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 the heels of appeals court ruling that restored a week's worth of early voting in North Carolina, the executive director of the state's Republican Party emailed a memo to members of local elections boards urging them to push for "party line changes" that cut back on early voting hours, The News and Observer reported.
The memo, sent by NCGOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse on Sunday, said that Republican board members "should fight with all they have to promote safe and secure voting and for rules that are fair to our side."
“Our Republican Board members should feel empowered to make legal changes to early voting plans, that are supported by Republicans,” Woodhouse wrote. “Republicans can and should make party line changes to early voting.”
Last month, a panel of judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2013 law passed by the state's Republican legislature that cut back early voting in the state from 17 days to 10 days, ruling that it intended to discriminate against African Americans. Other voting restrictions in the law were struck down as well. The state has asked the Supreme Court to halt parts of the ruling and allow North Carolina to keep its cutbacks to early voting, among other provisions.
The memo came as local election boards are working on schedules for early voting that take into account the appeals court decision. Per the News and Observer:
County elections boards are developing new early voting schedules in response to a federal court ruling that threw out the state’s voter ID law. In addition to revoking North Carolina’s photo ID requirement, the ruling requires counties to offer 17 days of early voting.
The voter ID law limited early voting to a 10-day period, but counties were required to offer at least the same number of voting hours as they did during the 2012 election. The court ruling eliminates that floor on hours – meaning that counties can legally provide fewer hours and fewer early voting sites than they did in the last presidential election.
Woodhouse's memo warmed that "Democrats are mobilizing for a fight over early voting locations and times."
"They are filling up election board meetings and demanding changes that are friendly to democrats and possibly voter fraud," he wrote.
Among the recipients of his memo were Republican officials who sit on the three-member county boards that approve election schedules in each county. In North Carolina, the governor appoints members to the State Board of Elections which in turn appoints members to the county boards, where two members are allowed to be members of the same party and are typically recommended by the state party chair. Because North Carolina has a Republican governor, two out of the three on each board are currently Republican, according the News and Observer.
Woodhouse went on to write in the memo that cutbacks to early voting hours were necessary because the extra week allowed for same-day registration, which the appeals court decision also brought back after it was eliminated by the 2013 law.
On the heels of appeals court ruling that restored a week's worth of early voting in North Carolina, the executive director of the state's Republican Party emailed a memo to members of local elections boards urging them to push for "party line changes" that cut back on early voting hours, The News and Observer reported.
The memo, sent by NCGOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse on Sunday, said that Republican board members "should fight with all they have to promote safe and secure voting and for rules that are fair to our side."
“Our Republican Board members should feel empowered to make legal changes to early voting plans, that are supported by Republicans,” Woodhouse wrote. “Republicans can and should make party line changes to early voting.”
Last month, a panel of judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2013 law passed by the state's Republican legislature that cut back early voting in the state from 17 days to 10 days, ruling that it intended to discriminate against African Americans. Other voting restrictions in the law were struck down as well. The state has asked the Supreme Court to halt parts of the ruling and allow North Carolina to keep its cutbacks to early voting, among other provisions.
The memo came as local election boards are working on schedules for early voting that take into account the appeals court decision. Per the News and Observer:
County elections boards are developing new early voting schedules in response to a federal court ruling that threw out the state’s voter ID law. In addition to revoking North Carolina’s photo ID requirement, the ruling requires counties to offer 17 days of early voting.
The voter ID law limited early voting to a 10-day period, but counties were required to offer at least the same number of voting hours as they did during the 2012 election. The court ruling eliminates that floor on hours – meaning that counties can legally provide fewer hours and fewer early voting sites than they did in the last presidential election.
Woodhouse's memo warmed that "Democrats are mobilizing for a fight over early voting locations and times."
"They are filling up election board meetings and demanding changes that are friendly to democrats and possibly voter fraud," he wrote.
