EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4139
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23464 Posts
On June 29 2016 08:13 ticklishmusic wrote: unlike with brexit, we were fortunate the dog didnt catch the car like i said if he'd endorsed earlier he would have gotten credit for clinton opening up a double digit lead over trump (and consistent though smaller leads across battleground states). convert that into a prime speaking spot, and then he and warren become the liberal ion and lioness of the senate. if he had done so GH would have been talking about how bernie generated all this enthusiasm and unified the party rather than saying "clinton is statistically tied in colorado she's such an awful candidate". You really don't understand why so many people are supporting Bernie. Just like Warren, lining up behind Clinton would make Bernie's supporters think less of Bernie, not more of Clinton. I understand people having reservations about Bernie, but Clinton represents so much of what is wrong with our political system. To the point where they are bragging that they are more able to pull money from wall street and the like than Trump. If people can't see the irony of supporting the worst abuser of campaign finance to "fix it", or the biggest supporter of ME conflicts to stop them, than I don't find it surprising that you think endorsing Hillary earlier would have been better for Bernie. Did you see any of the platform fight? | ||
|
Hexe
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 29 2016 12:38 BallinWitStalin wrote: Wait are you actually serious about number one? I haven't read silent spring, but I do know that DDT bioaccumulates in apex predators and has been implicated in the decline (and recovery, once it was banned) of large predatory birds. It a pretty well studied/cited phenomena :/. I mean you can use it in limited circumstances as a preventative measure to counter the spread of disease on small local scales, but it's widespread use is pretty stupid... It was implicated, and acquitted. The effects on birds were demonstrated by limiting the calcium intake of birds below natural levels. http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf The alleged thinning of eggshells by DDT in the diet was effective propaganda; however, actual feeding experiments proved that there was very little, if any, correlation between DDT levels and shell thickness. Thin shells may result when birds are exposed to fear, restraint, mercury, lead, parathion, or other agents, or when deprived of adequate calcium, phosphorus, Vitamin D, light, calories, or water. While quail fed a diet containing 2 percent calcium produced thick shells, a calcium content of only 1 percent resulted in shells 9 percent thinner than normal. In the presence of lead, shells were 14 percent thinner, and with mercury, 8 percent thinner. Even at levels 100x the natural exposure to DDT, birds that had a natural level of calcium in their diet did not experience eggshell thinning. It was a de minimus phenomenon, and DDT was essentially blamed for rampant poaching that was occurring at that time. Moreover the neutral EPA bureaucrats at the time stated: In his final 113-page decision issued on April 25, 1972, Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife and there is a present need for essential uses of DDT. This was overruled by a political appointee. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 29 2016 02:56 Doodsmack wrote: As far as insipid news articles go, that one by Politico was pretty dumb. He was never mistaken as a conservative by conservatives, save for early in the campaign mid-2015 before the pivot left. He's surrendered hope of proving his policy pronouncements stem from a conviction of the way the world works. Now his only hope is lessening the bitter taste voters will have. He's damn lucky that it's Clinton he's up against.Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement that you're hoping the convention convinces you of something not evident in his 1+ year of candidacy. On June 29 2016 12:38 BallinWitStalin wrote: And on the flip side, the bans and diminished global production historically has resulted in large numbers of malaria deaths in apex predators ... humans. It's a matter of accepting human deaths numbering in the tens of millions for unproven allegations of bird populations (Environmentalists have made far-reaching conclusions about bio-accumulation and bird populations, but the connections and deleterious effects are still disputed). It was a now-disproven shock book that brought all this human suffering, as ClutZ said, and DDT should be reintroduced for Zika reasons, though less efficient solutions exist for those willing to blow more money.Wait are you actually serious about number one? I haven't read silent spring, but I do know that DDT bioaccumulates in apex predators and has been implicated in the decline (and recovery, once it was banned) of large predatory birds. It a pretty well studied/cited phenomena :/. I mean you can use it in limited circumstances as a preventative measure to counter the spread of disease on small local scales, but it's widespread use is pretty stupid... