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.
imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.
The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough.
That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with.
As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss).
Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.)
The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50
The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position.
From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well.
I get the same vibe from Hannity. He's the right's (sometimes toned down) version of the race & class bigots from the left. I tire quickly of that style of conservative preaching to the choir, which is why I don't watch FoxNews. They should really hire GH considering his hate segments are the only exposure I get these days.
That's something I hadn't heard before.
Curious conservatives gave complete control over who would be in the first RNC debate to Fox News if they aren't as popular with conservatives as it seems.
EDIT: To put a bow on it, I just watched Lindsey Graham reminiscing about shooting pool in a bar as a 12 year old, illegally gambling, with a corrupt police chief playing right along with everyone. My personal favorite line being "It was stupid, I don't know why I only took 10%, I should of took more" (in reference to when he would gamble with the pro players backing him).
I knew the guy was out of touch, but damn...
Fox's median viewer age is something like 62+. You're putting way too much into FNC especially for the under 45. As for the RNC and Fox, well it's pretty natural they're going to give the first debate to the only station that is not antagonistic towards the GOP. Fox Business is much better than FNC, but I doubt we'll be seeing Lisa Kennedy moderating a presidential debate anytime soon (or Judge Napolitano, etc.).
It's not that they gave them the debate, but that they let FNC choose who was in it.
As many conservatives apparently don't watch/aren't familiar with FNC here I can understand why many would buy into the typical narrative that all FNC viewers are old and leave it at that. Turns out there's more than that to the story.
Fox News Channel had a strong May, showing double digit growth among younger viewers. In fact, in prime time, FNC is up a whopping +42 percent vs. May 2014 in the A25-54 demo. Among total viewers, FNC is up +11 percent in prime time. With several nights of breaking news from Baltimore, and the crash of the DC to NY Amtrak train, and severe weather in Texas, Fox News proved to be the third most-watched cable network behind TNT and ESPN.
Best part of what I've seen politically from Rand is instead of talking about the republicans opposing him, he just talks about how he's actually opposing Obama and lets republicans make the connection in their own head that opposing Rand is supporting Obama.
I don't want to be overly hostile, but you do know how statistics and what not work, right?
Yes, it's a year old, but trust me that number isn't going down anytime soon. The fact that Fox saw a 40% boost in the 25-49 demographic doesn't mean anything when you hardly have any viewers in that age range to begin with. Most of the under 45's don't even watch cable 'news' except to see how out of touch the propaganda organs of the Government are (let's not forget the shilling of CNN for the Iraq War, lmao). So, yeah, you didn't actually refute my point that you can't use FNC as a barometer except of only the most establishment and old fogies in the party.
If I remember correctly, I think Fox Biz. has better 18-49 numbers than FNC and that's not surprising since you had libertarian shows and hosts all throughout that network (E.g. the Independents, Lisa Kennedy, Stossel, Judge Nap, etc.).
Yes, Rand is more politically astute than his dad, so we'll see how much more successful he can be. Though I am more partial to his father's firebrand nature :p
I'm familiar. You may have also noticed that they have 3x the number of the closest news competitor for that time slot.
Also they finished 3rd on cable for the month (for total viewers). That's all of regular cable, not just news networks. It was only TNT and ESPN that beat them. (img from middle of the month)
I think conservatives tend to underestimate FNC's influence. Although I agree that the more libertarian voices are likely drawing in younger viewers which is what I find so fascinating about Bernie, Rand, and the (some) Libertarians on FNC all in opposition against the establishment GOP and Obama on the NSA, and how that will play out on FNC (and the first debate where they wont really want Rand and the RNC gave FNC total control over whether they allow him or not).
I certainly don't underestimate Fox, and the way it attempts to drive the Republican Party in a more Roveian direction. The work on this is somewhat controversial, but not in any way refuted, but it shows the overall media has moves the electorate ~8 percentage points, so you would be a fool to think that a more concentrated effort on a smaller population of people also wouldn't have an effect.
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money.
Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer.
I enjoy the fact that you play the same "I've got my finger on the pulse of a nation torn apart by conflicting polls" card this many years later. Naturally, "silent majority" actually means "silent majority of hawks," ain't that right?
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money.
Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer.
I enjoy the fact that you play the same "I've got my finger on the pulse of a nation torn apart by conflicting polls" card this many years later. Naturally, "silent majority" actually means "silent majority of hawks," ain't that right?
Polling has been showing that a majority of Amercans disapproves of Obama's foreign policy, and an even larger majority favors using ground troops against ISIS.
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money.
Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer.
I enjoy the fact that you play the same "I've got my finger on the pulse of a nation torn apart by conflicting polls" card this many years later. Naturally, "silent majority" actually means "silent majority of hawks," ain't that right?
Polling has been showing that a majority of Amercans disapproves of Obama's foreign policy, and an even larger majority favors using ground troops against ISIS.
