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.
On May 29 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote: this might be a stupid question, but given that farming is so water intensive, why is there such a large agriculture business in Calfifornia? Shouldn't this be completely uneconomical at this point?
the soil in Cali is very good. The water is quite subsidized; and the farmers politically powerful. also it was better before the groundwater had gotten so depleted (a common problem worldwide); depleting groundwater faster than it replenishes covered the issue for some time.
On May 29 2016 00:53 SK.Testie wrote: Ducking the debate already turning positive for Donald. It probably hurt him a little but that will wear off by election time.
Insert the following as section (h): There shall be a Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates, which shall be composed of thirteen (13) members of the Republican National Committee, five (5) of whom shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and each of the four (4) regions shall elect two (2) members, one man and one woman, at its regional caucus at the RNC Summer Meeting in each even-numbered year in which no Presidential election is held. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint the chairman of the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates from among the members thereof. The Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall have the authority to sanction debates on behalf of the Republican National Committee based on input from presidential campaigns and criteria which may include but are not limited to considerations of timing, frequency, format, media outlet, and the best interests of the Republican Party. Each debate sanctioned by the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall be known as a "Sanctioned Debate." Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates.
Truly Donald is showing his 73D chess playing once again. Gives Bernie some of his star power. (Only way he will ever get attention at this moment)
Bernie wins a media cycle - gets some airtime - uses the airtime to attack Trump but also the DNC
lol there are no more primary debates, not that bowing to the RNC &/or DNC is a better excuse for chicken Trump. I'm hearing talks from top "journalists" that they both may just avoid doing presidential debates altogether and the media will make it seem like it's not that big of a deal.
On May 28 2016 21:11 biology]major wrote: Trump can once again just attack Hillary and shame her integrity while never elaborating on his plans, he has too much ammo. Once Hillary doubts herself because she lacks integrity, she could give a thesis on how to end world hunger and it won't save her. This is going to be such an easy election for trump. Hillary's strategy should be to avoid the issues, stand her ground and relentlessly attack trump, but after having kumbaya debates with Bernie I doubt she can.
Trump won every republican debate not on the issues, but on his presence and dominance. Once his opponents doubt themselves, it's over. From what I've seen I don't think trump even knows how to doubt himself so that is never going to happen.
Those videos make her look awful btw, that gowdy guy was relentless
Nah.
Trump won the republican debates because none of his contradictors could say that what he said made no sense at all because it would have angered the base. Trump was fighting opponents who had both hands tied behind their back because the Republicans are hostage of the extremists that typically like his propositions.
Hillary will have an easy time destroying him, having not to worry about angering far right nuts who will never vote for her anyway.
Right now is the worst moment for her, but as soon as Sanders boys find a better thing to do in life than helping Trump with negative publicity and ad hominem attacks, I think she will roflstomp him.
We must have been watching different debates because he was in center being attacked for a significant portion for each one. He was accused of being no substance point blank, and he continued his one liners in their face completely unaffected. I don't see how Hillary can rattle him. He's not winning because his positions make sense, he's winning because he speaks in simple language, is pretty transparent and has a dominating personality. None of those things will be affected by the marginally weak presence of Hillary, while she gets shamed with labels such as crooked/corrupt. Only question is can she stand up to him without getting flustered?
I think Krugman (sorry, him again) can explain that better than I do and in more eloquent terms. Worth a read as usual:
Greg Sargent interviews Hillary’s chief strategist about the coming general election, and finds him dismissive of claims that Donald Trump can repeat his march through the Republican primary. You never know — but it does seem obvious, except to the political pundits completely flabbergasted by Trump’s rise, that the general election is going to be a very different story. For the truth is that Trump’s Republican rivals fought with both hands tied behind their backs, and that just won’t happen from here on in.
Greg summarizes the case very well, but let me do it a bit differently. Think about Trump’s obvious weaknesses, why Republicans couldn’t exploit them, but why Democrats can.
First, he’s running a campaign fundamentally based on racism. But Republicans couldn’t call him on that, because more or less veiled appeals to racial resentment have been key to their party’s success for decades. Clinton, on the other hand, won the nomination thanks to overwhelming nonwhite support, and will have no trouble hitting hard on this issue.
Second, Trump is proposing wildly irresponsible policies that benefit the rich. But so were all the other Republicans, so they couldn’t attack him for that. Clinton can.
