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.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced her support for the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, becoming the final member of the Senate's main Democratic leadership team to weigh in on the agreement.
The endorsement of Murray, the secretary of the Senate Democratic conference, brings the final tally to three party leaders in favor of the Iran deal and one against. Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) have stated their support, while Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y), the conference's vice chair and policy committee chair, is opposed. And the news is another indication that the nuclear accord will survive in the Senate. The deal faces a critical vote in both houses of Congress when lawmakers return from recess in September.
“After working my way through the details and the alternatives, losing a lot of sleep, and having a lot of good conversations with so many people -- I am convinced that moving forward with this deal is the best chance we have at a strong diplomatic solution, it puts us in a stronger position no matter what Iran chooses to do, and it keeps all of our options on the table if Iran doesn't hold up their end of the bargain,” Murray wrote in a statement.
Among the holdouts in the Senate, Murray was one of the most critical of the deal, due to her leadership position and to the possibility that she will challenge Durbin for his position in the next Congress. She was considered a genuinely undecided vote within the White House and among fellow Senate Democrats.
Murray noted that in addition to meeting with several officials from the Obama administration, which has been aggressively lobbying Democrats to back the agreement, she spoke with Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Dermer has criticized the nuclear agreement, saying it guarantees Iran will obtain nuclear weapons in the future.
Since Obama gave Biden the blessing to run for President, Does that mean barack wont campaign for Hillary and only campaign for Biden? Democrats are doing there best to make it harder on themselves then it has to be.
On August 26 2015 08:10 whatisthisasheep wrote: Since Obama gave Biden the blessing to run for President, Does that mean barack wont campaign for Hillary and only campaign for Biden? Democrats are doing there best to make it harder on themselves then it has to be.
I kinda expect him to stay out of the primary and fully back whoever gets chosen.
On August 26 2015 08:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Also Trump just went at it with Jorge Ramos.
I like how he just ignores people who might point out the completely not subtle racism Trump is shilling and then boots them from press conferences. The Republicans must be shitting themselves at the monster they created.
Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller says human nature, not China, explains market volatility
admittedly part of it is him trying to sell his book but I figure he's probably at least somewhat qualified to offer his opinions. he doesn't go into too much detail or anything
We asked Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller to help make sense of the U.S.’s volatile stock market. While a number of economists and investors point to China’s slowing economy to explain the volatility, Shiller does not. What we saw, he argues, was the bursting of a speculative bubble.
What happened to U.S. stocks in the past week?
I would say that we saw the bursting of a speculative bubble, as it has been defined in much discourse and which has happened many times in history. But one must remember that the word “bubble,” if taken as a metaphor, can be misleading. A speculative bubble does not burst irrevocably or all at once as a soap bubble does. It may go on in a number of steps down, interrupted by upswings. I would say that a speculative bubble rises upon investor enthusiasm, and when it becomes too big, many people begin to have their doubts and contemplate selling, but don’t have clarity enough to actually do it. But when they see the market dropping, they begin to fear that others have the same doubts, and so many of them hurry up, trying to sell before the others do. So, the downswing can be surprisingly fast, recalling the bursting of a bubble, even if it is not quite as sudden as that.
Is this a reaction to what’s happening in China? If so, why?
I cannot imagine the news from China could provide a rational explanation for the drop in world markets. The news from China is too subtle, not that dramatic and sudden. But the story has been put forth by the news media as if it were suddenly extremely important, as part of a general pattern of news media and investor advice hype. In our new book “Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception,” George Akerlof and I use the word phishing more broadly than usual to describe such behavior. A phool is someone, who may be highly intelligent, but who does not see that he or she is a phish. A lot of people who bid up stock prices to such high levels were phools.
Apparently comes back and has questions on the construction of the border fence and deportation (just google, RCP had some transcripts.
Ahh Ramos. Never stop anchoring for Univision. Oh and props to Trump, building 94 story buildings ezpz, border easier and less complicated.
Ann Coulter intro'd his Iowa speech.
Keep making headlines Trump. It's driving even ¡Jeb! to cover the issues. It's not the man it's the re-centering of the debate on issues the elites have dismissed (ala everybody knows illegal immigration is a net positive, everyone knows its only racists that are concerned with catch and release illegal alien policies and sanctuary cities).
Honestly, Trump handled that heckling interviewer in the most professional way possible, which is shocking considering everything else he's said and done has been absurd.
As a non-american, it's kinda mindboggling to see that so many people are for trump. Does he actually have a shot at the presidency? Realistically?
I don't mean to be rude, but even properly stupid people must see that he actually doesn't really have a concept, but just tries to fish for votes that are easy to get just by being more racist than others. He's an arrogant, ignorant bigot, that can't be a serious contender - for any sane person. European medias make fun of him (and his flip flopping, i think it's called?), why is that not even an issue? Trumps defenders in this thread praise him like a fricking saviour, a person who literally made money by driving his businesses against the wall?
On August 26 2015 10:21 m4ini wrote: As a non-american, it's kinda mindboggling to see that so many people are for trump. Does he actually have a shot at the presidency? Realistically?
