|
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 15 2016 21:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 15 2016 20:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 15 2016 20:27 OtherWorld wrote:On March 15 2016 19:01 SK.Testie wrote:
Trump should crush.
Before the Trump machine got rolling I was pretty sure Sanders would be president because he had the most rabid fans. Now that the Trump machine is in full effect it's kind of crazy the pull he brings. After Chicago though I'm not so sure what Bernies base will do. They lost a lot of people for that stint they pulled and their continued immaturity.
If Trump doesn't crush, I'm calling rigged elections. He's talked to like millions of people at his rallies by now. If the candidates with the most hardcore fans were always successful, every democratic country would be governed by extremists by now... How'd that 75% tax on Frances wealthiest go? If you think Hollande is a left wing extremist, you REALLY should stop writing on this thread, and go read a bit about international and european politics, because he is at the very very very right fringe of the French left wing, on every single issue, be it economics, inequalities, immigration, security and so on. If anything, he represents the extreme centre, with a total lack of ideology. So again, if you feel the need to compare the mildest politician in French history with Donald Trump, I would very respectfully inform you that you have absolutely not the slightest clue of what you are talking about. (Also and that's beyond the point), the 75% taxes would have been low before the Tatcher / Reagan wave, even in America. Income tax was close to 90% for the wealthiest in 1975 in the UK. Strangely enough, inequalities have boomed to incredibly toxic extent since. Try to think who are the extremists in this tax story. You didn't answer the question. How did the 75% tax on Frances wealthiest people work out?
It was censored, remade and lasted two years as promised. What's your point ?
|
Today's a big day in US electoral politics folks, hold on to your butts :D
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm for a one time wealth tax that doesn't place a liquidity crunch on the system. maybe establish some sort of public capital management fund to in effect give everyone a share of the equity. use the proceeds for various good public investments.
|
Ben Carson's going-away present I guess.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Today's a big day in US electoral politics folks, hold on to your butts :D
nothing good will come out of it.
|
On March 15 2016 22:28 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 21:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 15 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 15 2016 20:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 15 2016 20:27 OtherWorld wrote:On March 15 2016 19:01 SK.Testie wrote:
Trump should crush.
Before the Trump machine got rolling I was pretty sure Sanders would be president because he had the most rabid fans. Now that the Trump machine is in full effect it's kind of crazy the pull he brings. After Chicago though I'm not so sure what Bernies base will do. They lost a lot of people for that stint they pulled and their continued immaturity.
If Trump doesn't crush, I'm calling rigged elections. He's talked to like millions of people at his rallies by now. If the candidates with the most hardcore fans were always successful, every democratic country would be governed by extremists by now... How'd that 75% tax on Frances wealthiest go? If you think Hollande is a left wing extremist, you REALLY should stop writing on this thread, and go read a bit about international and european politics, because he is at the very very very right fringe of the French left wing, on every single issue, be it economics, inequalities, immigration, security and so on. If anything, he represents the extreme centre, with a total lack of ideology. So again, if you feel the need to compare the mildest politician in French history with Donald Trump, I would very respectfully inform you that you have absolutely not the slightest clue of what you are talking about. (Also and that's beyond the point), the 75% taxes would have been low before the Tatcher / Reagan wave, even in America. Income tax was close to 90% for the wealthiest in 1975 in the UK. Strangely enough, inequalities have boomed to incredibly toxic extent since. Try to think who are the extremists in this tax story. You didn't answer the question. How did the 75% tax on Frances wealthiest people work out? It was censored, remade and lasted two years as promised. What's your point ?
He seems to have a very limited understanding of the history of taxes. That taxes on the wealthy have been higher than that and countries did not implode.
|
On March 15 2016 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Today's a big day in US electoral politics folks, hold on to your butts :D
Because of Trump's 9 delegates?
|
On March 15 2016 22:35 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Today's a big day in US electoral politics folks, hold on to your butts :D Because of Trump's 9 delegates?
I think this is the day when the math for most of the candidates reaching the point of no return.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i do enjoy the fact that richard epstein seems raging mad about sanders. guy's been too far right on trade for a while but it's still funny
|
On March 15 2016 22:35 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Today's a big day in US electoral politics folks, hold on to your butts :D Because of Trump's 9 delegates?
It's basically the last day to stop Trump. He could lose Ohio and not crush in NC Missouri and Illinois. I'm going with recent polling to say he wins Florida. If all that happens, he faces the possibility of not winning the 1237 delegates and the nomination. If Trump carries Florida & Ohio, Rubio and Kasich may drop out. And good riddance.
