US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3093

On March 02 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
people are not informed enough to understand why a ny senator has some corporate donations. it is not necessarily nefarious

On March 02 2016 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


People are naive enough to believe it's not nefarious. She isn't refusing to bring back a modern Glass-Steagall because it would be bad policy.

On March 02 2016 07:27 Plansix wrote:

Just as long as you found a way to feel superior to everyone during this moment of loss.

On March 02 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Before the votes are even counted Hillary is already planning to meet with an NRA fundraiser

On March 02 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
rofl, nothing about superior, and Hillary not losing states that Democrats won't win in a general is not much of a win.

On March 02 2016 07:28 zf wrote:
Is it too optimistic to hope that after Sanders drops out this forum will become readable again?

On March 02 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:

ROFL, please do not attempt to paint Hillary as more pro-guns than Bernie. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I hope after tonight Sanders realizes that his best choice is to make a deal with Hillary, drop out and support her. That's clearly the best road to have a Democrat in the White House, and to see Democrats win seats in Congress (and in the Supreme Court, for that matter). March the 16th should honestly be the latest for him to drop out.

Whenever headhunters called, Frederick Steiner would tell them thanks but no thanks – he was content in his job as dean of the school of architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. Then the state passed a “campus carry” law and recruiters heard a different answer.

Amid fears that the law’s passage is leading to a “brain drain” of academics and will discourage students from applying, Steiner’s is a high profile departure tied to the new statute. One of the university’s most distinguished professors, he will become the dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design in the summer.

“I was very happy in Austin and love the University of Texas and the school of architecture,” he said. But the law, on top of worries over the effect of budget cuts, persuaded him to move to his alma mater.

“I, in a way, felt that public higher education was under assault, and then the campus carry bill came along and required us to allow people with concealed handgun permits to be inside of buildings and it excluded private universities in the state, even though many of the private universities receive various big subsidies,” he said. “In that context, when I was called in the fall by several universities I didn’t say no.”

The law goes into effect on 1 August. It requires public universities in Texas to allow license-holders – who must be aged over 21 and must have undergone background checks and rudimentary training – to carry concealed handguns on most parts of campus. Private universities can opt out and so far all the state’s major institutions have chosen that route.

Driven by passionate campaigns from faculty and students in Austin, the University of Texas, the state’s pre-eminent public university, has led the fightback against the bill, which was passed by Texas’s Republican-dominated legislature last year. The law allows for limited gun-free zones in certain sensitive places such as laboratories containing dangerous chemicals. But last month Gregory Fenves, the university’s president, reluctantly concluded in a report finalising his campus policies that weapons could not be banned from classrooms.

While proponents argue that more guns on campus may enhance personal safety, and would allow the exercise of second amendment rights, critics reject the security claim and say that campus carry will impact free speech because students and faculty will be wary of exchanging controversial ideas and entering into heated debates with people who may be packing a pistol.

On March 02 2016 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


People are naive enough to believe it's not nefarious. She isn't refusing to bring back a modern Glass-Steagall because it would be bad policy.

On March 02 2016 07:35 oneofthem wrote:

glass steagall isnt going to work with the legitimate growth of financial trchnology. what you do with glass steagall is to simply push a lot of the activities off the books and into shadow banking. the correct or at least workable solution is more transparency and vigilant monitoring rather than loads of paperwork. she is by no means popular on wall street.

you have george soros as her biggest wall street donor the guy who is funding inet and all these lefty economics to try and reign in the excesses of finance and also solve inequality. she has the toughest and most effective finance regulator we've had in gary gensler leading her wall street regulation efforts. these two are probably two of the most hated dudes in finance

On March 02 2016 05:40 oneofthem wrote:
xdaunt is the trump of the US Politics thread.