| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
On August 17 2015 00:56 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump gave a candid half hour interview with Meet the Press Chuck Todd this morning. I supported Obama in the past two presidential elections and I fucking want Donald Trump to be President. It makes no sense what is happening? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11725 Posts
On August 23 2015 14:53 cLutZ wrote: No it isn't. None of the solutions to your problem have to do with passenger screening, and the problem is already dealt with to a high degree of certainty using other, less invasive, and more effective, method. Well, i am not arguing with you here. My opinion (which is not something i actually stated in my previous post since it wasn't really part of the topic at that point) is that post 9/11 airplane security is ludicrous and pointless. What i said in my previous post is that it would be an even more overproportional reaction to instate similar practices on a train, and that that also hasn't happened. This was as a reaction to someone who seemed to be confused why it was that easy to get a gun onto a train, probably out of a belief that it is similarly hard to get a gun onto a train as onto a plane. I find it quite interesting to read what people appear to think i have said. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On August 23 2015 15:09 Mohdoo wrote: I can't imagine Biden losing to Clinton. It just wouldn't happen. Does anyone see Clinton as a favorite over Biden? One would hope. But honestly, she'd have him so outgunned in money, endorsements, media coverage, and staffing that it's hard to imagine him winning without her actively imploding. But yes, in a better world, he's an obviously superior candidate. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1078 Posts
On August 23 2015 17:11 Yoav wrote: One would hope. But honestly, she'd have him so outgunned in money, endorsements, media coverage, and staffing that it's hard to imagine him winning without her actively imploding. But yes, in a better world, he's an obviously superior candidate. By the time the primaries actually roll around, Clinton will have mostly put the email scandal behind her. Nothing of significance will actually be found and anything that could be significant will be explained away and swept under the carpet. If she's actually getting challenged at that point (49% to 25% is not a challenge), then she'll start her media blitz to destroy her competitor (Sanders or Biden) and re-brand herself. Most democrats will get back on the Clinton bandwagon and they'll have a vulnerable candidate for a national election. Biden ran a very tepid campaign in 2008. He got 0.9% in Iowa while Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were all 29%+. Even Bill Richardson beat him with 2.1% of the vote. He got 0.2% in New Hampshire, adding Kucinich to the list of guys who beat him. 8 years as the vice president of an ineffective regime shouldn't change his image too much. He's the Gaffe Master 5000 and also the creepy uncle. If he could get Elizabeth Warren on his ticket, that'd be a huge gain for his image. However, I don't think she'll join. At best, she'll endorse him. Maybe he can get Obama's endorsement as well. However, even that may not be enough. Clinton got outgunned by Obama, who has been one of the greatest campaigners ever. However, she's still a very good campaigner herself. I don't think she'll get outgunned by anyone in this current field once she puts her might into it. However, she's holding back her might for the time being because she'd much rather take the hits now and save as much of the war chest for the presidential election as she can, not the primaries and certainly not 5 months before the primaries even start. She knows that image is everything and she'll have a newly minted image soon enough. Any challenging opponent will also get a new image too. They just might not like it. Hell, John Edwards got taken down in part by this: | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 23 2015 14:53 cLutZ wrote: No it isn't. None of the solutions to your problem have to do with passenger screening, and the problem is already dealt with to a high degree of certainty using other, less invasive, and more effective, method. Again, I did not support the post 9/11 security regime. Even the way the cockpit doors are now locked on airplanes, something you brought up, is in itself characteristic of "disparate security", since the driver cabins in trains are not as protected (although the doors can be locked as well). The point is, again, that airplanes can be piloted anywhere while trains cannot. And passenger screening does still help with security, since reinforced doors are not 100% foolproof (neither is passenger screening, obviously). On August 23 2015 16:28 Simberto wrote: I find it quite interesting to read what people appear to think i have said. How did I misrepresent what you said? Like I wrote, you compared trains to public spaces, and argued they were not airplanes. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 23 2015 15:27 LimpingGoat wrote: I supported Obama in the past two presidential elections and I fucking want Donald Trump to be President. It makes no sense what is happening? What a squirrelly dude. Very good at avoiding saying anything meaningful about anything. "The entire world fell apart" riiiiiight. | ||