If you're a dem, Sanders has a shot at Illinois Ohio Missouri big wins (limiting Clinton's loser's take, proportional), closing up some of the gap. If you feel the bern, today's a big day too.
|
On March 15 2016 12:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 11:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point. Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide. I mean they already have government regulated validation of cage-free egg practices so it's not much of a stretch. First there needs to be lobbying from the industry in question, though, and for now I am pretty sure GMO-free companies prefer just calling themselves organic (a much hotter and more grokkable buzzword) and putting a blurb on the back or on their site rather than try to work with regulators to develop a certification process. The incentive just isn't there. For GMO-y labeling I really don't see any way around First Amendment protections for corporations here. Their labels are their speech. Unless their speech is doing real harm (as was finally shown with big tobacco) or there's another compelling reason (i.e. religious liberty), majority rule is not going to get past that right in the U.S.
The Government can regulate interstate commerce. That can include introducing legislation dictating what must, can and cannot be on a label. I don't see where there is a First Amendment issue. FFS breweries can't put 'strong' on a beer label in the US because the TTB says so (if there is one doing it, they just haven't been sufficiently audited by the TTB yet), even if the beer is really fucking strong. In fact a brewery can't advertise that their beer won first place in the "Strong Ale" category on their website.
If the Govt wants to it certainly has the constitutional authority to regulate food labeling to whatever degree it wishes to. I suppose there is likely a limit to arbitrary unfair regulations such that a given requirement could be challenged in court. Perhaps GMO labeling could be challenged as being too amorphous a term, useless to a consumer and unfairly stigmatizing in light of that. I wouldn't just assume that such a court case would go that way though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a clear 1st amendment issue. would get rekt 9-0 if it ever went to the supreme court.
|
On March 15 2016 22:49 oneofthem wrote:
it's a clear 1st amendment issue. would get rekt 9-0 if it ever went to the supreme court.
LOL, well I guess that settles it.
|
Just look at what the US government did to the tobacco industry if you have any doubts over its powers to regulate the speech of corporations.
|
On March 15 2016 22:47 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 12:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 15 2016 11:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point. Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide. I mean they already have government regulated validation of cage-free egg practices so it's not much of a stretch. First there needs to be lobbying from the industry in question, though, and for now I am pretty sure GMO-free companies prefer just calling themselves organic (a much hotter and more grokkable buzzword) and putting a blurb on the back or on their site rather than try to work with regulators to develop a certification process. The incentive just isn't there. For GMO-y labeling I really don't see any way around First Amendment protections for corporations here. Their labels are their speech. Unless their speech is doing real harm (as was finally shown with big tobacco) or there's another compelling reason (i.e. religious liberty), majority rule is not going to get past that right in the U.S. The Government can regulate interstate commerce. That can include introducing legislation dictating what must, can and cannot be on a label. I don't see where there is a First Amendment issue. FFS breweries can't put 'strong' on a beer label in the US because the TTB says so (if there is one doing it, they just haven't been sufficiently audited by the TTB yet), even if the beer is really fucking strong. In fact a brewery can't advertise that their beer won first place in the "Strong Ale" category on their website. If the Govt wants to it certainly has the constitutional authority to regulate food labeling to whatever degree it wishes to. I suppose there is likely a limit to arbitrary unfair regulations such that a given requirement could be challenged in court. Perhaps GMO labeling could be challenged as being too amorphous a term, useless to a consumer and unfairly stigmatizing in light of that. I wouldn't just assume that such a court case would go that way though.
I am pretty sure the "strong" beer is a case of inadequate certification apparatus and potential misleading of customers-kind of like what happened to "light cigarettes." That's more akin to not allowing people to put "GMO-free" since there's no certification process. Again, we are not talking about what companies are allowed to put on a label-we're talking about what they're forced to put on labels. Labels and packaging are 100% protected under the first amendment. The government cannot regulate speech to "whatever degree it wishes to" as a result-the speech has to be misleading or harmful or something else.
On March 15 2016 22:55 xDaunt wrote:
Just look at what the US government did to the tobacco industry if you have any doubts over its powers to regulate the speech of corporations.
Yep, it took them decades of massive evidence of harm and they still lost 1/2 the things they wanted them to do to labels.
|
In theory the government could make GMO labeling mandatory, but I guarantee you the FDA, the CDC and other relevant public health groups would testify to Congress and it would just be ten minutes of laughing.
You can buy these Certified Authentic stickers on Amazon, hooray for the first amendment!
|
Didn't we just have 10 pages of the GMO labeling merrygoround in this thread within the past few months? Do we really need to go there again?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 22:54 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 22:49 oneofthem wrote:
it's a clear 1st amendment issue. would get rekt 9-0 if it ever went to the supreme court. LOL, well I guess that settles it.
in light of the level of scrutiny required to compel commercial speech, yea it would get rekt.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:00 xDaunt wrote:
Didn't we just have 10 pages of the GMO labeling merrygoround in this thread within the past few months? Do we really need to go there again?
it is strangely entertaining, must be my sadistic side.
|
As it stands, it can be regulated until a court decides otherwise. I'm not sure if challenges to the Vermont law have progressed, but you can see in that brief that one of my points (vagueness) is one of the bases for the challenge. But to suggest it is clear that the Court would find 9-0 for 1st amendment is ridiculous. Today the law of the land says it is OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