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 29 2016 13:00 Hexe wrote: I really hope it is Warren. It makes some sense for attracting Bernie voters, she was the original far-left rockstar of the two. However, their team-woman rhetoric overlaps, it's overplayed, and it would just be a consolidation move from the left, not attracting the center and right of center. Another candidate might make Hillary sound more sane, and Warren would have the opposite effect. Then you'd get the choice of one of two flavors of populism instead of just Trump.I think its cute for the dems to sprout out Warren testing her and Hillary as possible VP/P. They will lose if thats the choice. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On June 29 2016 13:44 Danglars wrote: I really hope it is Warren. It makes some sense for attracting Bernie voters, she was the original far-left rockstar of the two. However, their team-woman rhetoric overlaps, it's overplayed, and it would just be a consolidation move from the left, not attracting the center and right of center. Another candidate might make Hillary sound more sane, and Warren would have the opposite effect. Then you'd get the choice of one of two flavors of populism instead of just Trump. i dont think you want a "rockstar" as your VP. Clintons poll numbers show that she has enough support | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
I also think a ticket with 2 women just comes across as pandering. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote: The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house.???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote: The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
on the ddt part; I have no specific comment on that, as that may or may not be worthwhile, and it's a question of fact that I don't know. but it's clearly at least relevant to the issue. but messing with planned parenthood, or the confederate flag stuff, is just irrelevant to the bill at hand. also, the republicans are being extra scummy and rude about how they spin this, and how they talk on the senate floor about it. | ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
Trumps speech in front of the compacted trash was pretty good. It got made fun of on twitter and what not but I think it was a quiet brilliant idea. Showing that he is right down there in the dirt with the workers. Maybe trump can pick sanders as VP, that would shake up things quiet a bit and make for an interesting election. He did hold elected office so that condition will be met. If the anti establishment forces want to have any change at all they have to somehow unite. Its probably the best change for both of them to have any influence but they seem to far apart to make this an option. Guess the establishment will remain in firm control for at least another 4 years. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 29 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote: You really don't understand why so many people are supporting Bernie. Just like Warren, lining up behind Clinton would make Bernie's supporters think less of Bernie, not more of Clinton. I understand people having reservations about Bernie, but Clinton represents so much of what is wrong with our political system. To the point where they are bragging that they are more able to pull money from wall street and the like than Trump. If people can't see the irony of supporting the worst abuser of campaign finance to "fix it", or the biggest supporter of ME conflicts to stop them, than I don't find it surprising that you think endorsing Hillary earlier would have been better for Bernie. Did you see any of the platform fight? And Hillary supporters don't understand why anyone would vote for Bernie. Someone actively not wanting to stop genocide and who wants to add 15 trillion to an economy still recovering from debt. But sure, look down on women testing the waters to see if a middle ground can be met between old style politics and new style politics. However, the rabid "fix-wall street" banner has been a Tea Party fixture for the past decade now, it makes sense why an anti-dnc group would pop up to support an old white guy and pretend their democrats while attacking the Clintons. Its 2004 all over again. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote: Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote: The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Wait, so you're saying you'd rather that everyone go bankrupt than just a portion go bankrupt, because it doesn't feel fair that not everyone suffered the same way? Like, if the choice was everyone starve vs only a portion of the population starve, you'd rather have EVERYONE starve.... just because you're angry? I'm sorry, but that's super villain logic. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. What? Have you remotely read what Trump and Bernie are about? Their platforms are utterly irreconcilable. It will never happen not because of rhetoric but because a Trump presidency is running into the complete opposite of what Bernie stands for. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. And the fact that Bernie stated multiple times during the primaries that he loathes almost all of Trump's policies and thinks the man is disgusting (including saying multiple times that anyone on the Democratic debate stage would be a far better president than Trump/the Republican debates). That kinda poses an obstacle. | ||
| ||
