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.
Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Flint, Michigan, where a lead-poisoning crisis in the city’s water supply has left residents without safe water for nearly two years.
On Saturday the White House authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to provide water, filters, cartridges and other supplies for 90 days. Republican governor Ricky Snyder asked Obama for help on Friday, saying emergency measures could cost $41m.
Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders called for Snyder to resign on Saturday, saying he has “no excuses” for the the disaster.
“The governor long ago knew about the lead in Flint’s water,” the Vermont senator said in a statement issued by his campaign. “He did nothing. As a result, hundreds of children were poisoned. Thousands may have been exposed to potential brain damage from lead. Gov[ernor] Snyder should resign.”
In April 2014, as a cost-saving measure, the city of Flint switched its main water source from Lake Huron to the Flint river. Despite reports of problems with the water from sources including General Motors, which stopped using it, residents were advised by state officials to “relax” and continue to drink it.
Sanders’ main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called such advice “unconscionable”.
Water from the Flint river has been linked to increased lead levels in children’s blood; E coli bacteria has also been found in such water. A spike in cases of Legionnaires’ disease has also been reported, though not conclusively linked to river water.
President Obama on Saturday laid out a plan to help support the income of workers who lose their jobs and end up in lower-paying positions, as part of a push to get unemployed Americans back to work.
The proposal would offer experienced workers who now make less than $50,000 a form of wage insurance, allowing them to replace half of their lost pay. The benefit would cover up to $10,000 over two years.
"It's a way to give families some stability and encourage folks to rejoin the workforce —because we shouldn't just be talking about unemployment; we should be talking about re-employment," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address, broadcast on Saturday.
The wage insurance proposal will be included in a broader effort to overhaul the unemployment insurance system. Details about the program's proposed funding will be further outlined in Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017 expected to be released next month.
Obama promised in his State of the Union earlier this week to advocate for legislative action on issues with bipartisan support during his last year in office. During the address, he pointed to wage insurance as one measure where lawmakers may be able to work together.
Well Hillary has released a slew of attacks against Bernie lately (that have failed spectacularly and raised millions for Bernie) so I expect this to be the best debate so far.
Looks like Trump is haphazardly trying to convince low information voters that he's big time into Jesus. It'll probably work. He's probably getting coached into going for the low hanging fruits.
On January 17 2016 23:30 Djzapz wrote: Looks like Trump is haphazardly trying to convince low information voters that he's big time into Jesus. It'll probably work. He's probably getting coached into going for the low hanging fruits.
This is his real Achilles heel. The serious mechachurch crowd know he has been a pro-choice, secular, urban, liberal for the last 40 years. Trump's message that he can be the dictator that the lumpen proletariat need against an ever changing world simply won't work on people who define their lives by their faith. People of faith know the difference.
//Not that I don't also think Cruz is a phony. Bush2 had a legitimate born again experience after his heart attack and he gave up his life of drinking as a result. Cruz is just a sleazy Harvard grad whose cleverness and ambition let him say anything he wants.
On January 17 2016 23:30 Djzapz wrote: Looks like Trump is haphazardly trying to convince low information voters that he's big time into Jesus. It'll probably work. He's probably getting coached into going for the low hanging fruits.
This is his real Achilles heel. The serious mechachurch crowd know he has been a pro-choice, secular, urban, liberal for the last 40 years. Trump's message that he can be the dictator that the lumpen proletariat need against an ever changing world simply won't work on people who define their lives by their faith. People of faith know the difference.
//Not that I don't also think Cruz is a phony. Bush2 had a legitimate born again experience after his heart attack and he gave up his life of drinking as a result. Cruz is just a sleazy Harvard grad whose cleverness and ambition let him say anything he wants.
Otherwise, though, that part of the electorate won't vote any other way. There are no pastors on the ballot this time around. Trump only has to not look like Satan and he'll be fine.