Among the recipients of his memo were Republican officials who sit on the three-member county boards that approve election schedules in each county. In North Carolina, the governor appoints members to the State Board of Elections which in turn appoints members to the county boards, where two members are allowed to be members of the same party and are typically recommended by the state party chair. Because North Carolina has a Republican governor, two out of the three on each board are currently Republican, according the News and Observer.
Woodhouse went on to write in the memo that cutbacks to early voting hours were necessary because the extra week allowed for same-day registration, which the appeals court decision also brought back after it was eliminated by the 2013 law.
Because early voting is more often used by black people.
Do I need to remind you of the group that did investigations into voting methods by race and then proceeded to limit all the things that blacks prominently used?
On August 18 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: The fact that she used in incorrectly really hits it home for me. Well, that and the fact that she is also anti science.
lol I guess you guys don't get the joke?
Yeah, she's anti science... Comical after Hillary just hired someone who thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage.
Trigger warning is commonly uses for shit that triggers PTSD or other trauma. I use it in jest some times, but I am not a political candidate.
And GH, me and my state have a long history with Jill and her Green Party. They have sucked for a long time.
Seriously, did she need to put a trigger warning for her use of trigger warning for ya?
Her and the Greens "sucking" is not being anti-science.
@Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
That is so anti-science you should have put a trigger-warning on it
I guess so, and you have Ticklish ignoring that pesticide/GMO safety doesn't start and end at consumer consumption. Arguing with Hillary supporters feels more like arguing with 90's Republicans every day.
Ignoring externalities is usually a right wing thing but Hillary's got them signing on to a anti-science pro fracking transition team leader.
It's so obvious that the "anti-science" thing is a red herring.
Let's think about it for just a second, which "anti-science" position would be more detrimental? The one that wants more research done on the impacts of GMO's and pesticides beyond consumption and a moretoreum that would be a non-starter, or the one that thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage (with a republican house and senate, [and too many Democrats] that agree)?
Or maybe there is actually a pretty significant body of peer-reviewed research on GMO's, pesticides and whatever other thing you want to bring up. My educational background (half of it anyways) was in this stuff, so I'm coming from a reasonably knowledgeable position here.
Are you saying there's lot's of research that shows there aren't externalities related to GMO's and pesticides, or that there's research that shows fracking doesn't do any environmental damage like Hillary's transition leader thinks?
Sure certain applications of GMO technology in certain situations can result in certain problems. Referencing vague, potential negative externalities is not a particularly compelling argument though, it's effectively saying any number of things are dangerous when used improperly. There are very smart and qualified people who dedicate their lives understanding and measuring the benefits and risks which you reduce to "externalities", which is really kind of demeaning.
As a reminder, Stein is advocating for a blanket ban on GMO's, which an utterly unscientific and imbecilic position. Sure we could just not use GMO's - then food supplies goes down and prices go up. People starve. How're those for negative externalities?
On the heels of appeals court ruling that restored a week's worth of early voting in North Carolina, the executive director of the state's Republican Party emailed a memo to members of local elections boards urging them to push for "party line changes" that cut back on early voting hours, The News and Observer reported.
The memo, sent by NCGOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse on Sunday, said that Republican board members "should fight with all they have to promote safe and secure voting and for rules that are fair to our side."
“Our Republican Board members should feel empowered to make legal changes to early voting plans, that are supported by Republicans,” Woodhouse wrote. “Republicans can and should make party line changes to early voting.”
Last month, a panel of judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2013 law passed by the state's Republican legislature that cut back early voting in the state from 17 days to 10 days, ruling that it intended to discriminate against African Americans. Other voting restrictions in the law were struck down as well. The state has asked the Supreme Court to halt parts of the ruling and allow North Carolina to keep its cutbacks to early voting, among other provisions.
