|
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. |
Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland to allow guns at the Republican National Convention — all in the name of safety.
The Change.org petition, which had more than 26,000 supporters as of Saturday evening, claims that the arena’s weapon ban makes those who attend the RNC in July “sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers and criminals.”
It’s addressed to Republican candidates like Donald Trump, who’s quoted as promising to eliminate gun-free zones in schools should he be elected.
“Cleveland, Ohio is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America,” the petition states. “By forcing attendees to leave their firearms at home, the RNC and Quicken Loans Arena are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside of the convention site.”
The argument that gun-free zones are dangerous is thrown around loosely in political circles. It’s often legitimized by misguided anecdotes.
Source
|
On March 27 2016 11:08 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 10:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 27 2016 10:40 Souma wrote:
Just because there's such a thing doesn't excuse the current political process. If you're going to justify the current system you're gonna have to do better than that. People already gave you the reason. For the same reason no democratic system is flat, it devolves into mob rule and produces nonsense or unelectable people Nope, sorry, not a good enough answer. Give me something that's doesn't in the end equate to, "control for people who think they know better but are still as dumb and fallible as everyone else and just want what's theirs." Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:05 PassiveAce wrote:
If trump wins through democracy then democracy is obv broken and I would like a refund please. Don't think you realize this but our democracy is already broken and not very existent, and not for the reasons you think it is.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Thanks, I can eat dinner now!
|
On March 27 2016 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:01 PassiveAce wrote:
Is Bernie even close enough to Clinton for the superdelegate margin to matter? Said it at least three times now. Yes, neither of them is likely to clinch with pledged delegates unless Bernie got big upsets NY and CA, or if Hillary had won WA by a decent margin.
You're answering a different question than he's asking (and some other people are asking) I think.
He's asking, "if superdelegates didn't exist, would Clinton be on track to grab 50% of delegates" to which the answer is definitely yes.
You're answering, "can Clinton win a majority of all delegates with only her pledged delegates" which is a pretty different question.
To me the second question is kind of moot/silly if people hate superdelegates as undemocratic, but that's just my opinion.
As for the overall superdelegate system: I think it's more meaningful and relevant in a 3-way race and CERTAINLY a better idea if your delegate allocation is a clusterfuck of awful that varies state by state like the GOP's system.
|
On March 27 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland to allow guns at the Republican National Convention — all in the name of safety.
The Change.org petition, which had more than 26,000 supporters as of Saturday evening, claims that the arena’s weapon ban makes those who attend the RNC in July “sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers and criminals.”
It’s addressed to Republican candidates like Donald Trump, who’s quoted as promising to eliminate gun-free zones in schools should he be elected.
“Cleveland, Ohio is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America,” the petition states. “By forcing attendees to leave their firearms at home, the RNC and Quicken Loans Arena are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside of the convention site.”
The argument that gun-free zones are dangerous is thrown around loosely in political circles. It’s often legitimized by misguided anecdotes. Source
Damn South park is prescient this year
![[image loading]](http://cdn.newsbusters.org/styles/blog_body-80/s3/images/South%20Park%20-%20PC%20Principal%20-%2010_28_18%20PM.jpg)
|
On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat.
Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc:
what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"?
edit:
^ would be funnier if it weren't so sad. Like, tragicomic.
|
On March 27 2016 11:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat. Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc: what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"?
Generally we're talking about political favors. Like help gather votes for certain things, etc etc.
|
On March 27 2016 11:26 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:25 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat. Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc: what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"? Generally we're talking about political favors. Like help gather votes for certain things, etc etc.
Well yeah, i assumed we're not talking mowing the lawn, or "friends with benefits". 
edit: what i meant though, is that a candidate could get an edge over the "better" candidate (regardless of current election) by handing out "political favors"? Or is there some different measure preventing that?
edit2: benefits, not interests -,-
|
On March 27 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:26 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2016 11:25 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat. Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc: what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"? Generally we're talking about political favors. Like help gather votes for certain things, etc etc. Well yeah, i assumed we're not talking mowing the lawn, or "friends with interest". edit: what i meant though, is that a candidate could get an edge over the "better" candidate (regardless of current election) by handing out "political favors"? Or is there some different measure preventing that?
Yes, unless the favor pushes past in criminal territory (bribes, corruption, etc.).
|
On March 27 2016 11:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2016 11:26 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2016 11:25 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat. Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc: what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"? Generally we're talking about political favors. Like help gather votes for certain things, etc etc. Well yeah, i assumed we're not talking mowing the lawn, or "friends with interest". edit: what i meant though, is that a candidate could get an edge over the "better" candidate (regardless of current election) by handing out "political favors"? Or is there some different measure preventing that? Yes, unless the favor pushes past in criminal territory (bribes, corruption, etc.).