There may not be any pastors in the running this time around (yes, I ain't counting the Huckster ), but I think the religious vote is going to look a bit different this time around in light of the fact that the world bastion of conservative Christianity, the Catholic Church, is lead by a man who espouses quite a few progressive values. While I don't think this will shake the mechachurch crowd, I do believe that a lot of religious folk who would otherwise unthinkingly vote Republican are going to look at things through a different lens now that a Pope has so publicly spoken on topics that figure prominently into the national debate.
Catholics are Republican voters? I thought they voted for Obama in both elections.
Also, in the swing state that I live in, most of the conservative voters that I know (many of whom are southern baptists) do not even consider Catholics to be Christian. Just fyi.
The Catholic vote itself has always been a bit of a two-way street in that they appreciate a liberal emphasis on helping the poor while also maintaining a lot of conservative social values, and you are right to point out that Obama appropriately seized on that opportunity the past two election cycles. And yes, it isn't exactly a secret that many sects of protestant/evangelical Christianity look down upon Catholics (see the collected works of Flannery O'Connor, for example). Still, I think it'd be a mistake to overlook the changing face of religious influence on voters in light of the fact that pretty much everyone in Christianity but the evangelicals is changing how they assert their faith relative to political discourse.
On January 18 2016 03:45 farvacola wrote: lol, Protestants have been saying that since the reformation. Still as untrue now as it was then.
I would use the distinct word of influence. But especially in the US, where there are fewer Catholics, it matters less. I've been reading about the liberalisation of large denominations for a number of years.
On January 18 2016 03:45 farvacola wrote: lol, Protestants have been saying that since the reformation. Still as untrue now as it was then.
You got us. Reformation was all the pope's idea.
Or maybe mainline prots have been getting on board the socially liberal train for many years, teh Catholics are thinking about it, and the evangelicals are as disorganized in this as in everything else.
On January 18 2016 06:38 Kickstart wrote: Still some time to go till the democratic debate but there is a livestream up on youtube for those interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4
Were any of the GOP debates livestreamed? I only remember them being behind cable/paywalls/bootleg sites.
On January 18 2016 06:38 Kickstart wrote: Still some time to go till the democratic debate but there is a livestream up on youtube for those interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4
Were any of the GOP debates livestreamed? I only remember them being behind cable/paywalls/bootleg sites.
If memory serves, all of them were free on the internet, no paywalls applied.
On January 18 2016 06:38 Kickstart wrote: Still some time to go till the democratic debate but there is a livestream up on youtube for those interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4
Were any of the GOP debates livestreamed? I only remember them being behind cable/paywalls/bootleg sites.
If memory serves, all of them were free on the internet, no paywalls applied.
I feel like the first FBN and CNBC debates weren't available free through legitimate means. But I could be wrong.
I think at minimum they all gave the impression you would get cut off from a "free preview" if you didn't pay (regardless of whether it would or not).
On January 18 2016 06:38 Kickstart wrote: Still some time to go till the democratic debate but there is a livestream up on youtube for those interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4
Were any of the GOP debates livestreamed? I only remember them being behind cable/paywalls/bootleg sites.
If memory serves, all of them were free on the internet, no paywalls applied.
I feel like the first FBN and CNBC debates weren't available free through legitimate means. But I could be wrong.
I think at minimum they all gave the impression you would get cut off from a "free preview" if you didn't pay (regardless of whether it would or not).
I'm pretty sure I watched the first FBN on their website, because it looked familiar when I went there the other day. Could be wrong though.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5g8f9c1.jpg)
), but I think the religious vote is going to look a bit different this time around in light of the fact that the world bastion of conservative Christianity, the Catholic Church, is lead by a man who espouses quite a few progressive values. While I don't think this will shake the mechachurch crowd, I do believe that a lot of religious folk who would otherwise unthinkingly vote Republican are going to look at things through a different lens now that a Pope has so publicly spoken on topics that figure prominently into the national debate.