What exactly you mean by "polling" (do you mean one poll, two polls, three polls, four? But really, are you looking at an aggregate of polls or what? Furthermore, are you really taking POLLING data at face value? Does that seem like a strong position?) remains unclear. But, even if we grant those statements as true, there is more than a bit of wiggle room between
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money.
Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer.
I enjoy the fact that you play the same "I've got my finger on the pulse of a nation torn apart by conflicting polls" card this many years later. Naturally, "silent majority" actually means "silent majority of hawks," ain't that right?
Polling has been showing that a majority of Amercans disapproves of Obama's foreign policy, and an even larger majority favors using ground troops against ISIS.
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money.
Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer.
Hillary has a great foreign policy record. I can totally see her blowing up lots of brown people with drones, strong arming foreign oligarchs, and generally being a badass.
On June 03 2015 12:01 IgnE wrote: Hillary has a great foreign policy record. I can totally see her blowing up lots of brown people with drones, strong arming foreign oligarchs, and generally being a badass.
WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what seems obvious to some voters and election lawyers: He is running for president.
The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.
For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”
The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.
But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.
WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what seems obvious to some voters and election lawyers: He is running for president.
The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.
For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”
The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.
But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.
It's pretty funny, it couldn't be more obvious that this is a direct attempt to circumvent campaign law.
Anyway, in this weeks "Wait that's not already the law?" segment
Days after the launch of two newspaper database projects aimed at tracking killings by police officers, two Democratic senators announced Tuesday that they will introduce legislation that would require all states to report to the Justice Department anytime a police officer is involved in a shooting or any other use of force that results in death.
The legislation, introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would require reporting of all shootings by police officers -- including non-fatal ones -- which is a step further than the Death In Custody Reporting Act, which was approved by Congress last year. Each state would be required details including age, gender, race and whether the person was armed for any police shooting.
“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”
[Post analysis: 385 people shot and killed by police during first five months of 2015]
The nation has faced months of at-times tense discussions around issues of race and law enforcement following a series of deaths of black men and boys at the hands of police officers that became national stories -- including Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., and Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
Those incidents have renewed calls, which have been made for years by some civil rights groups, for more standardized reporting of police use-of-force incidents. To date, there is no accurate, comprehensive data available about how many people are killed by American police officers each year.
WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what seems obvious to some voters and election lawyers: He is running for president.
The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.
For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”
The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.
But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.
I thought it was just a symptom with how bored I am of Jeb's proposed candidacy that my eyes wandered and I read the same paragraph twice. Establishment figures and heirs to the throne are boring in this stage of the campaign. Turns out there is a repeated paragraph there so it isn't just the mush grinder that is politics.
WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what seems obvious to some voters and election lawyers: He is running for president.
The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.
For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”
The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.
But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.
Days after the launch of two newspaper database projects aimed at tracking killings by police officers, two Democratic senators announced Tuesday that they will introduce legislation that would require all states to report to the Justice Department anytime a police officer is involved in a shooting or any other use of force that results in death.
The legislation, introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would require reporting of all shootings by police officers -- including non-fatal ones -- which is a step further than the Death In Custody Reporting Act, which was approved by Congress last year. Each state would be required details including age, gender, race and whether the person was armed for any police shooting.
“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”
[Post analysis: 385 people shot and killed by police during first five months of 2015]
The nation has faced months of at-times tense discussions around issues of race and law enforcement following a series of deaths of black men and boys at the hands of police officers that became national stories -- including Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., and Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
Those incidents have renewed calls, which have been made for years by some civil rights groups, for more standardized reporting of police use-of-force incidents. To date, there is no accurate, comprehensive data available about how many people are killed by American police officers each year.
WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what seems obvious to some voters and election lawyers: He is running for president.
The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to fund-raising, spending and disclosure rules. Greater latitude is allowed for those who, like Mr. Bush, say they are merely “testing the waters” for a possible run.
“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.
For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.”
The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.
But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.
It's pretty funny, it couldn't be more obvious that this is a direct attempt to circumvent campaign law.
Anyway, in this weeks "Wait that's not already the law?" segment
Days after the launch of two newspaper database projects aimed at tracking killings by police officers, two Democratic senators announced Tuesday that they will introduce legislation that would require all states to report to the Justice Department anytime a police officer is involved in a shooting or any other use of force that results in death.
The legislation, introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would require reporting of all shootings by police officers -- including non-fatal ones -- which is a step further than the Death In Custody Reporting Act, which was approved by Congress last year. Each state would be required details including age, gender, race and whether the person was armed for any police shooting.
“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”
[Post analysis: 385 people shot and killed by police during first five months of 2015]
The nation has faced months of at-times tense discussions around issues of race and law enforcement following a series of deaths of black men and boys at the hands of police officers that became national stories -- including Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., and Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
Those incidents have renewed calls, which have been made for years by some civil rights groups, for more standardized reporting of police use-of-force incidents. To date, there is no accurate, comprehensive data available about how many people are killed by American police officers each year.
