US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2433

It's rather sad that you think a cop talking to you makes it a police state.

Cops have no reason to interact with me, I am a law abiding citizen. They should spend their time stopping actual crimes instead of 'interacting' with me. I mean, if your idea of a perfect cop-citizen relationship is a police state then that is fine

While a doctor might advise against eating too many burgers and steak sandwiches, thanks to the exceptional lobbying skills of the American meat industry, the U.S. government probably never will.

Rejecting the advice of their own expert panel, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced this month that the latest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will not include considerations of environmental sustainability. Had they decided otherwise, they likely would have recommended that people lower their intake of meat, the production of which is widely recognized as a major contributor to climate change.

Health advocates are still hoping that the final guidelines, to be unveiled later this year, will include a directive to eat less red and processed meats, based on nutrition and health concerns alone. But if history is any indication, that hope is likely to go unfulfilled.

The size of the U.S. meat industry is immense. Beef alone is a $95 billion-a-year business, according to the USDA. And the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) estimates that, in total, the meat industry contributes about $894 billion to the U.S. economy.

That size translates into political influence: In 2014, the industry spent approximately $10.8 million in contributions to political campaigns, and an estimated $6.9 million directly on lobbying the federal government (calculated by combining totals for the meat processing and products and livestock sectors, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets website).

While the USDA is tasked with regulating the meat industry, it also has a role in promoting it. This tension plays out every time the U.S. government wants to give out dietary advice—and the results generally wind up favoring the industry.

The pattern traces back to at least 1977, when Congress—a no less conflicted institution when it comes to coziness with the meat industry—had a more prominent role in setting nutrition guidelines. That year, a Senate committee report recommended that Americans decrease consumption of meat, eggs and other foods high in fat. This did not sit well with producers in those industries, who made their displeasure known at a hearing on the guidelines. As shown in the below exchange between the representative from the American National Cattlemen’s Association and senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the organization objected to a recommendation to decrease consumption of any of its products, even if paired with a recommendation to increase consumption of other ones.

On October 25 2015 14:16 zlefin wrote:
killa ->
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2624872/state-v-duncan/
there's a case exactly on point.

As well as plenty of other jurisprudence you can look up if you want to.
I'm ready for your admission of defeat

you can also look through this if you want.
http://www.ncids.org/Defender Training/Drug Case Training/Stops_Warr_Searches.pdf

On October 25 2015 14:19 Kickstart wrote:
In a case like that hes just going to say 'but they caught a badguy and he gets off on a technicality', meanwhile ignoring the number of other people who have to submit to warrant-less searches who happen to be doing nothing wrong and are law abiding citizens.

On October 26 2015 02:19 killa_robot wrote:
It's rather disappointing to learn the law agrees with the two of you here, and that police are so restricted in how they do their job. No wondering they're even less inclined to try and approach people now that the world is watching them.

On October 25 2015 12:18 Kickstart wrote:
But then I think if the Republicans cared about winning they would put up Jeb Bush, but they live in this world where they think like people like Trump and Carson actually have any shot at becoming president *shrug*. Hillary would beat Jeb anyways but still.

On October 26 2015 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:

The law is almost every nation works like that. A police officer cannot stop random people and search them because he feels like it.

On October 25 2015 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't mean to say they are "making it up", Just that the polls aren't properly accounting for the electorate that's going to come out.

On October 26 2015 03:11 Cowboy64 wrote:

In what possible world would Jeb Bush be the Republican's best shot at winning? The only way someone would run Jeb Bush would be if they wanted to lose. Ben Carson has been crushing Hillary in the polls, is way ahead of Bush in the nomination, is raising way more money, has a way better ground-game and strategy, and his favorability numbers are off the charts, especially with women. If we're going off pure data, then Ben Carson is running ahead of everyone.

If we're going off gut-feelings and predictions than I still don't see how you could think Bush would be the GOP's best shot. I heard this same kind of talk about McCain and Romney, that no one else had any chance, how they were our only shot, and both of them got killed. They were weak candidates with low-charisma who subscribed to an extremely unpopular brand of moderate-conservatism. Sounds exactly like Jeb Bush. Whereas Carson and Trump are both charismatic, they are both intriguing, they are both outsiders, and they both subscribe to a pretty popular brand of conservatism. Trump is a straight up conservative-populist.

Democrats always seem to think that the only way Republicans can get elected is by putting forward neo-cons. But then I think everyone will agree that neo-cons are not popular, and after Bush 2 probably won't be elected again. I don't understand how you could possibly think that Bush 3, the ultimate neo-con, would have the best chance, especially when you consider his loss to be inevitable anyway. I think this is just more of the media trying to control the debate and attempting, yet again, to choose our candidates for us.

An honest election would have neither a Bush nor a Clinton in it. Republicans are going to do our job (Bush will not be the nominee), but I think Democrats are going to fail at theirs. Hillary will be their nominee, and it's hilarious because it means that in the entire DNC there is no better alternative to her. The only half-hearted opposition she got was from an open Socialist who isn't even in the party. That is not a sign of a healthy political party, and it does not bode well for the Democrats in the upcoming general.

WASHINGTON -- Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon-turned-insurgent presidential contender, compared abortion to slavery on Sunday, adding that he does not support exceptions for rape and incest when it comes to outlawing the practice.

"Think about this," he told "Meet the Press." "During slavery -- and I know that's one of those words you're not supposed to say, but I'm saying it -- during slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought that they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave. Anything that they chose to do. And, you know, what if the abolitionist had said, you know, 'I don't believe in slavery. I think it's wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do'? Where would we be?"

Rising in the polls in Iowa -- with its deeply evangelical Republican caucusgoers -- Carson called for overturning the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and only conceded that "there's room to discuss" an exception if the health of the mother was at stake. Below is the relevant transcript, pasted in full because his answers were often hard to tease out.

Carson's comments to "Meet The Press" are the latest in a fairly scattered history when it comes to abortion policy. Carson has stated his support for a bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks. And as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins he was personally opposed to abortion. But as POLITICO reported, he also “has referred women to doctors who perform abortions [and] was a trustee of a foundation that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood.”

On October 26 2015 03:27 jalstar wrote:


That's the same line that Republicans screamed over and over in 2012 because they so badly wanted it to be true.