I don't mean to be rude, but even properly stupid people must see that he actually doesn't really have a concept, but just tries to fish for votes that are easy to get just by being more racist than others. He's an arrogant, ignorant bigot, that can't be a serious contender - for any sane person. European medias make fun of him (and his flip flopping, i think it's called?), why is that not even an issue? Trumps defenders in this thread praise him like a fricking saviour, a person who literally made money by driving his businesses against the wall?
Note that I'm not a particularly big Trump supporter, I like some things and says and disagree with a lot of other things. Addressing the bolded part, how Europeans view the president isn't a major concern for me. As long as the whoever is president can demand enough respect from European nations to do business with them then I'm happy with it. European countries and citizens, like all countries and citizens, are after what is best for their own country, so in general I don't pay a whole lot of attention to who a European would vote for in the US election because we are seeking different goals. I'm seeking someone who can help America and the European is seeking someone who will help their nation.
no matter what country I'd seek someone who doesn't think that climate change is a conspiracy invented by the Chinese and who doubts that Obama is an American citizen. That is simply insane. It's worse than Berlusconi
On August 26 2015 10:21 m4ini wrote: As a non-american, it's kinda mindboggling to see that so many people are for trump. Does he actually have a shot at the presidency? Realistically?
I don't mean to be rude, but even properly stupid people must see that he actually doesn't really have a concept, but just tries to fish for votes that are easy to get just by being more racist than others. He's an arrogant, ignorant bigot, that can't be a serious contender - for any sane person. European medias make fun of him (and his flip flopping, i think it's called?), why is that not even an issue? Trumps defenders in this thread praise him like a fricking saviour, a person who literally made money by driving his businesses against the wall?
We elected George Bush twice. We elected people who literally loath government and do everything they can to undermine it while being from states that receive the most federal aid. We have an unlimited supply of people making bad decisions and one of our parties decided to make it their voting base over the last 15 years. I will be shocked if we elect Trump, but the threat is real. A man who went bankrupt twice is the front runner for a party because he talks about how much he wants to get rid of the brown people.
And yes, our country looks like a joke. It makes our News agencies look like the joke they are. And we don't' even have John Stewart to dull the pain. All I got is the BBC and NPR now.
Ramos is an opinionated and forcefully spoken member of a minority group, so classically that makes some white people nervous that he is trying to take over and destroy them. They prefer their racial issues to be presented in a soft, non-aggressive manner and to be reassured that they did not contribute to said racial issues. This is Fox New's main demographic and they have corned this market.
Just want to point out that there is a difference between your company going bankrupt and you personally going bankrupt. That said, when you are running the nation instead of a business you don't get to take the option of going bankrupt like corporations do. (In a lot of cases businesses will file bankruptcy because it is the financially smart thing to do).
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush made a puzzling comment about Planned Parenthood on Tuesday, charging that the nation's largest family planning provider is "not actually doing women's health issues."
At a town hall in Englewood, Colorado, the former Florida governor said Planned Parenthood should not be receiving federal Medicaid and family planning funds. “I, for one, don’t think Planned Parenthood ought to get a penny, though, and that’s the difference because they’re not actually doing women’s health issues,” Bush said. "They're involved in something way different than that.”
Planned Parenthood quickly fired back with a statement that included a long list of the various women's health services provided by the organization's 700 clinics in 2013. The list includes Pap smears, urinary tract infection treatments, HPV vaccinations, LEEP procedures to remove abnormal tissue from the cervix, sexually transmitted infection treatments, breast exams, birth control and pregnancy tests. The organization says that abortions account for only about 3 percent of its services.
Bush's comment was his second flub this month about Planned Parenthood and women's health. He was widely criticized for saying at an evangelical conference recently that he was "not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues," referring to Planned Parenthood's budget.
The candidate released a statement later that day saying he "misspoke" and had meant to suggest cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, not women's health care in general. "In line with my FL record – we absolutely must defund PP and redirect those funds to other women’s health orgs," he said in a tweet the same day.
Contrary to his claim, while serving as governor of Florida, Bush did not redistribute Planned Parenthood money to community health centers. He actually redirected the funds to abstinence-only education programs.
On August 26 2015 10:53 Plansix wrote:A man who went bankrupt twice is the front runner for a party because he talks about how much he wants to get rid of the brown people.
Where do people get that idea? Having a business (one of many) file for bankruptcy and going personally bankrupt are rather different things.
Trump is a real hoot. No, he has absolutely no chance of being elected in a general election. However, the Republican party has gone SO crazy, and has become so confused with itself over the past few decades, that it's probably within the realm of possibility that he could win the nomination. I thought even thought was impossible a couple weeks ago, but after seeing his numbers only go up even after saying utterly crazy shit that would usually annihilate other candidates... who the fuck knows anymore.
Then again it's all so disgustingly early to even be paying attention to this stuff. We are so far away from people actually voting for anything that it's hard to gauge any of it.
EPT