Third, Trump’s personal record as a businessman is both antisocial and just plain dubious. Republicans, with their cult of the entrepreneur, couldn’t say anything about that. Again, Clinton can.
The G.O.P. paralysis on these issues explains why, again and again, Republicans turned to a proven line of attack — that is, proven not to work: insisting that Trump isn’t a true conservative, which matters to voters not at all. Obviously Democrats will be able to go after different and, I imagine, a lot more salient issues.
And there’s one last thing, which I suspect may make the biggest difference of all: Clinton’s campaign can go after Trump’s fundamental buffoonery.
I mean, he is a ludicrous figure, and everything we learn just makes him more ludicrous. So why couldn’t Republicans make that stick? I’d argue that it was because there was something fairly ludicrous about all his opponents, too.
Think about Marco Rubio: even before his famous brain glitch, it was just obvious that he was a prefab candidate, a nice-looking guy with no real convictions or experience reciting lines he was told to deliver. The infamous “We must dispel with …” wasn’t just vile and stupid (even the first time, let alone repeated); it was also, transparently, not something Rubio believed or even cared about except that his handlers told him to say it.
Or think about Ted Cruz, whose mean-spiritedness and self-centered nature evidently stand out even in today’s conservative movement, making him a hated figure even among those who should like his message.
Clinton, on the other hand, is not ludicrous. She can think on her feet; she’s tough as nails. Do you really think the person who stared down the Benghazi committee for 11 hours is going to wither under schoolboy taunts?
The news media will, I fear, try their best to pretend that the contrast isn’t what it is. We’ll hear endless explanations of why Trump’s vanity, ignorance, and lack of moral fiber somehow prove his “authenticity”, which Clinton somehow lacks. And maybe that will stick with voters. But I don’t think it will. In the end, it will be a race between a tough, smart lady and someone who is obviously a yuge, um, Antonin Scalia School of Law. And voters will notice.
Seriously, Hillary& Brock's Million dollar trolls are going with Bernie's trying to get Barney kicked off the committees because Bernie is homophobic. This is the trash conservatives are talking about.
This kind of nonsense identity politics is what would potentially make things worse for those groups under a Clinton presidency. The only way to empower Trump's most racist/bigoted followers more than him winning would be to give them an ideal target like Clinton and these insane accusations.
Yes, border security is racist. But that guy misses the point entirely. It does not matter what you say to trump, you can't beat him in a debate if he has any ammo to swing insults at you. Bernie could have probably given him a run because despite his socialist policies he atleast has integrity. That would have been about as close to a debate of ideas that you would have gotten with trump. If these debates were moderated in the same way TL threads are, then yeah trump would stand no chance, I think anyways.
On May 29 2016 00:48 zlefin wrote: Solar, could you add a tldw (too long didn't watch). I don't want to watch a 15 minute vidoe just ot find out what was said.
I'm totally objective guys, I'm not even going to vote Trump, I swear... -> Why talking shit about minorities during republican primaries is smart -> Why giving your opponents goofy nicknames is smart -> Why Clinton's strategy is shit (woman card, pretending to be an outsider) -> Why Obama's strategy would be better (focusing on her own experience and pointing out Trump was doing reality shows while she was doing serious stuff like killing bin Laden)
I missed some parts but you wanted a tl;dw
Cute but you can make anything sound stupid if you write it like that.
So, you want to dismiss his post and still not summarize the video you posted alongside a one-liner? "Charisma on Command" starts out by making the bold claim of Trump SMASHING (yes, that's the title of the video) Clinton. But he's neither endorsing Trump, nor going to vote for him. To back this up, he talks about betting 1000$ on it, while not even voting for him! Can you believe it? I mean, he even showed proof of it, so he must know something YOU don't, duh. And nobody would throw away sacred dollares just like that, right? Right. Did I mention he's not gonna vote for him? Yes, and so does the author of the video like 5 times in the first minute.
Okay, so here we go: Trump appeals to the backwards masses who've been disappointed by the GOP trying to actually stick to facts during the elections vs. Obama. Simple people like simple messages, so the author of the video explains how giving each opponent of Trump a special name and making it stick by simply repeating it over and over again in public was actually genius and gave him lots of attention ("2 billion $ worth of air-time", source: random chart on the interwebs). List of points being made during the rest of the video:
- Trump making up not only nicknames for his only opponent left, Hillary Clinton, but also making it an alliteration. Genius!!! - To draw even more voters, he would make outlandish statements, painting himself as anti-establishment and an outsider. - Now that it's him vs. Clinton, Trump does slow down and changes the tone to a more moderate style so he has actually a shot at winning the general. - Hillary Clinton isn't a peoples person. Thanks Charisma on Command, I'd never have guessed. - Hillary Clinton has been a part of the very establishment Trump likes to talk about. - Obama is a cool guy, intellectual and the peoples champ.