The memo came as local election boards are working on schedules for early voting that take into account the appeals court decision. Per the News and Observer:
County elections boards are developing new early voting schedules in response to a federal court ruling that threw out the state’s voter ID law. In addition to revoking North Carolina’s photo ID requirement, the ruling requires counties to offer 17 days of early voting.
The voter ID law limited early voting to a 10-day period, but counties were required to offer at least the same number of voting hours as they did during the 2012 election. The court ruling eliminates that floor on hours – meaning that counties can legally provide fewer hours and fewer early voting sites than they did in the last presidential election.
Woodhouse's memo warmed that "Democrats are mobilizing for a fight over early voting locations and times."
"They are filling up election board meetings and demanding changes that are friendly to democrats and possibly voter fraud," he wrote.
Among the recipients of his memo were Republican officials who sit on the three-member county boards that approve election schedules in each county. In North Carolina, the governor appoints members to the State Board of Elections which in turn appoints members to the county boards, where two members are allowed to be members of the same party and are typically recommended by the state party chair. Because North Carolina has a Republican governor, two out of the three on each board are currently Republican, according the News and Observer.
Woodhouse went on to write in the memo that cutbacks to early voting hours were necessary because the extra week allowed for same-day registration, which the appeals court decision also brought back after it was eliminated by the 2013 law.
There was a bunch of other shit in that law. But the judge ruled that every aspect of it was "designed to target African Americans with surgical precision."
You would need to read the decision, but every part of that law was designed to target black people and when they were most likely to vote and what IDs they were likely to use.
On August 18 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: The fact that she used in incorrectly really hits it home for me. Well, that and the fact that she is also anti science.
lol I guess you guys don't get the joke?
Yeah, she's anti science... Comical after Hillary just hired someone who thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage.
Trigger warning is commonly uses for shit that triggers PTSD or other trauma. I use it in jest some times, but I am not a political candidate.
And GH, me and my state have a long history with Jill and her Green Party. They have sucked for a long time.
Seriously, did she need to put a trigger warning for her use of trigger warning for ya?
Her and the Greens "sucking" is not being anti-science.
@Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
That is so anti-science you should have put a trigger-warning on it
I guess so, and you have Ticklish ignoring that pesticide/GMO safety doesn't start and end at consumer consumption. Arguing with Hillary supporters feels more like arguing with 90's Republicans every day.
Ignoring externalities is usually a right wing thing but Hillary's got them signing on to a anti-science pro fracking transition team leader.
It's so obvious that the "anti-science" thing is a red herring.
Let's think about it for just a second, which "anti-science" position would be more detrimental? The one that wants more research done on the impacts of GMO's and pesticides beyond consumption and a moretoreum that would be a non-starter, or the one that thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage (with a republican house and senate, [and too many Democrats] that agree)?
Or maybe there is actually a pretty significant body of peer-reviewed research on GMO's, pesticides and whatever other thing you want to bring up. My educational background (half of it anyways) was in this stuff, so I'm coming from a reasonably knowledgeable position here.
Are you saying there's lot's of research that shows there aren't externalities related to GMO's and pesticides, or that there's research that shows fracking doesn't do any environmental damage like Hillary's transition leader thinks?
Everything has externalities. That's why the EPA exists.
For example, this is one of the most widely used chemicals in the semiconductor industry:
We use ENORMOUS amounts of this stuff. It is about as toxic as stuff gets.
The tetramethylammonium ion [10] affects nerves and muscles, causing difficulties in breathing, muscular paralysis and possibly death.[11] It is structurally related to acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter at both the neuromuscular junction and autonomic ganglia. This structural similarity is reflected in its mechanism of toxicity - it binds to and activates the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, although they may become densensitized in the continued presence of the agonist. The action of tetramethylammonium is most pronounced in autonomic ganglia, and so tetramethylammonium is traditionally classed as a ganglion-stimulant drug.[12] The ganglionic effects may contribute to the deaths that have followed accidental industrial exposure, although the "chemical burns" induced by this strong base are also severe. There is evidence that poisoning can occur through skin-contact with concentrated solutions of TMAH.[13]
Fish straight up die when exposed to it. It is perhaps one of the worst chemicals used in the industry. Photoresist is also generally extremely toxic and is known to cause cancer after being exposed to very small amounts. Needless to say, my research using this chemical was a little stressful. I now work with it every day and we use quite a bit of it.
