|
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. |
On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago.
There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules.
We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says to them behind doors blocked by money.
|
On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money.
I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry.
|
On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry.
So instead you're voting for what you claim you're against. This is why Sanders is struggling. Too many people resigning to accepting the status quo.
Like was said, the change is coming, but Democrats haven't caught up with Republicans when it comes to realizing their establishment politicians have more in common with the other side's establishment than they do with their supporters.
I'm working hard to wake folks up, but some stand proudly on their concession to the shittyness that is what we have now.
|
On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:08 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote:
Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. You've got to be kidding. I can't pick the title of videos. How is participating in a caucus without verifying registration or that your even in the appropriate district not cheating? How is campaigning illegally during voter registration not cheating? How is not following the caucus count rules not cheating. I honestly can't believe people who call themselves progressives/democrats are actually defending this crap just because it's their preferred candidates camp doing it.
Who the hell talked about you? I wrote it was funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa, because that's exactly what some Sanders supporters are claiming on your video. I never argued you said that. Can you stop with the knee-jerk reactions already?
And please, youtube videos like that can hardly be considered evidence of anything.
|
On March 03 2016 11:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:08 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote:
Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. You've got to be kidding. I can't pick the title of videos. How is participating in a caucus without verifying registration or that your even in the appropriate district not cheating? How is campaigning illegally during voter registration not cheating? How is not following the caucus count rules not cheating. I honestly can't believe people who call themselves progressives/democrats are actually defending this crap just because it's their preferred candidates camp doing it. Who the hell talked about you? I wrote it was funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa, because that's exactly what some Sanders supporters are claiming on your video. I never argued you said that. Can you stop with the knee-jerk reactions already? And please, youtube videos like that can hardly be considered evidence of anything.
It was a video that you can watch on cspan if you just want to see it without commentary. The point was that rather than say anything about the substance you jumped on the title. This is just sad at this point.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I just took a Lyft and the driver started to talk politics and he was like, "You know who I'm not voting for--the guy who's never covered by the media. No one's afraid of him."
Of course he was talking about Bernie. So silly. :|
|
On March 03 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. So instead you're voting for what you claim you're against. This is why Sanders is struggling. Too many people resigning to accepting the status quo. Like was said, the change is coming, but Democrats haven't caught up with Republicans when it comes to realizing their establishment politicians have more in common with the other side's establishment than they do with their supporters. I'm working hard to wake folks up, but some stand proudly on their concession to the shittyness that is what we have now.
I know, I saw. I wasn't impressed. Change is coming. Sanders likely isn't it. But there is a new Supreme Court seat open and Warren is still doing good work.
|
This should cause some sphincter tightening:
The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
Source.
|
On March 03 2016 11:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:01 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2016 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 10:29 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 10:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11140930/trump-rubio-racial-resentmentI think this speaks volumes when Trump is made out to be supported by racists, sexists, etc, etc. (disproving it, at least relative to every other candidate in the GOP) And wow, the political machine is hard at work, they really turned up their efforts to shit on Trump after yesterday, I encourage the Trump supporters to not be swayed by the media and stick to their roots, whatever they are.
1 Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Black people should do the same without any special favors.
2 It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if black people would only try harder they could be just as well-off as whites.
3 Over the past few years, black people have gotten less than they deserve.
4 Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for black people to work their way out of the lower class.
For the first two questions, agreeing is seen as a sign of racial resentment, whereas for the latter two, disagreeing is.
It's baffling that academics came up with something like this and we're to accept it on their authority. Makes sense though, laissez-faire stuff and negative freedoms are the best tool to keep minorities in shitty positions right now. It's interesting because it has heavily reversed in the last three decades or so. The market can segregate cities faster than any evil bureaucrat could have dreamed of. Campaigning against negative liberties and redistribution policies is a better way to hurt those in poverty and offer them no way out. The difference is, you can feel very smug about yourself while doing it. You're helping the poor after all. Rhetoric on one side, the corresponding rhetoric on the other. Why would there even be two sides on this issue if each didn't cleave to their own explanations? The problem is simply that there is the smug "well people who support affirmative action are the real racists" argument, as if people who believe in actively empowering socially disadvantaged groups must automatically believe that the people are innately incapable or something like that, but nobody actually believes this. Acknowledging that being part of a marginalized group might mean that you cannot pull yourselves out of it isn't racism. It would be equally true if skin colors were reversed. It's a really cheap trick to play on the American idea that everybody is responsible for themselves and not helping black people actually shows how confident you are in their skills and so on, but in the end it's just a trick to keep the status quo in tact. If the federal government and proactive social policies would help keeping old hierarchies intact the Koch Brothers would be funding Bernie Sanders.
