US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3787

On May 11 2016 07:14 Plansix wrote:
If you want to sit out the election, that is your decision. But don't expect people to be pumped about it or agree with you, just like you give people shit for supporting Hilary.

On May 11 2016 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not about "being equally happy". If you only want people to participate when it benefits you, then you don't get to use civic responsibility to shame people into voting when it helps you is basically my point.

If the long lines, voter registration changes, lacking equipment/staff, etc... only raises red flags for you when the other side does it then you don't get to pretend your intentions are pure.

People are shamelessly trying to make a pathos argument under the cover of the logic that any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump and it's completely disingenuous.

+ Show Spoiler +

On May 11 2016 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not about "being equally happy". If you only want people to participate when it benefits you, then you don't get to use civic responsibility to shame people into voting when it helps you is basically my point.

If the long lines, voter registration changes, lacking equipment/staff, etc... only raises red flags for you when the other side does it then you don't get to pretend your intentions are pure.

People are shamelessly trying to make a pathos argument under the cover of the logic that any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump and it's completely disingenuous.

+ Show Spoiler +



Yeah, the parties have done a lot to limit the influence folks from outside can have on who's on the ballot in Nov, but Trump pushed past it. Trump had the luxury of Republicans not having a figure like Hillary for the establishment to consolidate around. Which was their downfall, as I predicted, before the race really started.

On May 11 2016 05:59 SolaR- wrote:
Trump isn't saying mexicans are all rapists or drug dealers. I don't know where that is coming from. Trump has nothing against mexicans coming over to this country legally. Every country, including america, has hordes of criminals and rapists. For whatever reason Mexico has a lot of criminals with a seriously flawed justice system.Typically, criminals want to flee from a country that they commited crimes in to escape justice. We certainly have citizens of the united states who do this all the time.

Now, as a competitve nation we want the best people that mexico has to offer to improve our nation which requires us to properly screen who comes into this country. Currently, alot of criminals are coming to our country that we're not screened and we have no idea who they are. In addition, they are coming from a country that has huge problems with drug cartels and sex trafficing. How many of these criminals coming over is debatable, but is in fact happening which i think is enough to do something about it.

You can't blame a country in a competitive world to seek quality people to come over to our country. People that come over through improper channels not only hurt americian citizens but also hurt potential legal immigrants who would contribute to our society. Those 30 million illegal immigrants could have been 30 million legal immigrants all with more education and technical skill. America is not and should not be a refugee camp.

It is unimaginable that people cannot discern the difference between illegality and legality..

On May 11 2016 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:

Trump has no issue with mexicans comming over legally to work (or at least he claims so) but his voters have.
It's the whole "mexicans stealing jobs" thing, be it low-education or high-education. You have enough people claiming that indians comming over to work in the tech industry working for less are dumping salary's for american-born people, putting them out of jobs etc.

That's probably the biggest reason the TeaParty people hate Rubio and co so much: for having pushed for more legal immigration.

The Food and Drug Administration is re-evaluating its definition of what counts as a "healthy" food.

The change comes as healthful fats — including fats found in nuts — are increasingly recognized as part of a good diet.

Currently, if a food company wants to put a "healthy" claim on its label, regulations stipulate that it must be very low in fat. The specific rules are complex, but -for instance — a snack food can contain no more than 3 grams of fat for a regular sized serving.

This means that many snacks that include nuts don't qualify as healthy.

The FDA says that in light of evolving nutrition research, it is now planning to solicit public and expert comment to come up with a new definition that will help consumers make informed choices.

The move comes after the maker of Kind brand bars — which contain almonds and other nuts — pushed back against an FDA complaint about its used of the phrase "healthy and tasty." After making its complaint, the FDA now says that, after reviewing the situation, it is comfortable with the company using the phrase.

"We are pleased that the FDA is looking into" revising its definition, says Daniel Lubetzky, the CEO of KIND bars. The company helped launch a citizen's petition requesting that the FDA take action.

The FDA definition of healthy is a hold-over from the era when dietary fat was vilified.

"Low in fat used to mean healthy," says Thomas Sherman, an associate professor at Georgetown University who teaches medical students about nutrition. "And high in fat had a pejorative context to it, "Sherman says.

As we've reported, millions of Americans clung to the advice that low-fat was best. During the 1990s, an era of fat-free mania, Americans were making a habit of munching on sugar-rich, refined-grain products such as Snackwells.

On May 11 2016 07:29 Plansix wrote:
People are very quick to jump onto the black mail train, when my story was mostly about my personal regret for not voting in two elections. It isn't really my fault if you are sitting this one out and are worried you might regret it. I might regrets voting. That is how it works.

It’s cool that people think their vote should be earned and they are mostly right. Of course we should demand more and expect to be excited about every election and the potential it brings. But that isn’t always the case and sometimes we don’t get exactly what we want. And sometimes we are faced with some really lack luster options.

