|
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. |
Oh Hillary...The push polling got caught.
Recording Suggests Hillary Clinton Backers Testing Attack Lines Ahead of Nevada Caucus
The woman on the call first asks the listener to rate how well Clinton and Sanders would do in the general election, as well as with the various aspects of being president if elected.
The woman then reads negative statements the two candidates have said about each other and asks the listener, based on those statements, for whom he would vote.
She then pivots to gain the listener's reaction to pro-Clinton talking points.
"For each of these statements that I read, please tell me how much more likely it makes you to vote for Clinton as president,” the woman says. One of the statements she reads is, “Hillary Clinton says it is not enough to have plans that sound good on paper, but won’t ever actually happen. ... Does that statement make much more likely, somewhat more likely, a little more likely or no difference at all?”
She then tests lines about Clinton’s primary opponent. “Next, you’re going to hear some statements that someone could make about Bernie Sanders. After each one, please tell me how much they concern you,” she says. "Bernie Sanders is making big campaign promises that will cost up to 20 trillion dollars. The New York Times said his plans are not realistic. Other independent experts said his plans are unworkable and dead on arrival in Congress. That's the recipe for even more political gridlock ..."
Source
|
The trials of all the Baltimore officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray have been put on hold by Maryland’s highest court, in a delay that could set back the high-profile cases of alleged police brutality for months.
The six officers facing trials over the death of Gray after a spinal injury in the back of a police van were due in court this winter. But after a jury couldn’t reach a decision in the first case, that of officer William Porter, every other trial has been held up over whether Porter can be compelled to testify in each of these other cases without risking self-incrimination.
Prosecutors have appealed rulings on whether Porter must testify, and the Maryland court of appeals said late Thursday that it would hear all the appeals together on 3 March. After the hearing, the court could take months to issue a written decision.
After the jury in Porter’s case came back deadlocked on all counts and his trial was rescheduled for June, judge Barry Williams ruled that the prosecution could force Porter to testify in the trials of Caesar Goodson, the driver of the van in which Gray allegedly sustained his catastrophic injury, and Sgt Alicia White, Porter’s supervisor that day.
Source
|
town hall
these questions are pretty hard hitting damn
|
On February 19 2016 07:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:HUGE if true. Show nested quote +This is pretty remarkable. Sources close to the Bush campaign are beginning to leak about a call last night. I’m told the Bush team is out of money. Pay for campaign staff will end on Saturday. The campaign is all but over.
Additionally, after having hundreds of millions of dollars on hand, the Bush Super PAC has less than $15 million from what I am being told.
What a waste.
Ironically, if Bush really wants to have an impact on the race, given that his campaign is broke, he should publicly get out of the race today. This would be like Rich Perry in 2012, who got out, cast his support to Gingrich at the last minute, and saw Gingrich storm into first place in South Carolina.
Bush could be the king maker if he gets out today.
His campaign is broke, staff is being told they will not be paid after Saturday, and Bush could shake things up significantly if he gets out now. Source
The campaign is denying it, though God only knows if that's just PR or what.
I'd be shocked if Jeb drops out before SC. He's polling well enough that while it's not likely, he could still place third.
|
On February 19 2016 11:19 ticklishmusic wrote: town hall
these questions are pretty hard hitting damn
Dude, these questions are almost existential
|
On February 19 2016 11:23 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 11:19 ticklishmusic wrote: town hall
these questions are pretty hard hitting damn Dude, these questions are almost existential
the "intersectional identity of women" question lost me.
|
On February 19 2016 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The woman inside the ambulance was miscarrying. That was clear from the foul-smelling fluid leaving her body. As the vehicle wailed toward the hospital, a doctor waiting for her arrival phoned a specialist, who was unequivocal: the baby would die. The woman might follow. Induce labor immediately.
But staff at the Mercy Health Partners hospital in Muskegon, Michigan would not induce labor for another 10 hours. Instead, they followed a set of directives written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that forbid terminating a pregnancy unless the mother is in grave condition. Doctors decided they would delay until the woman showed signs of sepsis – a life-threatening response to an advanced infection – or the fetal heart stopped on its own.
In the end, it was sepsis. When the woman delivered, at 1.41am, doctors had been watching her temperature climb for more than eight hours. Her infant lived for 65 minutes.
