|
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 11:41 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:39 Plansix wrote: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.
There is zero chance of me changing GHs mind. That is fine. Sometimes discussions are a little hyperbolic and its ok.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 03 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:01 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. No, there's really no way for Democrats to take the gerrymandered House without something extraordinary. We can take the Senate but taking the House would require unprecedented turnout, which is tough for Hillary to garner. High-stakes election? Absolutely. Really I don't think there's such a thing as a non-high stakes Presidential election, although this is special due to Trump (but really, even if it wasn't Trump it'd be just as bad with Cruz or even Rubio). I know you have faith in Hillary. My beef is with the establishment as a whole. I would absolutely love to see the Democratic party crash and burn at this point. They need a wake-up call, just as the Republican party has needed one for a very long time and got one in the form of Trump. The gerrymandering are being thrown out by the court. One of the appeals was just finalized and undid all the non-sense the Republicans did. More cases will follow I assume.
I actually haven't read about this. Shoot me a source?
|
On March 03 2016 11:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote: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?
Easy, first they say that The Don wants to get rid of all Mexicans when he says only the illegal ones.
Then they say that he hates black people when The Don literally have a group of black priests coming out and support him.
Its people like you that keeps these dishonest medias afloat.
|
On March 03 2016 11:46 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 02:01 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. No, there's really no way for Democrats to take the gerrymandered House without something extraordinary. We can take the Senate but taking the House would require unprecedented turnout, which is tough for Hillary to garner. High-stakes election? Absolutely. Really I don't think there's such a thing as a non-high stakes Presidential election, although this is special due to Trump (but really, even if it wasn't Trump it'd be just as bad with Cruz or even Rubio). I know you have faith in Hillary. My beef is with the establishment as a whole. I would absolutely love to see the Democratic party crash and burn at this point. They need a wake-up call, just as the Republican party has needed one for a very long time and got one in the form of Trump. The gerrymandering are being thrown out by the court. One of the appeals was just finalized and undid all the non-sense the Republicans did. More cases will follow I assume. I actually haven't read about this. Shoot me a source?
This is the first one that came up in google.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/racial-gerrymandering-in-north-carolina.html
The NC judge threw out the maps and its doubtful the Supreme Court will take up the case before the deadline. I think the Supreme court denied a stay of the order too.
|
|
|
On March 03 2016 11:35 xDaunt wrote:This should cause some sphincter tightening: Show nested quote +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.
Ah so he's the idiot who set up a server that was apparently super exploitable.
I'm still gonna go with rules were broken. Except... the previous two SecStates did it and apparently half of Washington knew but never bothered to bring it up until (surprise!) Hillary was running for president. There's a case here to be made that errors were made by Hillary, but that's far from the massive, election-ending case that some are motivated to find.
In GH's defense, it kind of went from me being the main Hillary defender/ opposition to most people telling him to chill. I'm kinda surprised/ amused/ other emotions about that.
|
lol Congress will never allow drugs from Canada, India etc to be sold in the US the Pharma lobby is that powerful. I also like how these proposals give him wiggle room for price controls.
|
On March 03 2016 12:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:lol Congress will never allow drugs from Canada, India etc to be sold in the US the Pharma lobby is that powerful. I also like how these proposals give him wiggle room for price controls.
Wait a moment, doesn't Republicans hold majority in the Congress?
|
Trump's healthcare looks like he took random bits of health innovation and cobbled them together. HSA! Price transparency! Block grants!
It reads like some crap a guy who took a intro to health policy class 2 years ago would write.
|
On March 03 2016 12:08 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 12:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:lol Congress will never allow drugs from Canada, India etc to be sold in the US the Pharma lobby is that powerful. I also like how these proposals give him wiggle room for price controls. Wait a moment, doesn't Republicans hold majority in the Congress?
Outside money holds the majority in Congress
|
On March 03 2016 12:08 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 12:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:lol Congress will never allow drugs from Canada, India etc to be sold in the US the Pharma lobby is that powerful. I also like how these proposals give him wiggle room for price controls. Wait a moment, doesn't Republicans hold majority in the Congress?
Yes but the GOP is a party of Big Business that they like to say is for small government. It has been said countless time in this thread the GOP could sweep the Dems in several seats by drafting and passing legislation introducing price controls for prescription drugs which has popular support left and right. But they can't their party is too pro business to allow it.
|
Can someone explain the purpose and reality of the "state lines" healthcare shit? At first glance, I don't see why they'd be a thing.