HOWEVER, we are regulated like crazy. That is a good thing. We then manage to use an insanely toxic thing that doesn't kill people. The externalities of GMOs, pesticides and fracking all come from how regulated they are. The semiconductor pays the price it should pay. As long as these things are all regulated properly, there's no issue. We have already studied these things and we already know the risks. Science has shown the dangers of fracking and what happens when companies can just go crazy and do what they want. But that doesn't mean the processes themselves are bad.
Another example: Solar energy. Another big semiconductor player. But not just that, leading solar energy technologies are INSANELY toxic and can basically not be disposed of other than in specialized ways. Is solar energy bad? No, because we regulate production of solar panels. it is also why China managed to bring the price of solar energy down so far. China just gives poor people cancer and shrugs.
On August 18 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote: I really did not want to use Adblock because I do understand the importance of ads to profit for websites I like to visit. Terrible ads, especially on streaming services that cut off an important part of the stream to show an ad, have changed my opinion on the matter.
The problem with ads is they drain incredible amounts of resources. One time I left a NYT piece open and somehow an hour later it had loaded over 500 MB of data over the WIFI and Firefox was leaking so much memory I had to close it in the control panel.
Is it ads that cause that? I'm pretty sure Firefox itself has some weird memory leak problem.
It is likely a bit of both. Firefox is a mess with lots of memory leaks, but many people have noted the nyt has some very strange ad mechanics.
It is both, but I tried again with Chrome and the Wifi sucking usage is still there. IDK what there issue is, but its ridiculous. If you open one browser to the NYT and another to Youtube you can see video issues manifest at times.
On August 18 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: The fact that she used in incorrectly really hits it home for me. Well, that and the fact that she is also anti science.
lol I guess you guys don't get the joke?
Yeah, she's anti science... Comical after Hillary just hired someone who thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage.
Trigger warning is commonly uses for shit that triggers PTSD or other trauma. I use it in jest some times, but I am not a political candidate.
And GH, me and my state have a long history with Jill and her Green Party. They have sucked for a long time.
Seriously, did she need to put a trigger warning for her use of trigger warning for ya?
Her and the Greens "sucking" is not being anti-science.
@Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
That is so anti-science you should have put a trigger-warning on it
I guess so, and you have Ticklish ignoring that pesticide/GMO safety doesn't start and end at consumer consumption. Arguing with Hillary supporters feels more like arguing with 90's Republicans every day.
Ignoring externalities is usually a right wing thing but Hillary's got them signing on to a anti-science pro fracking transition team leader.
It's so obvious that the "anti-science" thing is a red herring.
Let's think about it for just a second, which "anti-science" position would be more detrimental? The one that wants more research done on the impacts of GMO's and pesticides beyond consumption and a moretoreum that would be a non-starter, or the one that thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage (with a republican house and senate, [and too many Democrats] that agree)?
Or maybe there is actually a pretty significant body of peer-reviewed research on GMO's, pesticides and whatever other thing you want to bring up. My educational background (half of it anyways) was in this stuff, so I'm coming from a reasonably knowledgeable position here.
Are you saying there's lot's of research that shows there aren't externalities related to GMO's and pesticides, or that there's research that shows fracking doesn't do any environmental damage like Hillary's transition leader thinks?
Sure certain applications of GMO technology in certain situations can result in certain problems. Referencing vague, potential negative externalities is not a particularly compelling argument though, it's effectively saying any number of things are dangerous when used improperly. There are very smart and qualified people who dedicate their lives understanding and measuring the benefits and risks which you reduce to "externalities", which is really kind of demeaning.