Video ends with a clip of some dumb chick supporting Hillary. Author: "Could've also done this with a Trump supporter". But he did not. Also, he mentions AGAIN he bet a 1000$ on it. Seamlessly goes over to promote some other video of his: "Get the 4 emotions you need to make a great first impression every time". I don't give a fuck about making a great first impression EVERY TIME, but hey, the suggested video in the sidebar of "How to be the coolest guy in the room" by the same author really looks promising. You want an abstract of that as well?
So, this is what you base off voting for Trump? If so, you've been a Trump supporter from the very start, you just might not even have known about it LOL
On May 29 2016 00:48 zlefin wrote: Solar, could you add a tldw (too long didn't watch). I don't want to watch a 15 minute vidoe just ot find out what was said.
I'm totally objective guys, I'm not even going to vote Trump, I swear... -> Why talking shit about minorities during republican primaries is smart -> Why giving your opponents goofy nicknames is smart -> Why Clinton's strategy is shit (woman card, pretending to be an outsider) -> Why Obama's strategy would be better (focusing on her own experience and pointing out Trump was doing reality shows while she was doing serious stuff like killing bin Laden)
I missed some parts but you wanted a tl;dw
Cute but you can make anything sound stupid if you write it like that.
Video ends with a clip of some dumb chick supporting Hillary.
On May 28 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote: By that argument, all politicians are corrupt and so are business people. And Judges. And anyone in any position of power for a period of time.
Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption.
Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption.
To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here.
Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility.
I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense.
I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**.
*If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs.
** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage.
I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't.
I blame Bernie. He is running on an Occupy Wall Street platform of waging war on the 1% so Hillary had to pretend she wasn't a center-left liberal. HRC has always been okay with financiers and the continuing existence of Wall Street. So is Obama. So was Clinton1. But because Bernie is in the race she has to dance around acting like she is going to stick it to Wall Street when we all know she is just going to keep up the current Obama regulations.
Fuck Obama's regulations with its job growth, high approval rating, health care reforms, finance reforms, reduced war involvement, tax reduction, market growth, and increased social reforms. Only Bernie, Trump, and the GOP are against that.
I remain firmly convinced that, just as Bush Jr. saw a massive unilateral over-commitment of our military and resources abroad in response to 9/11 (quite a shame: his administration, raised the amount of international development aid [esp. in regards to HIV/AIDS] the US gave during his term, the Obama administration has since seen several [unnecessary] cuts), Obama has similarly overcompensated in the other direction, in terms of being overly, hrmmm, passive? withdrawn? Difficult for me to put it in good terms right now. I understand why he did and his own mentality regarding the role of the US in the modern world (and in putting much more stock in the use of drones to fight terrorism), I simply don't agree with it and believe in a much more activist role in the US, especially over the next one/two decades where it's critical for setting the tone of the next century.
We likely needed to leave some US forces based in Iraq to forestall the development of ISIS, and we're facing issues in Afghanistan because of the commitment to a firm deadline for withdrawal, and my opinion on Syria (and Libya) is quite clear. This doesn't diminish the positive accomplishments he's achieved re. US-Cuban relations, the Iran deal (in all likelihood), the recent agreements with Vietnam, and overall repairing US image and brand abroad after a fairly disastrous second Bush term (let's be honest though, it was mostly Iraq). However, with really the exception of the Iran deal, the rapproachement between the US and Cuba/Vietnam were bound to have occurred recently, due to shifting geopolitics and attitudes since the Cold War, and Vietnam is extremely anxious about recent Chinese moves/buildup in the South China Seas (did you know Vietnam is the 5th largest arms purchaser in the world? I didn't, but I probably should've guessed).
How did you know Vietnam is the 5th largest arms purchaser in the world? What the source?
Was a quote from an NPR interview involving the chief editor of Foreign Policy and a cursory check on wikipedia.
Delving into the wikipedia source, SIPRI actually ranks Vietnam 7th in 2014 terms of import expenditures. Averaging it over a range to account for discrepencies (2011-2015) and we hit about 8th, which puts it below China, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Australia, and Turkey, but heads and shoulders above others, and especially countries in the same "income bracket".