By the poll's own numbers, around half of Sanders/Clinton supporters (supporters, not "WASP supporters") are also pegged for "racial resentment," whatever that's supposed to mean. The first question is self-defeating (compliments minorities and then concludes agreeing bad), the second and third are vague to the point of meaningless (or rather, they're scripted intentionally to get people to divide themselves ideologically, and what does "past few years" and "It's really a matter of" and "deserve" mean), but the fourth is clear enough. The whole thing is also black-centric, which gives the impression not of being a quiz someone developed when they took an honest look at minorities in America, but someone obviously pushing an agenda.
It would be equally true if skin colors were reversed.
The reason people don't buy into affirmative action is that they believe color is no longer a fundamental reason people can or can't move up in the country. It's more broadly something like how advantaged you are, of which someone's skin color may be a factor, but not a measure.
|
On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry.
You tell him to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and manipulated. You then proceed to paint the opposition as stupid and manipulated. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements?
|
On March 03 2016 11:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. So instead you're voting for what you claim you're against. This is why Sanders is struggling. Too many people resigning to accepting the status quo. Like was said, the change is coming, but Democrats haven't caught up with Republicans when it comes to realizing their establishment politicians have more in common with the other side's establishment than they do with their supporters. I'm working hard to wake folks up, but some stand proudly on their concession to the shittyness that is what we have now. I know, I saw. I wasn't impressed. Change is coming. Sanders likely isn't it. But there is a new Supreme Court seat open and Warren is still doing good work.
While simultaneously under attack from a close friend and former employee of Hillary Clinton the person you are supporting. You think Hillary is going to act any different than she did last time Warren called her out, if she's president? Who's side do you think she actually takes? The person who helped her win the nomination or the person who didn't endorse with the other women in the Senate?
|
On March 03 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:28 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:08 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote:
Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. You've got to be kidding. I can't pick the title of videos. How is participating in a caucus without verifying registration or that your even in the appropriate district not cheating? How is campaigning illegally during voter registration not cheating? How is not following the caucus count rules not cheating. I honestly can't believe people who call themselves progressives/democrats are actually defending this crap just because it's their preferred candidates camp doing it. Who the hell talked about you? I wrote it was funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa, because that's exactly what some Sanders supporters are claiming on your video. I never argued you said that. Can you stop with the knee-jerk reactions already? And please, youtube videos like that can hardly be considered evidence of anything. It was a video that you can watch on cspan if you just want to see it without commentary. The point was that rather than say anything about the substance you jumped on the title. This is just sad at this point.
There was no substance, and I didn't jump on the title, I grinned at the delusion of some people who truly believe that the reason Sanders lost Iowa was that Hillary cheated. Seriously, just move on from those ridiculous accusations and let's debate some actual issues and policies.
|
On March 03 2016 11:36 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. You tell him to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and manipulated. You then paint the opposition as stupid and manipulated. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements?
That was pretty hyperbolic, but GH sort of brings that out in people by calling them stupid constantly. Like in every post. He has been a broken record since Sanders started running and its gotten real bad recently.
|
I really hate when people equate age with wisdom. I know plenty of foolish old people and plenty of wise young people. Same goes with age and conservatism. What a bunch of nonsense.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i saw a story about some australian blokes using their government's money to go to america and sabotage hillary campaign signs in order to help bernie. good thing is that they were also sabotaging trump signs. at least they are not as confused as american sandernistas
|
On March 03 2016 11:36 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. You tell him to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and manipulated. You then paint the opposition as stupid and manipulated. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements?
He hasn't for years. Not sure why he'd start now.
|
On March 03 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:36 strongwind wrote:On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. You tell him to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and manipulated. You then paint the opposition as stupid and manipulated. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements? He hasn't for years. Not sure why he'd start now.
Says the guy who is guilty of the exact same thing. Can you tell me again how I don't understand the Republican party and the liberal media has manipulated us all?
|
On March 03 2016 11:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:36 strongwind wrote:On March 03 2016 11:22 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:14 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
GH is just going to post youtube videos until Sanders drops out and then for a little while afterwords. We just need to deal with it.
And GH, you are likely be correct that Clinton was within 150 of the door. But the infraction was so minor that the MA election offices decided not to charge or take any action. That is how laws work. You can't invalid everyone vote because Bill stood to close to a door for half an hour.