As a reminder, Stein is advocating for a blanket ban on GMO's, which an utterly unscientific and imbecilic position. Sure we could just not use GMO's - then food supplies goes down and prices go up. People starve. How're those for negative externalities?
I presume we're avoiding talking about Hillary's anti-science transition team leader on purpose at this point. Let's say the moratorium is actually what she wants/expects, what do you suppose the likelihood of that passing is vs Hillary's "fracking doesn't do environmental damage" transition team leader influencing her team in such a way where they are more likely to allow more fracking (of which I know you're aware according to science, the reality is the opposite of what Hillary's team leader thinks)?
"But it'll be regulated?!?" Yeah, because Hillary is going to push for even stricter rules on fracking than Obama (one of the most prominent shot down by the courts anyway). I know the only way Jill wins is if some sort of once in a lifetime thing happens, but I don't think she'll win. On the other hand Hillary supporters (and Trump's, but that's not new) seem totally delusional at this point.
On August 18 2016 06:22 DickMcFanny wrote: Can someone explain to me why they didn't let the fathers of the men shot by police speak at the DNC?
The list of guests was like:
"X, mother of shot dude. Y, mother of shot dude. Z, mother of shot dude."
Aren't father allowed to grieve?
If we're talking about grieving fathers, the most famous grieving parent at the DNC was the father of the Khan family, whose Muslim son was a fallen soldier. Not a black man shot by police, but still.
On August 18 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: The fact that she used in incorrectly really hits it home for me. Well, that and the fact that she is also anti science.
lol I guess you guys don't get the joke?
Yeah, she's anti science... Comical after Hillary just hired someone who thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage.
Trigger warning is commonly uses for shit that triggers PTSD or other trauma. I use it in jest some times, but I am not a political candidate.
And GH, me and my state have a long history with Jill and her Green Party. They have sucked for a long time.
Seriously, did she need to put a trigger warning for her use of trigger warning for ya?
Her and the Greens "sucking" is not being anti-science.
@Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
That is so anti-science you should have put a trigger-warning on it
I guess so, and you have Ticklish ignoring that pesticide/GMO safety doesn't start and end at consumer consumption. Arguing with Hillary supporters feels more like arguing with 90's Republicans every day.
Ignoring externalities is usually a right wing thing but Hillary's got them signing on to a anti-science pro fracking transition team leader.
It's so obvious that the "anti-science" thing is a red herring.
Let's think about it for just a second, which "anti-science" position would be more detrimental? The one that wants more research done on the impacts of GMO's and pesticides beyond consumption and a moretoreum that would be a non-starter, or the one that thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage (with a republican house and senate, [and too many Democrats] that agree)?
Or maybe there is actually a pretty significant body of peer-reviewed research on GMO's, pesticides and whatever other thing you want to bring up. My educational background (half of it anyways) was in this stuff, so I'm coming from a reasonably knowledgeable position here.
Are you saying there's lot's of research that shows there aren't externalities related to GMO's and pesticides, or that there's research that shows fracking doesn't do any environmental damage like Hillary's transition leader thinks?
Everything has externalities. That's why the EPA exists.
For example, this is one of the most widely used chemicals in the semiconductor industry:
The tetramethylammonium ion [10] affects nerves and muscles, causing difficulties in breathing, muscular paralysis and possibly death.[11] It is structurally related to acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter at both the neuromuscular junction and autonomic ganglia. This structural similarity is reflected in its mechanism of toxicity - it binds to and activates the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, although they may become densensitized in the continued presence of the agonist. The action of tetramethylammonium is most pronounced in autonomic ganglia, and so tetramethylammonium is traditionally classed as a ganglion-stimulant drug.[12] The ganglionic effects may contribute to the deaths that have followed accidental industrial exposure, although the "chemical burns" induced by this strong base are also severe. There is evidence that poisoning can occur through skin-contact with concentrated solutions of TMAH.[13]
Fish straight up die when exposed to it. It is perhaps one of the worst chemicals used in the industry. Photoresist is also generally extremely toxic and is known to cause cancer after being exposed to very small amounts. Needless to say, my research using this chemical was a little stressful. I now work with it every day and we use quite a bit of it.