I personally am a fan of "Bernie Lean, 2016"... pop culture music reference and it rhymes!
My personal favorite is "Bernie Sizzle for Presidizzle" but that's probably because I just made it up.
I'm mixed on the "Feel the Bern". It alludes to the fact that getting him elected will be hard work, and the STI sound is kind of symbolic of Bernie being a pain in the dick/vag for the establishments, but whatever.
Things look like they are getting interesting (at least in Washington state) if you ignore the commentary anyway lol.
Hillary Clinton: 57% Bernie Sanders: 24% Martin O'Malley: 4% Jim Webb: 2% Lincoln Chafee: 1%
On June 03 2015 11:26 xDaunt wrote: Polling has been showing that a majority of Amercans disapproves of Obama's foreign policy, and an even larger majority favors using ground troops against ISIS.
On June 03 2015 11:26 xDaunt wrote: Polling has been showing that a majority of Amercans disapproves of Obama's foreign policy, and an even larger majority favors using ground troops against ISIS.
I get why people like Bremer and Cheney are on this shit, but average people at some point have to get upset about being made to look like fools.
I think this is why a Rand vs Bernie election is going to sound a lot better to a lot more people than a Bush/Walker vs Clinton election as time goes by.
On June 04 2015 13:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit this Duggar interview. These people are crazy.
Okay, I'm not the only one thinking that.
Ms. Kelly also spoke to two of the sisters, Jessa Seewald and Jill Dillard. That interview will air on Friday.
In a clip from Fox News, Ms. Seewald said in the interview that she was one of the victims and that what Josh did was “very wrong.”
“I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist,” she said.
“I’m like, that is so overboard and a lie, really,” she added. “I mean people get mad at me for saying that, but I can say this because I was one of the victims.”
A pipeline rupture that spilled an estimated 101,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara last month occurred along a badly corroded section that had worn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness, federal regulators disclosed Wednesday.
The preliminary findings (PDF) released by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration point to a possible cause of the May 19 spill that blackened popular beaches and created a 9-mile slick in the Pacific Ocean. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in Santa Barbara County due to the effects of the spill.
The agency said investigators found that there was "extensive external corrosion" at the break site. It had degraded the pipe wall thickness to 1/16 of an inch, and that there was a 6-inch opening near the bottom of the pipe. Additionally, the report noted that the area that failed was close to three repairs that had been made to the pipeline because of corrosion after 2012 inspections.
The agency documents said findings by metallurgists who examined the pipe wall thickness at the break site conflicted with the results of inspections conducted on that area of pipe on May 5 for operator Plains All American Pipeline. Those inspections pinpointed a 45 percent loss of wall thickness in the area of the pipe break, meaning they concluded the pipe was in far better condition.
Government inspectors "noted general external corrosion of the pipe body during field examination of the failed pipe segment," the report said.
Investigators found "this thinning of the pipe wall is greater than the 45 percent metal loss which was indicated" by the recent Plains All American inspections.
The agency ordered the company to conduct additional research and possible repairs on the line, which has been shut down indefinitely.
If only he'd pressed for Roman involvement in charity first, before that pesky business about personal salvation. Then we'd have the complete socialist religion, beloved by luminaries from Gorbachev to Clinton. Alas, all we've got is the usual religion trolls.
A pipeline rupture that spilled an estimated 101,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara last month occurred along a badly corroded section that had worn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness, federal regulators disclosed Wednesday.
The preliminary findings (PDF) released by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration point to a possible cause of the May 19 spill that blackened popular beaches and created a 9-mile slick in the Pacific Ocean. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in Santa Barbara County due to the effects of the spill.
The agency said investigators found that there was "extensive external corrosion" at the break site. It had degraded the pipe wall thickness to 1/16 of an inch, and that there was a 6-inch opening near the bottom of the pipe. Additionally, the report noted that the area that failed was close to three repairs that had been made to the pipeline because of corrosion after 2012 inspections.
The agency documents said findings by metallurgists who examined the pipe wall thickness at the break site conflicted with the results of inspections conducted on that area of pipe on May 5 for operator Plains All American Pipeline. Those inspections pinpointed a 45 percent loss of wall thickness in the area of the pipe break, meaning they concluded the pipe was in far better condition.
Government inspectors "noted general external corrosion of the pipe body during field examination of the failed pipe segment," the report said.
Investigators found "this thinning of the pipe wall is greater than the 45 percent metal loss which was indicated" by the recent Plains All American inspections.
The agency ordered the company to conduct additional research and possible repairs on the line, which has been shut down indefinitely.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GMHGeHG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Pr39Ut.jpg)