Thanks.
|
The state of California has blood test results showing high levels of lead in children living near the closed Exide battery plant in Vernon but is not using the information to direct its massive cleanup of lead-contaminated homes and yards.
Health experts say the test results should be used to help pinpoint neighborhoods most in need of swift cleanup because children there have been exposed to more of the poisonous metal. Lead, which spewed for decades from the Exide Technologies recycling facility, is especially dangerous to young children, putting them at risk of lifelong developmental and behavioral problems.
Blood-testing data have guided government responses to lead contamination elsewhere. In Flint, Mich., the state is using maps of children's blood lead levels to target neighborhoods hardest hit by the city's lead-contaminated drinking water.
But in California, officials have been unable to launch a similar effort. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control said it has tried unsuccessfully for more than two years to obtain blood lead levels from state and county health agencies, which keep the records.
In September, 13 months after the cleanup began, it formally requested census tract-level data but still hasn't received it from state health officials. So the department is relying on soil tests, wind patterns and proximity to the plant to guide its cleanup of thousands of homes.
The state Department of Public Health has yet to provide the information, according to toxics regulators. The health agency said it is prohibited by medical privacy law from releasing data showing individual test results but is finalizing an extensive analysis of whether people in census tracts near the Exide plant have increased blood lead levels.
The toxic substances department said it knows of only two children — a baby and a toddler — who have had high levels of lead in their blood across the contaminated southeast Los Angeles County communities of Bell, Boyle Heights, Commerce, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Maywood and Vernon. Officials learned of the children because their families told the department about their blood test results.
To gauge the extent of the problem, The Times obtained and analyzed blood test records from the Los Angles County Department of Public Health. The analysis found that 547 people under the age of 21 living in the Exide cleanup area tracts had high levels of lead in their blood from 2010 to 2014.
Source
|
On March 27 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 11:26 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2016 11:25 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2016 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Sanders doesn't get superdelegates because he's done nothing for them on the individual level or the party level and they don't owe him diddly squat. Just briefly, trying to understand, regardless of who's up for election etc: what you're saying is, that a democratic candidate can be chosen by judging how many asses he crawled in and out of? Or do i misunderstand that "because x done nothing for them on an individual level" - or the other way around, "because x did xx people a big favor"? Generally we're talking about political favors. Like help gather votes for certain things, etc etc. Well yeah, i assumed we're not talking mowing the lawn, or "friends with benefits". edit: what i meant though, is that a candidate could get an edge over the "better" candidate (regardless of current election) by handing out "political favors"? Or is there some different measure preventing that? edit2: benefits, not interests -,-
better is very subjective, but maybe yes. though arguably being the "best candidate" of the party would include working with and for said party.
there's an important distinction to be made between rubbing backs/ being bought and having a history of working together and supporting each other which i think is often lost in discussion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this sandernista phenomenon isnt going away. we need obama to do some campaigning
|
On March 27 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:
this sandernista phenomenon isnt going away. we need obama to do some campaigning
I googled Sandinista because I hadn't heard that before and wow thats some crazy shit. Bernie supporters are not white supremacists and saying that it would be the first dirty election if bernie sanders won after the first vote is the biggest joke of history. America invented Election fraud and conventions back the in day was the place were nominations were settled. Thats some straight up hate mongering right there.
Not saying that you are hate mongering by saying that I just ment that google search brought up some werid shit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no it is just hillarious nameplay
|
Sandinista? I'm pretty sure that's Bernie's weakest album.
|
On March 27 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:
no it is just hillarious nameplay
It's also the type of thing that drive party members away from the other candidate. Attack the candidate if you must, but this idea of "sandernistas" and ignorant millennials has already driven many to say they won't vote for Hillary if she wins
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol go ahead and not vote for her. i dont care
|
On March 27 2016 12:06 giftdgecko wrote:It's also the type of thing that drive party members away from the other candidate. Attack the candidate if you must, but this idea of "sandernistas" and ignorant millennials has already driven many to say they won't vote for Hillary if she wins
while people could be more civil, it is sometimes difficult not to/ justified when you have people who claim to be super progressive then turn around and say they'll vote trump if bernie doesn't win.
|
Can Hawaii get its shit together and count!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
