman's unborn fetus and fetal brain, causing neurological abnormalities and delays in children. The EPA estimated that seven percent of American women of childbearing age — millions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts.
The process for establishing limits, however, is multi-stage. First, the EPA must complete studies to determine whether regulation of these plant emissions is "appropriate and necessary." And only after that does the agency set limits on the pollutant amounts that can be emitted.
Both sides in Wednesday's case agree that cost should be considered in setting pollutant limits. The question is when and how much of a factor cost should be.
EPT
