EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3204
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24419 Posts
No Are Democrats wrong? Yes That's that straight talk folks like. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18476 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you support fracking? No Are Democrats wrong? Yes That's that straight talk folks like. not those who like to drive cars, they don't | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
giftdgecko
United States2126 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:38 Ghanburighan wrote: Err, fracking was 50% of US oil production a year ago, it's more now. There is no way they can stop it without a massive effect on global oil prices. I think this a common issue when people hear Bernie speak. Many of his big proposals aren't going to be enacted overnight. They will happen over a certain time frame. And he has admitted before that he most likely will have to compromise on most of his proposals, but as he said at one of the town halls, "If you aim for 100, you might get 50, but if you aim for 50, you might get 0." Obviously a very simplistic notion and not all that applicable but it expresses his pattern of thought, which is that one should aim high. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32755 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:43 Nyxisto wrote: I'm just happy that they're at least talking about climate change. This is actually an insanely relevant international issue, I can't really imagine what Cruz Trump or Rubio would to to this on the international level. Does any one of them acknowledge the importance of this? Cruz and Trump deny climate change if I remember, while Rubio downplays its impact for the economy. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18476 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:43 Souma wrote: I think this a common issue when people hear Bernie speak. Many of his big proposals aren't going to be enacted overnight. They will happen over a certain time frame. And he has admitted before that he most likely will have to compromise on most of his proposals, but as he said at one of the town halls, "If you aim for 100, you might get 50, but if you aim for 50, you might get 0." Obviously a very simplistic notion and not all that applicable but it expresses his pattern of thought, which is that one should aim high. Very far from straight talk that. I just say that the "tough talk" is BS as I know it can't happen like that. This is exactly what people hate about promises made by politicians. This kind of populism is very popular though, and it's really up to journalists and other politicians to explain why it's misleading. This election cycle, they are failing miserably (especially on the GOP side). | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:43 Souma wrote: I think this a common issue when people hear Bernie speak. Many of his big proposals aren't going to be enacted overnight. They will happen over a certain time frame. And he has admitted before that he most likely will have to compromise on most of his proposals, but as he said at one of the town halls, "If you aim for 100, you might get 50, but if you aim for 50, you might get 0." Obviously a very simplistic notion and not all that applicable but it expresses his pattern of thought, which is that one should aim high. If one side is not willing to work with you whether you aim for 100 50 or even 3 it does not matter because you will get 0 and nothing I have seen has convinced me that the Republican party would even work with a Democrat on anything unless the situation is dire much less work with someone like Bernie and expect there base to not vote them out. Sometimes you just have to be realistic and know what you are working with. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5065 Posts
*Promises to appoint justices (or do other, unspecified things) promising to overturn Citizens United.* | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:46 Ghanburighan wrote: Very far from straight talk that. I just say that the "tough talk" is BS as I know it can't happen like that. This is exactly what people hate about promises made by politicians. This kind of populism is very popular though, and it's really up to journalists and other politicians to explain why it's misleading. This election cycle, they are failing miserably (especially on the GOP side). Nothing he said about fracking is misleading. I think you're still missing the point. We can replace fracking over a certain time frame with other alternatives. Don't underestimate the pace at which the renewable energy sector is advancing. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:46 Adreme wrote: If one side is not willing to work with you whether you aim for 100 50 or even 3 it does not matter because you will get 0 and nothing I have seen has convinced me that the Republican party would even work with a Democrat on anything unless the situation is dire much less work with someone like Bernie and expect there base to not vote them out. Sometimes you just have to be realistic and know what you are working with. That's exactly right. The current Republican party will not work with a Democrat, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, on anything. Which is why it's pivotal to elect someone that could excite the base enough to take both the Senate and the House. In my opinion, that person is Bernie. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18476 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:45 PhoenixVoid wrote: Cruz and Trump deny climate change if I remember, while Rubio downplays its impact for the economy. i think Rubio denies the human effect, while admitting climate change is happening (he's from Florida, I don't think he has a choice). He also downplays the economic and social problems that are predicted due to climate change. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:43 Acrofales wrote: not those who like to drive cars, they don't Interestingly, it's mostly poor people that like to eat that suffer from this. The massive increase in food prices end of the last decade was mostly fuelled by a rise in fuel prices, as food production and transportation is very oil intensive. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:48 Souma wrote: Nothing he said about fracking is misleading. I think you're still missing the point. We can replace fracking over a certain time frame with other alternatives. Don't underestimate the pace at which the renewable energy sector is advancing. There isn't a single serious analysis that supports this within the time frame of the next presidential term, or even 2. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
