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.
The $30B sounds like a budget for revitalizing coal country with infrastructure investment, education, healthcare and some sort of small-business loan program, stuff like that over the course of several years. I could be wrong though.
I'm not exactly sure how the $70B annual college access program is relevant since it's $70B for a single year of a single program versus $30B for a multiyear investment for a few million people. I would guess that economists who are negative-mixed on free college might be a little more favorable towards infrastructure investment in a community that's been left behind.
I also think there's a distinction between pandering versus having programs that target specific portions of the US population. Pandering has become a overly politicized and derogatory word these days, kind of like compromise.
On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote: not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment
Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
uh if they stay behind it's bad for them. the more mobile and resourced are already out. spending money to prop up unviable regions is not a long term solution.
i'm not saying they need to be forcefully relocated, but given resources so that they can move, or the second generation can move.
My point was the optics; you need to sell things the right way and recently HRC has been terrible in her framing, which is why she's lost 30 point leads all over the midwest
On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote: not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment
Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
Let's focus on what Hillary has actually said. What else than what she's proposing do you suggest doing for the people working in the coal industry?
Natural gas and the China collapse killed coal and it isn't coming back. The demand isn't there. Unless the FEDGOV starts buying coal to prop up the price, coal is over.
well, not all infrastructure is worthwhile, should be led by economic opportunity or you may just build bridges to nowhere. if a mining town has no advantages there is no reason to expect it to survive. you still want to help those left behind, usually the less mobile and poor. one can untie a group of people from the geographic region that they are currently living in. what is best for that group of people doesn't have to be constrained by also having to keep a region worthwhile.
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself
Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent.
the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented
The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
please read your own post. i bolded the relevant part.
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself
Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent.
the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented
The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
please read your own post. i bolded the relevant part.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
On March 16 2016 02:23 oneofthem wrote: well, not all infrastructure is worthwhile, should be led by economic opportunity or you may just build bridges to nowhere. if a mining town has no advantages there is no reason to expect it to survive. you still want to help those left behind, usually the less mobile and poor. one can untie a group of people from the geographic region that they are currently living in. what is best for that group of people doesn't have to be constrained by also having to keep a region worthwhile.
Forced economic migration is a bit iffy. We want to avoid the bridge to nowhere scenario, but I think trying to bring jobs to WV might be better than bringing WV-ians to jobs. There's a few bright spots in the rust belt that have made pretty nice transitions to tech, healthcare or other nonextraction/manufacturing economies, so the model exists
On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote: not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment
Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
Let's focus on what Hillary has actually said. What else than what she's proposing do you suggest doing for the people working in the coal industry?
Natural gas and the China collapse killed coal and it isn't coming back. The demand isn't there. Unless the FEDGOV starts buying coal to prop up the price, coal is over.
Exactly -- I fail to see what's wrong with saying that one can't hope to keep working in the coal industry forever, and that she'll do her best as president to not leave those people behind and help them transition to new jobs. How that is a flip flop or negative is beyond me.
On March 16 2016 01:16 Seuss wrote: I'm skeptical the nominee will be decided at the convention. A lot of the math being done assumes that the race's trajectory doesn't change, and it probably will.
At some point voters and/or the media will give up on Rubio and Kasich and things will essentially pare down to Cruz and Trump, but Cruz' best states are almost all behind him and almost everything ahead is some variation of winner-takes-all. Trump may be a little behind his mark after tonight if you go by 538's forecast, but if it's him versus Cruz come late April the nomination is Trump's.
I think the GOP is starting to wonder "Holy fuck, does Kasich maybe have a chance?". They need an end-game. I think Kasich is their only end-game now that unbelievably tiny, very small, Rubio is out. Cruz is just not a winning strategy.
IMO, in terms of general election hopes:
1. Kasich 2. Trump (defended planned parenthood, advocated for diplomacy in debates, never been religious enough to turn people off) 3. Cruz
Kasich isn't going to top the ticket, Cruz is going to have too much influence for that to happen.
