US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3877

On May 25 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:
Seem slike there should be more categories in that Krugman list.

On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:

Your wording/use of quotes was confusing. She isn't going to win Washington, so yeah she's likely to lose in my estimation (counter to current predictions). Essentially I should be getting some odds on this if you want to make it a fair bet. Either we should keep it for bragging rights or it the winning/risk should reflect the odds.

On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Frankly I don't think it matters much because there will be bigger problems with either of them claiming victory. Provided Hillary somehow wins, the majority of the country will believe she did so by cheating/manipulating the rules. Whether it's true or not won't matter much as we saw with a Republican party and Obama.

On May 25 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
With neither Trump or Hillary likely to get anywhere near 50% favorable before November, Bernie is the only person with even a chance of most of the country actually wanting him to be president (even if primary voting Democrats [~2.9% of voters, 4.9% if you include leaners] prefer Hillary)

That you have a similar story on the Republican side gives a glimpse into why the leading nominees are the least liked/trusted leaders in modern polling history. Pulling from that anything other than America will be very disappointed in either of them winning. strikes me as especially naive.

New Mexico sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an agency contractor and two mining companies on Monday over the 2015 breach of an abandoned Colorado gold mine that spilled some 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into three states.

The Gold King Mine rupture, which was accidentally triggered by an EPA inspection team called there to inspect seepage, unleashed a torrent of yellow sludge that contained high concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead. New Mexico, Colorado and Utah were affected.

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement issued with the 51-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that the discharge caused widespread environmental damage and substantial economic harm to residents, farmers and local businesses for which the state has not been compensated.

"The release of hazardous substances into waters that are the lifeblood of our economy and culture in New Mexico has had a devastating impact on our historical rural, agricultural and tribal communities," Balderas said.

The lawsuit, which names the EPA, its contractor Environmental Restoration, the Kinross Gold Corp and Sunnyside Gold Corp, seeks reimbursement for cleanup costs as well as damages and a court order requiring that the defendants take steps to prevent future such spills.

On May 25 2016 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Krugman nails it again. Point #4 has been the most embarrassing as a democrat. People start foaming at the mouth as soon as they see an unrealistic socialist and thus end up eating up every GOP attack there is.



Yeah, I think there needs to be a "fuck the system" category, as we have seen here on TL. People who have never really spent much time understanding political dynamics but know moooore than enough to say "enough already!" (sound familiar?) and just throw their support behind who is most rude towards money and power.

On May 25 2016 06:18 Paljas wrote:

I don't intend to defend the mix of naive and irrational nonsense that is the prevalent in the Bernie Sanders faction ( even though we probably mean naive and irrational in different ways), but one doesnt't need to listen to GOP attacks to dislike Hillary Clinton. Reading Wikipeida and her campagin page is more than enough.

On May 25 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:

Since the Wikipeida has been influenced by the GOPs constant investigation of the not a big deal, the Bush administration did the same thing, email non-sense, I don't that that is a good thing to cite. Members of the GOP have straight up said they know their attacks were effective at discrediting her and it was their goal. Before all the email and Benghazi BS, she had a favorable rating with the public.

Its the old attack method of saying an untrue thing long enough that people start to believe it.

On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

On May 25 2016 07:37 CorsairHero wrote:

Just look up clips of Hillary saying contradictory things. It's not even an attack because shes saying it herself. Like her stance on gay marriage for example.

On May 25 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:

On gay marriage, her opinion mirrored the electorate. When the electorate was mostly against gay marriage, so was she. Now that the electorate is mostly for gay marriage, so is she. I can't give her credit for being brave and standing up for the issue, but it's not contradictory in a dishonest way. It was an opinion that evolved over decades and I'd expect her to defend gay marriage in today's environment.

On May 25 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote:

You mean the ones separated by decades? Or the stance most of the DNC had until the winds changed? You have just cited the the stance that a ton of people, including Obama, shifted on during the last 8 years. My father changed his views on the subject, I don't think he is some dishonest guy. This shit gets so old.

On May 25 2016 07:51 SolaR- wrote:


Saying that it was an opinion that evolved over decades is just a nice way of saying that she changes her opinion with the modern consensus. People have been supportive of gay marriage for decades, and she CHOSE the popular path. I was a huge advocate for it 15 years ago and on. She cannot claim that she genuinely cares about gay marriage. She just can't.

Can you honestly say she would support gay marriage if not for the wave of massive public support in recent years? If the opposite happened and gay rights were denied by the majority, you can be damn sure she would be against it.

EDIT: looks like I kind of misread your post the first time. Seems like we are in agreement. Never mind!

WASHINGTON — Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party.

In a significant shift, Republican officials said it now seemed unlikely that the four states to vote first would all retain their cherished place on the electoral calendar, with Nevada as the most probable casualty.

Party leaders are even going so far as to consider diluting the traditional status of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as gatekeepers to the presidency. Under one proposal, those states would be paired with others that vote on the same day as a way to give more voters a meaningful role much sooner.

But in a move that would sharply limit who can participate in presidential primaries, many party activists are also pushing to close Republican contests to independent voters, arguing that open primaries in some states allowed Donald J. Trump, whose conservative convictions they deeply mistrust, to become the presumptive nominee.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are sure to mount fierce resistance when the changes are debated in July at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where party officials are planning to consider a variety of procedural and rule revisions. Normally overlooked and largely irrelevant in recent presidential elections, party rules have gained considerable scrutiny this year as, until recently, Republicans faced the prospect of their first contested convention in 40 years.

Anxieties about the system’s fairness, stoked by Mr. Trump when he believed he could lose the nomination, mirror the bitter debate unfolding in the Democratic Party. Democrats will face a similar reckoning before their convention, in Philadelphia, over how to address the perceived inequities in their nominating process, which Senator Bernie Sanders has denounced as unfair and corrupt.

Given the dissatisfaction with the rules in both parties, officials say, some combination of changes for 2020 is almost certain.

On May 25 2016 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:


So if I was the dude running a party, I would want early states to heavily favor the opposite side of my spectrum. In the end, centrists candidates always end up being who perform the best. I'd imagine the correct thing to do for the GOP is stack it with liberal states with enough red states to make it look less sketchy.

On May 25 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote:
Something needs to be done about the blue states that no GOP candidate will win being worth so much. Either lower their delegate hauls or split up their primary dates. They are meant to push liberal Republicans over the edge. the SEC states are all on that day because they have relatively low delegate numbers individually, so that's fine. But the fact that NY is 95 delegates is absurd. And CA's 172 is ridiculous too, although it rarely matters.

idk, there are so many ideas. Ultimately, the states can decide how to allocate delegates, but it makes sense that the party can change their numbers or influence dates.