US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3815

On May 14 2016 10:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:


It has already been posted here many times. If you feel lazy here it is again.

+ Show Spoiler +

She was talking about violent crime, she was talking about cartels, and she was talking about the targeting of children. She says she shouldn't have used that word, she says that she wouldn't use that word today. That's literally it. To accuse her of calling blacks superpredators when she wasn't talking about superpredators and her apologizing for using a word that would cause that confusion is literally what the apology is.

On May 14 2016 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


I've always been taught that apologies had the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" in them?

On May 14 2016 10:15 Mohdoo wrote:


I think she doesn't see the sense in apologizing in an instance where a term was not meant in the way people are talking about. I think she sees how it comes across and would not say it again because it did not come across as she intended.

WASHINGTON, May 13 (Reuters) - Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has asked one of America’s most ardent drilling advocates and climate change skeptics to help him draft his energy policy.

U.S. Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota - a major oil drilling state - is writing a white paper on energy policy for the New York billionaire, Cramer and sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Cramer was also among a group of Trump advisers who recently met with lawmakers from western energy states, who hope Trump will open more federal land for drilling, a lawmaker who took part in the meeting said.

Cramer said in an interview his paper would emphasize the dangers of foreign ownership of U.S. energy assets, burdensome taxes, and over-regulation. Trump will have an opportunity to float some of the ideas at an energy summit in Bismarck, North Dakota on May 26, Cramer said.

A spokeswoman for Trump’s campaign did not comment.

While the ultimate size and makeup of Trump’s energy advisory team is unclear, Cramer’s inclusion suggests the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s oil policy could emphasize more drilling, less regulation and taxes, and curbs on efforts to combat climate change.

Cramer has said he believes the Earth is cooling, not warming, and he has opposed efforts by the Obama administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

On May 14 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


So she didn't apologize like people have been claiming?

It's not the generic "she called all black people superpredators" that I'm even discussing. I'm talking about for calling victimized black youth gang members "superpredators" which is exactly what she was doing.

On May 14 2016 10:31 TMagpie wrote:


Overreacting over her word choices then
Overreacting over her word choices now
Haters gonna hate no matter what she says
It's cute really, like a child yelling at a wall

On May 14 2016 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not an overreaction then, it's not an overreaction now. She either apologized or she didn't.

On May 14 2016 11:04 TMagpie wrote:


Hilary's apology is actually a great example of the difference between Hilary and Bernie.

Hilary will no longer use the word, which is actual change.
Bernie gets stuck on word choice and rhetoric, because he doesn't actually want change.

Their supporters are the same.

Hilary supporters cares more that Hilary won't use the word anymore more than how she feels about it.

Sander's supporters get stuck on word choice and rhetoric because that's all Bernie's ever given them.

Which is sad really, to have people like you wanting what sounds good instead of what is good. Heck, you can't even get past the child comment, wanting specific word choice parallels from it instead of simply taking it for what it is. This is the legacy sander's is leaving behind, fanatics who are as stuck on rhetoric as he is.

EDIT

Sweet edit GH! Erasing what you said after posting it I guess even you can't handle you're own drivel sometimes lol

On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


She didn't apologize. She said she shouldn't have used it (didn't say why) and that she wouldn't say it again (no one says it). More importantly her and her supporters don't seem to understand what the problem was/is no matter how many times they are told.

Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else.

On May 14 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:

Rather than deal with the substance of the issues presented she and her supporters have relentlessly resorted to justifying behavior they would criticize if done by anyone else.

On May 14 2016 11:17 TMagpie wrote:


Justifying? What justifying? People disliked what she said, so she won't say it again. For the most part she probably doesn't care what specific word choices was made more than a decade ago. Especially a word with that had a lot more gray area as to what it meant back then.

Violent psychopaths that must be put in jail, that's a much more specific phrase that Bernie called your people. But you're okay with that, probably cause Bernie is white? Old? Doesn't really matter, so long as you're okay with it.