HOWEVER, we are regulated like crazy. That is a good thing. We then manage to use an insanely toxic thing that doesn't kill people. The externalities of GMOs, pesticides and fracking all come from how regulated they are. The semiconductor pays the price it should pay. As long as these things are all regulated properly, there's no issue. We have already studied these things and we already know the risks. Science has shown the dangers of fracking and what happens when companies can just go crazy and do what they want. But that doesn't mean the processes themselves are bad.
Another example: Solar energy. Another big semiconductor player. But not just that, leading solar energy technologies are INSANELY toxic and can basically not be disposed of other than in specialized ways. Is solar energy bad? No, because we regulate production of solar panels. it is also why China managed to bring the price of solar energy down so far. China just gives poor people cancer and shrugs.
I can't tell if you are trying to simplify the issues because you think you are talking down to idiots or whether you really think that all regulations are entirely "scientific", that is, apolitical.
On August 18 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote: The fact that she used in incorrectly really hits it home for me. Well, that and the fact that she is also anti science.
lol I guess you guys don't get the joke?
Yeah, she's anti science... Comical after Hillary just hired someone who thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage.
Trigger warning is commonly uses for shit that triggers PTSD or other trauma. I use it in jest some times, but I am not a political candidate.
And GH, me and my state have a long history with Jill and her Green Party. They have sucked for a long time.
Seriously, did she need to put a trigger warning for her use of trigger warning for ya?
Her and the Greens "sucking" is not being anti-science.
@Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
That is so anti-science you should have put a trigger-warning on it
I guess so, and you have Ticklish ignoring that pesticide/GMO safety doesn't start and end at consumer consumption. Arguing with Hillary supporters feels more like arguing with 90's Republicans every day.
Ignoring externalities is usually a right wing thing but Hillary's got them signing on to a anti-science pro fracking transition team leader.
It's so obvious that the "anti-science" thing is a red herring.
Let's think about it for just a second, which "anti-science" position would be more detrimental? The one that wants more research done on the impacts of GMO's and pesticides beyond consumption and a moretoreum that would be a non-starter, or the one that thinks fracking doesn't cause environmental damage (with a republican house and senate, [and too many Democrats] that agree)?
Or maybe there is actually a pretty significant body of peer-reviewed research on GMO's, pesticides and whatever other thing you want to bring up. My educational background (half of it anyways) was in this stuff, so I'm coming from a reasonably knowledgeable position here.
Are you saying there's lot's of research that shows there aren't externalities related to GMO's and pesticides, or that there's research that shows fracking doesn't do any environmental damage like Hillary's transition leader thinks?
Everything has externalities. That's why the EPA exists.
For example, this is one of the most widely used chemicals in the semiconductor industry:
We use ENORMOUS amounts of this stuff. It is about as toxic as stuff gets.
The tetramethylammonium ion [10] affects nerves and muscles, causing difficulties in breathing, muscular paralysis and possibly death.[11] It is structurally related to acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter at both the neuromuscular junction and autonomic ganglia. This structural similarity is reflected in its mechanism of toxicity - it binds to and activates the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, although they may become densensitized in the continued presence of the agonist. The action of tetramethylammonium is most pronounced in autonomic ganglia, and so tetramethylammonium is traditionally classed as a ganglion-stimulant drug.[12] The ganglionic effects may contribute to the deaths that have followed accidental industrial exposure, although the "chemical burns" induced by this strong base are also severe. There is evidence that poisoning can occur through skin-contact with concentrated solutions of TMAH.[13]
Fish straight up die when exposed to it. It is perhaps one of the worst chemicals used in the industry. Photoresist is also generally extremely toxic and is known to cause cancer after being exposed to very small amounts. Needless to say, my research using this chemical was a little stressful. I now work with it every day and we use quite a bit of it.