|
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 24 2015 01:38 LimpingGoat wrote: I mean what politician talks specifics all the time. None of them. There's a difference between not talking specifics all the time and never talking specifics at all because you make things up on the fly as you go. Trump is a joke of a candidate with regards to substance. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 23 2015 23:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: What a squirrelly dude. Very good at avoiding saying anything meaningful about anything. "The entire world fell apart" riiiiiight. The bait is strong with that post. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker now says he doesn’t support repealing the birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Donald Trump and several other Republican presidential rivals have pushed for an end to birthright citizenship in the U.S., with Trump’s plan last week pushing the GOP field to the right on immigration. On Friday, Walker said in an interview on CNBC that he was “not taking a position one way or the other,” on birthright citizenship. But Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” he said he was not going to seek to repeal birthright citizenship. “The law is there, and we need to enforce the laws, including those that are in the Constitution,” Walker said. The debate over birthright citizenship was missing the point about how to fix immigration, the governor argued. “Any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing the laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there, who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry because those politicians haven’t been committed to following through on those promises,” Walker said. The debate over birthright citizenship has split the Republican presidential field following Trump’s immigration rollout last week. Source | ||
|
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
On August 24 2015 01:47 kwizach wrote: There's a difference between not talking specifics all the time and never talking specifics at all because you make things up on the fly as you go. Trump is a joke of a candidate with regards to substance. I think if you paid more attention to the more mainstream politicians running you'd see that they are just as without substance as Trump is. They generally just mention goals and what they want to address. At least Trump says basically "I'm going to use my business experience to make this stuff happen" which is more than what Hillary or even Bernie will say which is basically that they don't have any particular idea of how they are going to get what they want to get done done if they are elected. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On August 24 2015 02:37 LimpingGoat wrote: I think if you paid more attention to the more mainstream politicians running you'd see that they are just as without substance as Trump is. They generally just mention goals and what they want to address. At least Trump says basically "I'm going to use my business experience to make this stuff happen" which is more than what Hillary or even Bernie will say which is basically that they don't have any particular idea of how they are going to get what they want to get done done if they are elected. For someone pointing the finger of "you should pay more attention," you sure seem ignorant of the candidates you speak of. Both Bernie and Hilary have published specifics on many policy implementation issues, moreso than Trump has by a significant margin. Furthermore, both can directly point to past legislation that they've played a role in passing/authoring. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 24 2015 02:37 LimpingGoat wrote: I think if you paid more attention to the more mainstream politicians running you'd see that they are just as without substance as Trump is. They generally just mention goals and what they want to address. At least Trump says basically "I'm going to use my business experience to make this stuff happen" which is more than what Hillary or even Bernie will say which is basically that they don't have any particular idea of how they are going to get what they want to get done done if they are elected. Yes, but that isn't how professional politics works. Saying "I ran a business and got stuff done" does mean anything because your business didn't have 3 branches and wasn't governed by a nearly 300 year old legal document. | ||
|
Seraphic
United States3849 Posts
Trump will not win. Period. This is still his honey moon period and simply it's because the entirety of the U.S. are sick and tired of Washington's bullshit. Almost through all of this 2nd year of Obama, we seen nothing but Republicans whining, complaining, and blocking everything in trying to be vengeful. And the US citizens are paying for it. You cannot tell me seeing news about what's going on in Washington doesn't piss you off. When all the Republican Party has bee doing is... well literally nothing. They can't have their way so just acting like a bunch of babies. So, in that way, I understand why Trump is doing well in the polls because I for one and very much sick of the bull crap going on too. That's as far as I'm willing to even bother with Trump, because everything else he says is simply straight out his ass. So far all of the "pools" they taken are only from the Republican side (as far