On May 14 2016 11:24 darthfoley wrote:
Kwizach, what are the odds Hillary loses to Trump?

On May 14 2016 11:30 kwizach wrote:

Far lower than the odds of Sanders losing to Trump, if that's what you're getting at.

On May 14 2016 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:

Why do you think Hillary is statistically tied with Trump in battleground states and in the general nationwide across a few polls?

Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.

“I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.”

She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed. In addition to providing more money for prisons and the police, the law banned assault weapons and offered funding for drug courts and rehabilitation.

“Because of the crime bill,” she said, “anybody that wanted rehabilitation, we could process them and get them a detox bed in a hospital.”

Ms. Brock’s comments underscore a sometimes overlooked reality in today’s re-examination of the crime bill: The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.

Mr. Clinton has seemed rattled at times as he tries to defend the measure to younger African-Americans in an era in which concerns about mistreatment by the police and mass incarceration have eclipsed the fear of crime in many black communities.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX had to sue before it got access to the Pentagon — but now, as it promises to deliver cargo into space at less than half the cost of the military’s favored contractor, it has pulled back the curtain on tens of billions in potentially unnecessary military spending.

The entrenched contractor, a joint operation of Boeing and Lockheed Martin called the United Launch Alliance, has conducted 106 space launches all but flawlessly, but the cost for each is more than $350 million, according to the Government Accountability Office. SpaceX promises launches for less than $100 million.

Yet despite the potentially more cost-effective alternative, taxpayers will be paying the price for ULA’s contracts for years to come, POLITICO has found. Estimates show that, through 2030, the cost of the Pentagon’s launch program will hit $70 billion — one of the most expensive programs within the Defense Department. And even if ULA is never awarded another government contract, it will continue to collect billions of dollars — including an $800 million annual retainer — as it completes launches that were awarded before Musk’s company was allowed to compete. That includes a block buy of 36 launches awarded in 2013.

Meanwhile, ULA is under investigation by the Pentagon for possible corrupt bidding practices and is preparing to lay off 25 percent of its workforce. Its long-term viability is in doubt.

Even the Pentagon’s acquisition chief grants that the creation of ULA — a monopoly criticized by the Federal Trade Commission when it was formed at the government’s behest a decade ago — may have been a mistake.

“With the benefit of hindsight, you could say that,” Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told POLITICO.

ULA’s unique situation has been brought into the spotlight by Musk, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded Space Exploration Technologies Corp., in part to help humanity colonize Mars. Even after a series of successful launches starting in 2008, SpaceX was shunned by Defense officials loyal to the department’s regular contractors.

After suing in federal court to gain access to the bidding process, SpaceX won its first military contract on April 27. The lawsuit was settled out of court and the terms sealed. In what would have been the first head-to-head competition between the contractors, ULA refused to even participate, perhaps because SpaceX promises it can deliver some of the Pentagon’s payloads to space for less than half of what ULA charges.

“We did what we were asked to do,” ULA’s CEO Tory Bruno said in an interview, pointing to the company’s record of successful launches and schedule certainty. “I think the government has been an excellent steward of their resources and of this mission, and ULA has done everything they have been asked to do.”

The parent companies echo that message.

On May 14 2016 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


You realize even oneofthem said he was intentionally mischaracterizing that quote? Is that what you're doing also, or are you being sincere?

Some are saying it wasn't a big deal and she shouldn't apologize, others are saying it was wrong and she did apologize. None of you are even understanding my point, instead you're arguing the point Solar and them were making. Which, was not the one I was making. If you want to argue about the word in isolation, take that up with them.

On May 14 2016 11:43 Deathstar wrote:
Funny thing about calling Hillary racist for the superpredator comment is that black people were the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton's crime bill and were also the primary beneficiaries of the crime bill. It's not white people that were largely living in the crime infested urban cities. Enjoy the reality check.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0

On May 14 2016 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Why do you think Hillary is statistically tied with Trump in battleground states and in the general nationwide across a few polls?