If you don’t want to vote, that is fine. But personally, I don’t recommend it. It doesn’t make things better and mostly just weakens any argument you have about the current state of politics. Because straight up, politicians rarely care about the complaints of people who don’t vote.

SEATTLE — The coal industry, shaken by dropping global demand and tighter air quality regulations, took another major hit on Monday when the United States Army Corps of Engineers said it would deny the permit for what could have been nation’s largest coal export terminal here in Washington.

The $665 million project, called the Gateway Pacific Terminal, was already hitting headwinds. The developer asked last month that the state environmental review on the project be delayed, citing “uncertainty and related costs.” And one of the largest potential suppliers of coal, Peabody Energy, filed for bankruptcy protection last month.

But in the end, the decision came down to fish.

The Lummi Nation of American Indians had said the terminal, about 90 miles north of Seattle, would threaten the tribe’s ancestral fishing rights, which are legally protected by treaties dating to the mid-1800s. Spills or maritime accidents, the tribe said, could permanently destroy fishing beds.

In its decision, the corps agreed, saying the developer’s plan to extend docks across 144 acres over the water could have restricted access to the water by the tribe. That concern was enough to stop the terminal, corps officials said, without even considering potential environmental harm.

“The corps may not permit a project that abrogates treaty rights,” said Col. John G. Buck, the corps’ Seattle District commander, in a telephone news conference. The project, Colonel Buck said, “is not permittable.”

The chairman of the Lummi Indian Business Council, Timothy Ballew II, called the decision “a win for the treaty, a win for the Constitution and a win for all of Indian country.” He added, “The ancestral sites will be protected.”

But a spokesman for the project called the corps’ decision “inconceivable.”

On May 11 2016 07:47 Godwrath wrote:

I mention blackmail because i know what that's what you were doing. Maybe you weren't aware of it yourself, which can happen, and to be honest, yours is more about naivety, oneofthem is continiously dropping the hammer about how any leftists who doesn't vote for hillary is, on clearer words, just a retarded waste of oxygen.

At the timeline you mention:

1. I voted for PP on Spain.
2. I joined the army as a firmly believer on interventionism (Rwanda's genocide marked me while growing up).
3. Iraq happens
4. I felt horribly betrayed (and stupid) afterwards.

None of those things have anything to do with today's elections. I wouldn't vote PP because of that, or would vote a party just to stop them from getting into power, i will vote the program i agree the most with. If noone does, or they do very little, i will vote noone. But more importantly, i won't try to sway other people's vote to my current choice using arguments that will make them feel ashamed if they don't. It certainly is no better than the complains in this thread have against populism.

If you want those voters to vote your ways use Hillary's program that may attract them as a centerpoint of the discussion, not how bad of a democrat they are for exercising their right in what you consider the wrong way (and by you, i don't really mean you).

Kwizach made a half assed attempt a few pages ago, but i guess he has repeated it plenty times to don't feel the need to fully go with it.

On May 11 2016 07:37 Slaughter wrote:


From what I have gleamed from conversations with friends in the Tech sector they are taking jobs here but its mostly because there isn't nearly as many Americans going to school for those things anymore.

On May 11 2016 08:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jeez these West Virginia polls are conservative leaning even by Democratic standards. One thing is clear is that both sides seem to be rejecting neoliberalism especially in trade.

On May 11 2016 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:


I think people have just straight up had enough of trade deals. I think trade deals are an extremely underrated issue. It means so much more to voters than the parties are willing to admit. Our goddess will be defeated handily today for this reason alone.

On May 11 2016 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:
None of this has anything to do with the realities of voting. We will have two choices this year. They can not, in any intellectually honest way, be considered equal. One advocates for $12.50 and the other would prefer to do nothing. Isn't the entire idea that some groups are really disproportionately fucked a really big deal to you?

One of the fundamental ideals behind BLM is the idea that there exists a population in the US which has the unfortunate curse of living in a parallel society to the rest of our country. Institutionalized racism and millions of other small things make blacks, on average, more prone to a lot of shitty shit. This is a group which, when the GOP is in charge, gets shafted way worse than other groups. When the EPA gets gutted and suddenly people are able to build some toxic shit, where do you think it'll go? The communities that can organize and defend themselves with lawyers and protests and other shit (that the poor simply do not have the time for) will be fine, but the communities that can not defend themselves will suffer immensely, as they have already.

As I continued typing shit, I realized I am preaching to the choir. You get it. Some people get shafted way harder than others. I still remember what its like to grow up without food security or housing security. I think Clinton will do more to protect vulnerable families like my own than Trump would. $150 makes a huge difference to many, many families, my own growing up included. I'm not sure what your situation was like growing up, but some Paul Ryan'esque entitlement cuts would have probably meant homelessness for my family. Clinton may have similarities with the GOP, but I don't think there's any argument to be made that Trump or Clinton would have meant the same situation for me growing up.