The vast majority of remaining states are going to be divied up between Trump and Cruz, Kasich will always be a distant third at best. Whether or not Cruz has more delegates than Trump, he's going to use what he has as leverage before the convention even starts. Anything less than top slot and Cruz will revolt.
On March 16 2016 01:16 Seuss wrote: I'm skeptical the nominee will be decided at the convention. A lot of the math being done assumes that the race's trajectory doesn't change, and it probably will.
At some point voters and/or the media will give up on Rubio and Kasich and things will essentially pare down to Cruz and Trump, but Cruz' best states are almost all behind him and almost everything ahead is some variation of winner-takes-all. Trump may be a little behind his mark after tonight if you go by 538's forecast, but if it's him versus Cruz come late April the nomination is Trump's.
From what I've been looking at the polls, looking at the trends and whatnot, I think if today goes as predicted (Ohio for Kasich and Florida, Illinois, Missouri for Trump), it all will come down to California to decide whether Trump can get a majority.
Probably, but I'm guessing that long before California the voters (though probably not the media) will have given up on Kasich., which means Cruz vs Trump for California and in that 1v1 I think Trump has it hands down.
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself
Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent.
the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented
The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
please read your own post. i bolded the relevant part.
Where do you think the seed in a fruit is found?
really?
I'm being quite serious. Look at the claims in a typical Monsanto patent:
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself
Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent.
the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented
The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
please read your own post. i bolded the relevant part.
Where do you think the seed in a fruit is found?
really?
I'm being quite serious. Look at the claims in a typical Monsanto patent:
On March 16 2016 02:23 oneofthem wrote: well, not all infrastructure is worthwhile, should be led by economic opportunity or you may just build bridges to nowhere. if a mining town has no advantages there is no reason to expect it to survive. you still want to help those left behind, usually the less mobile and poor. one can untie a group of people from the geographic region that they are currently living in. what is best for that group of people doesn't have to be constrained by also having to keep a region worthwhile.
Forced economic migration is a bit iffy. We want to avoid the bridge to nowhere scenario, but I think trying to bring jobs to WV might be better than bringing WV-ians to jobs. There's a few bright spots in the rust belt that have made pretty nice transitions to tech, healthcare or other nonextraction/manufacturing economies, so the model exists
okay. but yea whatever works. they need to develop new economic opportunities.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
On March 15 2016 23:22 Plansix wrote: So if we tax the highest earners in the US, they will flee to other countries, diminish their influence on politics and future tax policy? That sounds pretty good for the middle class, IMO. I am sure we can find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue.
Middle class will lose jobs due to their fleeing employers.
Its economy 101.
Please do not pretend you ever took economy 101. The U.S. is far from a theoretical Laffer curve peak.
Awful arguments.
Middle class works for the top 1% in technique positions.
When the cost for the 1% gets high, its time they make internal adjustments.
the tomato patent is for the entire plant with a very specific characteristic developed in a very specific way, not for tomatoes in general. i'm okay with it from that angle. on the other hand, it does seem like a dumb thing to patent for because it describes a pretty generalized way of identifying a virus resistant variety. dunno how that would stand up in court. IANAL.
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
I'll also note, that (i think it was CNN) jumped on Trump on the endorsement like TMZ paparazzi. To him, it was just a random journalist randomly saying " DO YOU DISAVOW DUKE?!?!?!" Trump probably doesn't even know who he was, nor had any reason to believe the journalist.
That being said, I'm glad he didn't disavow Duke right away, because we wouldn't of had this amazing clip.
On March 16 2016 02:39 IgnE wrote: Seems like something that's fairly debatable to me.
well not really, the information content is fairly irrelevant to how it would be as food.
This reasoning seems like a legitimate slippery slope. What if the tomato in question maintained a bright red during cooking and was desirable for making Christmas dishes? Or what if it had a higher amount of a specific nutrient and was desirable for specific diets?
EPT