But you still make wild claims and then act like a brat when people ask for evidence. I called you a liar because you keep doing that. When google and every new agency is saying Clinton didn't violate the law, you need to provide evidence saying otherwise. And Bernie supporters are supposed to be the delusional ones. They aren't wild claims, they are statements of fact which you deny. You want money out of politics, and to get rid of citizens united yet you support the only person with a superPAC and who had the ban on lobbyists donating to the party lifted so her donors could pump money there. It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe the same person who is usually all over social justice causes is supporting someone who helped smear victims and hires people who do the same. Not to mention her damn campaign is run by a lobbyist. You would be the first person to call bullshit on that yet here you are being a dutifully defending it. It comes from being older and having alot more context, tbh. I got over the my way or the highway shit a long time ago. There is no reason to think the only person in the race with a superPAC is going to do anything to stop it but blind faith. You also have to ignore her battling to preserve shady donation rules. We all know money has a corrupting influence in politics, and Hillary has obviously been taking tons of money from people who disagree with what she says in public while refusing to show us what she says behind doors blocked by money. I've said this before and I will say it again. You need to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or manipulated. Getting a bunch of college kids and left wing progressives to vote by promising a socialist revolution did not impress me. Sorry. You tell him to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and manipulated. You then paint the opposition as stupid and manipulated. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements? That was pretty hyperbolic, but GH sort of brings that out in people by calling them stupid constantly. Like in every post. He has been a broken record since Sanders started running and its gotten real bad recently.
Combating hyperbole with your own hyperbole is a pretty weak argument. Trust me, there have been a lot of broken records here. Not everyone is on the same side in this thread.
|
On March 03 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:28 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 11:08 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 10:52 kwizach wrote:
Too funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa :-D Stay classy, folks. I'm not saying she "stole" Iowa, I'm putting a rest to the crap about not providing evidence her camp has been cheating. Now instead of talk about the evidence you so wanted, you've already shifted to fighting a strawman. Typical. The title of the second video you posted starts with "How Hillary Clinton stole Iowa". Who's fighting a strawman? Also, you provided evidence that Bill Clinton was too close to a polling station, not that there were other instances of cheating. You've got to be kidding. I can't pick the title of videos. How is participating in a caucus without verifying registration or that your even in the appropriate district not cheating? How is campaigning illegally during voter registration not cheating? How is not following the caucus count rules not cheating. I honestly can't believe people who call themselves progressives/democrats are actually defending this crap just because it's their preferred candidates camp doing it. Who the hell talked about you? I wrote it was funny to see Sanders supporters claim Hillary stole Iowa, because that's exactly what some Sanders supporters are claiming on your video. I never argued you said that. Can you stop with the knee-jerk reactions already? And please, youtube videos like that can hardly be considered evidence of anything. It was a video that you can watch on cspan if you just want to see it without commentary. The point was that rather than say anything about the substance you jumped on the title. This is just sad at this point. There was no substance, and I didn't jump on the title, I grinned at the delusion of some people who truly believe that the reason Sanders lost Iowa was that Hillary cheated. Seriously, just move on from those ridiculous accusations and let's debate some actual issues and policies.
Oh well you said "there was no substance" that clears things up. Is it hypocrisy day or something?
|
Lowering the price of fruits and vegetables by 30 percent can save nearly 200,000 lives over 15 years — roughly the population of Des Moines, Iowa. That's the message being touted by researchers this week at the American Heart Association's Epidemiology meeting in Phoenix.
We know eating more fruits and vegetables is good for your heart. Now computer models suggest that making that produce more affordable may actually translate into lower death rates from heart disease and stroke. And, the researchers add, lower prices are more effective at saving lives than traditional campaigns designed to encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables, like "5 A Day."
Lower prices for fruits and vegetables meant better health across the population, regardless of age, gender, race and ethnicity, lead researcher Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, an academic clinical fellow at Imperial College in London, tells us.
Researchers from the U.K. and Tufts University created a tool called the U.S. IMPACT Food Policy Model that included projections of U.S. demographics and cardiovascular death rates to 2030. They then combined the data with current and projected fruit and vegetable intake figures. The model allowed the team to simulate the effects of different policies on eating habits.
"We were able to take a given change of price, and [determine] what that change in price does to consumption levels," says Stuttard.
It's the ability to model outcomes that's new here, says American Heart Association president Dr. Mark Creager, a cardiovascular disease expert.
"They're doing the modeling that will demonstrate how pricing affects health. The best example is what's happened to tobacco. The increase in the cost of the price of cigarettes" deterred some smokers from lighting up, which meant fewer people exposed to the health risks associated with that habit, he says.
"Another example is the price of food like sugar-sweetened beverages," Creager says. Mexico's soda tax has pushed consumption rates down. "It's too early to see outcomes yet, but we can anticipate as they consume less sugar, it will have downstream effects for weight reduction." And therefore, better health.
So far, no national studies have been done looking at how financial incentives drive healthy eating, the researchers say. But a smaller study conducted in Massachusetts between 2011-2012 mirrored the findings of the modeling done at Tufts and Imperial College.
That previous study — the Healthy Incentives Pilot — tested financial incentives for SNAP recipients that were designed to encourage more consumption of fruits and vegetables. Under the program, some SNAP participants received an extra 30 cents for every dollar of SNAP benefits — but could spend the extra money only on targeted fruits and vegetables.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