This story is just one example of how a single Catholic hospital risked the health of five different women in a span of 17 months, according to a new report leaked to the Guardian.
The report, by a former Muskegon County health official, Faith Groesbeck, accuses Mercy Health Partners of forcing five women between August 2009 and December 2010 to undergo dangerous miscarriages by giving them no other option.
All five women, the report says, had symptoms indicating that it would be safest for them to deliver immediately. But instead of informing the women of their options, the report says, or offering to transfer them to a different hospital, doctors – apparently out of deference to the Mercy Health Partners’ strict ban on abortion – unilaterally decided to subject the women to prolonged miscarriages.
As a result, the report claims, several of the women suffered infection or emotional trauma, or had to undergo unnecessary surgery. None of the women were pregnant beyond 24 weeks, when an infant can survive outside the womb.
The report has not previously been made public. And it offers a disturbing look at how religious restrictions may interfere with emergency care. Catholic control of US hospitals has ballooned in the last 15 years, and with it, patient advocates warn, the risk that the US Bishops’ bans on abortion, contraception and sterilization will prevent thousands of women from receiving critical healthcare. A 2013 tally found that 381 out of 3,786 of the country’s hospitals were Catholic, meaning they followed the Bishops’ rules for healthcare. Source
This news was overlooked, but I'm glad you posted it. I thought the effects of the more fundamentalist branches of religion were limited to anti-gay legislation, I never actually thought that they would actually try to make mothers undergo dangerous miscarriages. Hopefully someone is arrested for that
|
Bernie needs to slow down and just let people finish their freaking questions
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
381 out of 3,786 of the country’s hospitals were Catholic
literally wat
|
On February 19 2016 11:59 oneofthem wrote: 381 out of 3,786 of the country’s hospitals were Catholic
literally wat
a lot of non profit health systems and hospitals are affiliated to religious groups, charity and ministry and all that
ex intermountain was founded by the mormons, trinity health, dignity and ascension are catholic
i think kaiser is the only top 10 one that isnt
|
The oil and gas industry may have thought it had killed the electric car, but sales -- boosted by generous government subsidies -- rose dramatically between 2010 and 2014, and energy giants are worried the thing may have come back to life.
Time to kill it again.
A new group that's being cobbled together with fossil fuel backing hopes to spend about $10 million dollars per year to boost petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies for electric vehicles, according to refining industry sources familiar with the plan. A Koch Industries board member and a veteran Washington energy lobbyist are working quietly to fund and launch the new advocacy outfit.
Koch Industries, the nation's second-largest privately held corporation, is an energy and industrial conglomerate with $115 billion in annual revenues that is controlled by the multibillionaire brothers -- and prolific conservative donors -- Charles and David Koch. James Mahoney, a confidante of the brothers and member of their company's board, has teamed up with lobbyist Charlie Drevna, who until last year helmed the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, for preliminary talks with several energy giants about funding the new pro-petroleum fuels group.
Late last year, Mahoney and Drevna flew into San Antonio to explain the need for a new group to executives at two Texas refining giants, Valero Energy and Tesoro Corp. Then, in late January, Mahoney moderated a seminar on “Changing the Energy Narrative” at the brothers' twice-a-year retreat for mega-donors in California. The panel drew a mix of CEOs from big energy companies and other wealthy attendees who, in conjunction with the Koch brothers, bankroll numerous conservative advocacy groups. And last month, Mahoney and Drevna had further conversations with Koch executives about the new project, sources say.
Neither Mahoney nor Drevna returned multiple calls seeking comment about the new group. A Koch spokesman also didn't respond to a request for comment.
It’s not clear when the still-unnamed group will be launched, but energy industry sources predict it’s likely to be up and running by this spring or summer, and that Koch Industries -- or a Koch foundation or allied nonprofit -- will be the lead financier.
“The fact that Jim Mahoney is leading the effort appears to indicate that this is being driven by the business side of Koch,” rather than the political operation that helps oversee the brothers' conservative advocacy empire, said one refining industry source familiar with the early plans for the new group.
Once launched, the new group is expected to use paid and earned media to push its pro-petroleum transportation messages, and do research to bolster the cause.