HOWEVER, we are regulated like crazy. That is a good thing. We then manage to use an insanely toxic thing that doesn't kill people. The externalities of GMOs, pesticides and fracking all come from how regulated they are. The semiconductor pays the price it should pay. As long as these things are all regulated properly, there's no issue. We have already studied these things and we already know the risks. Science has shown the dangers of fracking and what happens when companies can just go crazy and do what they want. But that doesn't mean the processes themselves are bad.
Another example: Solar energy. Another big semiconductor player. But not just that, leading solar energy technologies are INSANELY toxic and can basically not be disposed of other than in specialized ways. Is solar energy bad? No, because we regulate production of solar panels. it is also why China managed to bring the price of solar energy down so far. China just gives poor people cancer and shrugs.
I can't tell if you are trying to simplify the issues because you think you are talking down to idiots or whether you really think that all regulations are entirely "scientific", that is, apolitical.
No, not all regulations are scientific. My point is that regulations for chemicals, such as lead or other heavy metals, are well documented as being totally legit and necessary. The limits on exposure are based on studies of exposure. The numbers don't just come from nowhere. I am no expert on other regulations, but I know a lot about regulating heavy metals seen in the semiconductor industry. Those regulations are based on science.
On August 18 2016 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: @Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
Then she should recognize that the debunked Wakefield paper, which is the root of the anti-vaxx hysteria, is guilty of precisely that.
But I'm sure she knows that, and she's just pandering to those people to get their votes.
And perhaps she could recognize the NSF as well as individual universities have their own funding. Pesticides and genetic modification does not rely on industry for funding. Some funding is provided to some studies, but it is incredibly easy to find a study done by a university that got the money from their sports programs.
wait universities are using football money to fund studies on GMOs? can you find me an exampme
On August 18 2016 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: @Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
Then she should recognize that the debunked Wakefield paper, which is the root of the anti-vaxx hysteria, is guilty of precisely that.
But I'm sure she knows that, and she's just pandering to those people to get their votes.
And perhaps she could recognize the NSF as well as individual universities have their own funding. Pesticides and genetic modification does not rely on industry for funding. Some funding is provided to some studies, but it is incredibly easy to find a study done by a university that got the money from their sports programs.
wait universities are using football money to fund studies on GMOs? can you find me an exampme
Oregon State University profits from its football program and uses money generated to fund research. Oregon State studies GMOs extensively.
On August 18 2016 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: @Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
Then she should recognize that the debunked Wakefield paper, which is the root of the anti-vaxx hysteria, is guilty of precisely that.
But I'm sure she knows that, and she's just pandering to those people to get their votes.
And perhaps she could recognize the NSF as well as individual universities have their own funding. Pesticides and genetic modification does not rely on industry for funding. Some funding is provided to some studies, but it is incredibly easy to find a study done by a university that got the money from their sports programs.
wait universities are using football money to fund studies on GMOs? can you find me an exampme
Oregon State University profits from its football program and uses money generated to fund research. Oregon State studies GMOs extensively.
can you provide a link please? this oregonstate.edu seems to indicate a lot of private contracts and grants. i dont have find on my phone that im aware of to search for football or athletics but in a quick read i didnt spot it anywhere
On August 18 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote: Pandering to a crowd that is willingly endangering the life of their child and those of all children they come in contact with makes you a horrible person. I don't give a F*** if it is convenient or not.
On August 18 2016 06:11 Mohdoo wrote: Were we not convinced this must be the case for Trump 6 months ago? A politician's job is to advocate for and push for policy. Whether she believes it in her heart or not, her purpose with respect to GMOs and pesticides is to take action which is in direct conflict with scientific consensus. