US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2757

On January 18 2016 13:06 xDaunt wrote:
I legitimately like Sanders and find him to be very impressive on the debate stage. If nothing else, I respect him for his honesty and how genuine he is. The contrast that he draws with Hillary is brutal on that point.

On January 18 2016 13:08 Chewbacca. wrote:

Yeah I like Sanders because he honestly seems like a good guy who wants the best for the country, and for his anti-big money support. I just disagree with too many of his policy stances. I don't really want to be Europe 2.0.

On January 18 2016 13:02 Doublemint wrote:
cruz and trump might be great debaters, maybe even rubio who is just good from what I have seen so far, and who I favor as the republican nominee.

and still, clinton should be perfectly fine to keep them at bay.

On January 18 2016 13:09 JW_DTLA wrote:


The cross party debates will be awful. The parties exist in different factual worlds. They might as well just have them perform a staring contest to see who is tougher.

Democrat (fact) land:
ACA has reduced the uninsured rate
Unemployment down to 5%
Unbroken jobs growth since ACA + Stimulus + Dodd Frank
Net immigration from Mexico is negative
American soldiers and civilians are dying abroad at a historically low rate
Obama and the US Airforce have killed 25,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq
America leads the world in GDP growth, Russia (-4% last year) and China (when the bubble is revealed ...) are collapsing
Tax increases on the rich (ACA + Bush cuts expiring) have no effect on the economy and have helped close the deficit

Republican (fantasy) land:
Unemployment has gone up, jobs are being lost to the Chinese
Mass Muslim/Mexican migration is occurring
Americans are being killing by ISIS
Obama is aiding ISIS because he is a Muslim
China and Russia are on the rise and are overtaking us
Tax cuts on the rich are needed to boost the economy and won't increase the deficit

On January 18 2016 13:09 acker wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385

Well I'll be damned.

On January 18 2016 13:08 Chewbacca. wrote:

Yeah I like Sanders because he honestly seems like a good guy who wants the best for the country, and for his anti-big money support. I just disagree with too many of his policy stances. I don't really want to be Europe 2.0.

On January 18 2016 13:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:


I'm sure even if he had a democratic congress he wouldn't get half the shit he wants anyway. Hopefully some larger things, but I just don't see how even in an ideal world we go full EU.

On January 18 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


Remember when there was a Democratic majority and then the Tea Party happened? The political revolution Sanders is leading will make them look like a ripple (at least that's the plan). As opposed to just trying to prevent Republicans from making stuff worse, which is Hillary's platform.

As for working with Republicans, Hillary can't find any that would even say they would consider working with her at this point. So her "getting stuff done" means getting nothing done with bipartisan approval.

All of America will be for removing congresspeople everywhere after 2 years of any president.

On January 18 2016 12:49 Doublemint wrote:


sure, they might be annoying. but the world is full of annoying people. and there I thought you were a 1st amendment fan :p

On January 18 2016 13:02 Doublemint wrote:
cruz and trump might be great debaters, maybe even rubio who is just good from what I have seen so far, and who I favor as the republican nominee.

and still, clinton should be perfectly fine to keep them at bay.

On January 18 2016 13:31 KwarK wrote:

The first amendment guarantees that the gov won't shut down a NBC debate but doesn't mean that people have to have one or televise it.

At Sunday's Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) made a point about the harrowing opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic that isn't raised enough: "There is a responsibility on the part of the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies who are producing all of these drugs and not looking at the consequence of it."

The opioid epidemic began when doctors prescribed a tremendous amount of opioid painkillers to help treat pain — a serious problem, given that chronic pain alone afflicts about 100 million Americans. One reason doctors were so willing to prescribe these painkillers, despite the clear risks of addiction and overdose, is heavy campaigning from the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, Purdue Pharma, producer of the opioid OxyContin, paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for its false claims about opioids. The Associated Press reported:

Purdue Pharma, its president, top lawyer and former chief medical officer will pay $634.5 million in fines for claiming the drug was less addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee said in a news release…

Purdue learned from focus groups with physicians in 1995 that doctors were worried about the abuse potential of OxyContin. The company then gave false information to its sales representatives that the drug had less potential for addiction and abuse than other painkillers, the U.S. attorney said.

In the midst of this misinformation campaign, doctors prescribed hundreds of millions of prescriptions for opioids — in 2012, enough to give a bottle of pills to every adult in the country. As people became addicted to opioid painkillers, they also began turning to another, cheaper, more potent opioid — heroin — to satiate their cravings.

On January 18 2016 13:38 Doublemint wrote:


you were correct if that was the point I was trying to make. I am probably typing too meta. (the right to) free speech also means that you are ok with somebody challenging your beliefs, you of course don't have to agree but you will be fine with them having a different opinion, while fighting it tooth and nail.

what reps did by banning NBC from hosting another debate for them is basically limiting the amount of speech that is going around in their debates. and yes it's not the government banning speech or tyranny or something like that, but that's what the smiley was for.

The glory days of Big Coal, it seems, are coming to an end.

Over the past couple of years, a record number of coal plants have gone offline in the U.S., largely in response to falling prices, but also due to increased environmental regulations, better alternatives, and just plain bad press. Coal production hit a 30-year low in 2015, and there’s a real movement against coal now: activists have shut down coal plants and stopped the construction of new ones, as well as effectively blocked coal export terminals. And while the Paris climate talks, unfortunately, did not call for keeping all the world’s coal underground, President Obama’s Clean Power Plan will go a long way to eliminating coal power in the U.S. He also announced that no new coal mining leases will be granted on public land. This is a good thing — coal is one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the country, plus it’s bad for both the land it’s taken from and the people who do the taking.

This week, The Wall Street Journal reports, Arch Coal Inc. became the latest coal company to file for bankruptcy — and they did it with $4.5 billion in debt. Arch joins Walter Energy, Patriot Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, which all filed for Chapter 11 last year. But what’s to be done with all those defunct coal plants? From the mountains of West Virginia to high deserts of Arizona, there are over 600 coal plants across the country, and when these companies go belly up, they leave behind a big mess. Someone has to clean it up. But who?

On January 18 2016 13:08 Chewbacca. wrote:

Yeah I like Sanders because he honestly seems like a good guy who wants the best for the country, and for his anti-big money support. I just disagree with too many of his policy stances. I don't really want to be Europe 2.0.