Part of this is attributed to domestic arms production (which Vietnam has weak domestic production of mordern arms in comparison to the US or Israel), but still.
So sanders has nominated a guy who called Israelis genocidal and Nazis, and now a guy who called Obama a republican in black face to the platform committee. What the fuck
On May 29 2016 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote: So sanders has nominated a guy who called Israelis genocidal and Nazis, and now a guy who called Obama a republican in black face to the platform committee. What the fuck
Ideologues are always a problem. The question is to what extent are they ncessary to provide useful moral guidance; and how to make sure you have enough for that, without the problems that come from too many ideologues in power.
A Sanders-type figure was bound to come along after Democrats basically ceded ideological control of the conversation about government during the 80s and 90s.
Also holy shit Bernies senior policy advisor going after Peter Staley. I can't think of a better way to guarantee you lose the LGBTQ vote (a key democratic demographic that Hillary alienated with her Nancy Regan foot in mouth) than going after a guy who is credited with savings millions of lives through his activism with the AIDS crisis. We have officially hit anger in the stages of greif.
On May 29 2016 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote: So sanders has nominated a guy who called Israelis genocidal and Nazis, and now a guy who called Obama a republican in black face to the platform committee. What the fuck
A boom in solar and wind power jobs in the US led the way to a global increase in renewable energy employment to more than 8 million people in 2015, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena).
More than 769,000 people were employed in renewable energy in the US in 2015, dwarfing the 187,000 employed in the oil and gas sector and the 68,000 in coal mining. The gap is set to grow further, with jobs in solar and wind growing by more than 20% in 2015, while oil and gas jobs fell by 18% as the fossil fuel industry struggled with low prices.
Across the world, employment in renewable energy grew by 5% in 2015, boosted by supportive government policies and subsidies including tax credits in the US, although jobs in renewables fell in Europe. The growth was despite renewable energy subsidies being far outweighed by subsidies for fossil fuels, where jobs were lost.
Another contrast, according to the Irena report, is the greater proportion of women employed in renewable energy compared to the wider energy sector. Irena found 35% of renewable energy sector jobs were held by women, compared to 20-25% in the wider energy sector, although the agency noted the renewables percentage remains lower than women’s overall share in employment of 40-50% in most OECD countries.
Renewables employment fell in the European Union for the fourth year running, due to the Eurozone economic crisis and the cutting of subsidies and other support. The UK employed 112,000 people in renewables in 2015, according to Irena. The report said: “The UK became the continent’s largest [solar panel] installation market, and the second-largest [solar] employer with 35,000 people. However, cuts in feed-in tariffs for residential rooftops in the UK could result in a loss of 4,500 to 8,700 solar jobs according to UK government’s own estimates.
Irena director general, Adnan Amin, said: “The continued job growth in the [global] renewable energy sector is significant because it stands in contrast to trends across the energy sector.” He said the increase is being driven by rapidly falling costs for renewable energy and expect the trend to continue as renewables become ever more competitive and as countries move to achieve the targets pledged in a global climate change deal agreed in Paris in December.
Listened to some of the libertarian presidential debate in the background; wasn't much of interest, as it was very much a primary environment, with a fairly small voter base, so it was 99% hardcore libertarian pandering.
Donald Trump supposedly told House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) he supports cutting Social Security but will not admit it publicly because it would hurt his election chances, according to a report in Bloomberg BusinessWeek.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly made the comments during a May 12 meeting with Ryan aimed at mending ties between the two top Republican leaders, Bloomberg reported, citing an unnamed source who was in the room. (Ryan has yet to endorse Trump.)
“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump said of cutting Social Security. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’ ”
Trump’s professed opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare has been both a hallmark of his campaign and one of his greatest departures from traditional conservative ideology. And Ryan, who repeatedly criticized Trump before the mogul effectively secured the GOP nomination, has made proposing dramatic reductions in the popular social insurance programs a defining feature of his congressional career.
Many conservative House Republicans told The Huffington Post shortly after the May 12 meeting that that they were unconcerned about Trump’s public posture on the programs. Several members interpreted him as wanting to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare solvency through some combination of the benefit cuts and other reforms that conservatives favor.
Trump policy advisor Sam Clovis had already appeared to reverse course on May 11, indicating that Trump would be willing to consider cuts as president.
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/total-apps-april-20160517.jpg)