On March 03 2016 12:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:35 xDaunt wrote: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. Ah so he's the idiot who set up a server that was apparently super exploitable. I'm still gonna go with rules were broken. Except... the previous two SecStates did it and apparently half of Washington knew but never bothered to bring it up until (surprise!) Hillary was running for president. There's a case here to be made that errors were made by Hillary, but that's far from the massive, election-ending case that some are motivated to find. In GH's defense, it kind of went from me being the main Hillary defender/ opposition to most people telling him to chill. I'm kinda surprised/ amused/ other emotions about that.
I'm in "chill" mode about this until I hear anything official from the FBI. I've made my case for why I think it could be a potentially big deal, but can't really make any judgements until the investigation concludes.
|
On March 03 2016 12:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump's healthcare looks like he took random bits of health innovation and cobbled them together. HSA! Price transparency! Block grants!
It reads like some crap a guy who took a intro to health policy class 2 years ago would write.
It's not really coherent either.
Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
That is kind of the polar opposite of his "ima get all the jobs back to the US" touting (if oversea drugs are allowed in masses, US companies will produce where it's cheaper - like any other).
Best joke is this though.
If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country
Yeah. Right.
So where's all the trump supporters, explaining to me how awesome that "piece" is?
|
that trump plan is unimpressive.
The preamble is just standard political trash and nonsense with some lies thrown in.
The points are a mix of good and bad; but are mostly things that are already very well known issues anyway, so it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
|
On March 03 2016 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 12:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 12:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:lol Congress will never allow drugs from Canada, India etc to be sold in the US the Pharma lobby is that powerful. I also like how these proposals give him wiggle room for price controls. Wait a moment, doesn't Republicans hold majority in the Congress? Yes but the GOP is a party of Big Business that they like to say is for small government. It has been said countless time in this thread the GOP could sweep the Dems in several seats by drafting and passing legislation introducing price controls for prescription drugs which has popular support left and right. But they can't their party is too pro business to allow it.
The system is totally deadlocked.
|
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. Like I said last time, as long as we're playing the game ...
You call what you do empowering, and that's the smug attitude I referred to, without regard to whether or not your policies help the most disadvantaged. Whether or not your empowerment is much more attractive than jobs. Feeling like it takes a centralized government directing empowerment everywhere because no poor person can receive help otherwise.
Hell, why even make a post if you can simply say "nobody actually believes this" to whatever the straw man du jour is? I did laugh at the unintentionally funny line of "believe that the people are innately incapable." Your policies are what don't help, it doesn't take any belief. Observe the record of history.
Your throwaway lines on laissez-faire and negative liberties and straw men on utterly incapable disadvantaged minorities are about as useful as the rhetoric I just directed back. I said it once and I say it again. 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?
|
Whenever I think of corporate money in politics I think of that line from Frank Underwood: "San Corp helps me purchase loyalty, and in return they expect mine. It's degrading, I know, but when the tit's that big, everybody gets in line."
|
On March 03 2016 12:21 strongwind wrote:
Whenever I think of corporate money in politics I think of that line from Frank Underwood: "San Corp helps me purchase loyalty, and in return they expect mine. It's degrading, I know, but when the tit's that big, everybody gets in line."
Here's to hoping season 4 is as weird as this election season
|
On March 03 2016 12:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 12:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump's healthcare looks like he took random bits of health innovation and cobbled them together. HSA! Price transparency! Block grants!
It reads like some crap a guy who took a intro to health policy class 2 years ago would write. It's not really coherent either. Show nested quote + Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers. That is kind of the polar opposite of his "ima get all the jobs back to the US" touting (if oversea drugs are allowed in masses, US companies will produce where it's cheaper - like any other). Best joke is this though. Show nested quote +If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country Yeah. Right. So where's all the trump supporters, explaining to me how awesome that "piece" is?
Months ago people were nearly unanimous in condemnation of the Shkrelis of the world - including Trump. Are you not for competitive drug markets?
|
Volkswagen’s chief executive was told about the company’s illegal emissions crisis more than a year before it admitted it was systematically cheating on US regulators tests.
The German company admitted on Wednesday that its former CEO Martin Winterkorn was, in May 2014, sent a memo detailing how some VW cars were producing up to 35 times more nitrogen oxide emissions than allowed.
In the memo Winterkorn was told about an independent study that found VW cars were producing very high emissions in real life, but very low emissions under strict test conditions.
Up until now the company has said Winterkorn – who resigned after the scandal broke in September 2015 – was unaware of the issue, which was caused by an illegal “defeat device” software VW installed in US cars specifically to trick US regulators.
In a statement on Wednesday the company continued to defend Winterkorn saying there was no evidence that he had read the memo, which was included in “his extensive weekend mail”.
However, VW said Winterkorn was told again about the problem in November 2014. At that point he was told that fixing the problem in the US would cost about €20m (£14.2bn, $21.7m).
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