as I know) and it's hardly the real deal. It's been tiring to see the media take any of this seriously as it seems they have nothing else to do other then to pander to someone like Trump. Democrats aren't fallible and have plenty of faults but I don't see them constantly in the news acting like children. So it's odd for me to think the Republican party believes acting like retards on the news is going to gain them anything. They haven't learned at all in the past two elections. Jeb Bush is trying to be like a every day man but he is still a Bush, an elite. Nothing he says is going to mean jack shit to me. Hilary isn't THAT much better but all of that talk about e-mails seems like the media trying too hard to dig up random crap. I'll end with my thoughts hoping the entirety of the US Citizens isn't stupid to fall for what the media is blowing out their ass for ratings. And also, as with E-Sports and everything else, no team stays on top forever. NO one. There aren't no exceptions. This goes for everything. Keep that in mind next time you read some article trying to gain ratings. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Internal documents released late on Friday show managers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were aware of the potential for a catastrophic “blowout” at an abandoned mine that could release “large volumes” of wastewater laced with toxic heavy metals. The EPA released the documents following weeks of prodding from media organisations. The agency and contract workers accidentally unleashed 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater on 5 August, as they inspected the idled Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado. Among the documents is a June 2014 work order for a planned cleanup that noted that the old mine had not been accessible since 1995, when the entrance partially collapsed. The plan appears to have been produced by Environmental Restoration, a private contractor working for EPA. “This condition has likely caused impounding of water behind the collapse,” the report says. “In addition, other collapses within the workings may have occurred creating additional water impounding conditions. “Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals.” A subsequent May 2015 action plan for the mine also notes the potential for a blowout. There are at least three ongoing investigations into exactly how EPA triggered the disaster, which tainted rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with lead, arsenic and other contaminates. EPA says its water testing has shown contamination levels have since fallen back to pre-spill levels, though experts warn the heavy metals have likely sunk and mixed with bottom sediments that could someday be stirred back up. The documents, which the agency released about 10.30pm ET, do not include any account of what happened immediately before or after the spill. The wastewater flowed into a tributary of the Animas and San Juan rivers, turning them a sickly yellow. Source | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On August 24 2015 03:12 Plansix wrote: Yes, but that isn't how professional politics works. Saying "I ran a business and got stuff done" does mean anything because your business didn't have 3 branches and wasn't governed by a nearly 300 year old legal document. technically speaking... He ran 8 "branches" into insolvency if my googleskills can be trusted here. So maybe that's the plan: Just sac two of em! | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
I don't see how this impacts anything unless the docs also reveal that the EPA did not try to modify their cleanup plan to try and mitigate the risks of a breach. To me, it remains that the EPA is the organization which gets blamed for a mess left behind by a private company which they had to clean up. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 24 2015 02:37 LimpingGoat wrote: I think if you paid more attention to the more mainstream politicians running you'd see that they are just as without substance as Trump is. They generally just mention goals and what they want to address. At least Trump says basically "I'm going to use my business experience to make this stuff happen" which is more than what Hillary or even Bernie will say which is basically that they don't have any particular idea of how they are going to get what they want to get done done if they are elected. Oh, he's certainly not the only candidate to be a fluffer. Romney and Ryan ran a whole platform on dodging meaningful/practical statements in 2012, complete with the silly "I'm a businessman so I know the economy" spiel, and Huckabee, Santorum, 2012 Perry, et al were just as bad. If you go back to '08 you can see plenty of Democrats doing the same thing (cough Kucinich and to an extent Obama cough). Lumping Clinton, Sanders, and some of the less popular Republicans (or historical Republicans like Bush Sr. and even, heaven forfend, Reagan) in the same camp is doing them a pretty grave disservice though. Edit: Also, the problem isn't that he doesn't say how he'll get things done, the problem is that he doesn't say what he'll do. Just that someone else will take care of it. It'd be great if he could just have them figure out how to take care of it now. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
| ||
RongYI Cup
Group D
Maru vs SolarLIVE!
Cyan vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