Source
|
I was thinking Hillary was doing a pretty good job of bullshitting but her transcript excuse was pretty bad.
She said she would when everyone (including republicans) else did, then listed off a bunch of things she did "first" some of which she definitely wasn't first or most forceful.
Being first to those other things and wanting to be last on releasing the transcripts doesn't make any sense other than hiding them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
he bought one marijuana with the money from when he sold his cybersecurity company. he hasnt been the same since.
|
Trump says he doesn't necessarily love publicity LMAO. I don't know why I watched that, but the whole thing was so typically Trump.
|
On February 19 2016 06:44 Leporello wrote:This isn't in response to anyone, so I apologize for wanting to start my own tangent. But this is a rant I've long had and shared with people, and I'd like some perspective on it. This shows the top tax rates in the U.S. for the past ~100 years: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=543+ Show Spoiler +And this, obviously, is a timeline of our National Debt. Reagan's tax cuts were quite drastic, in that the last time the top bracket paid below 40% was... The Great Depression. The 40's, 50's and 60's are considered America's best decades, economically speaking, in terms of how drastically we grew. We also kept tight control of our nation's budget. The top tax bracket was paying 91% in those times. Ninety-one-fucking-percent. Granted these taxes were "provisional", meaning the 90% tax rate would only apply to income accrued within or above that bracket (similar to the style that Sander's is proposing). But... small difference. The point is anyone who made a million dollars back then was paying the vast majority of it to the Federal government. So, by conservative logic, no one should have bothered becoming a millionaire, and our economy should've stagnated and decayed. But... the opposite happened. Since Reagan's tax cuts, the National Debt has continually climbed. No President since Reagan, even that Commie Obama, has raised taxes over 40%. It's really all been Reaganomics, all day, every day, for the past 36 years. Doesn't it just make fucking sense to do what we did in our nation's greatest days. I mean jumping right to 90% is a bit extreme and would be too rough on the system, I'm sure. But we should, you know, start the trend at least. I don't know how anyone looks at our nation's tax history, and could come to any other conclusion besides "raise taxes". I'd love to know what a conservative here thinks of our nation's tax rates in the 20th Century, and how they reflect on today. Were we "socailst/communist" throughout most of the 20th Century? And if so, well, wasn't that kind of a good thing? One of the issues with a higher income tax rate is that you're not actually hitting the ultra rich. Most of them get their income via capital gains. At least that's how it works in NL. You're also just pushing the rich into riskier tax avoidence. Contrary to what a lot of people think most rich people don't use all opportunties for tax avoidence that are available. Increase tax rates too much and they will start using those riskier (for them) options.
|
Did a judge really rule they have to place a backdoor in all iphones based on a law from 1789?
wtf
Lol, that oped by McAfee. The first real point he makes is about Hitler.
|
On February 19 2016 20:36 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Did a judge really rule they have to place a backdoor in all iphones based on a law from 1789?
wtf
Lol, that oped by McAfee. The first real point he makes is about Hitler. Yeah. That op-ed was pathetic. I did Google cybersecurity legend, though, and he has spammed Google enough to be the only guy on the first page. 
Vox has come up with an interesting take on the issue: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11054994/iphones-back-door-san-bernardino
In particular their take on the ramifications for the international situation is interesting. However, I disagree on their quick dismissal based on the idea that Apple will create a 1-shot tool just for that phone. The precedent this sets means that that is almost certainly not going to be the case.
Here is a bit more analysis on that aspect: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-the-fbis-encryption-battle-with-apple
|
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Thursday broke with GOP leaders on the issue of replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last week.
Asked whether he would nominate someone to the court if he had 11 months remaining in his term as president -- a situation President Barack Obama finds himself in now -- Bush said he "probably would."
"I'm an Article II guy," the former Florida governor said during a CNN town hall in South Carolina, referring to a president's constitutional power to nominate Supreme Court justices.
But, Bush added, it would be "better" for Obama's successor to make the nomination because of the slim likelihood that a divided S]Sourenate would confirm any nominee.
“Why not allow it to be part of the election?" Bush asked, arguing that the American people ought to have a say on the matter.
Obama has said he plans to nominate a successor to Scalia within weeks.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|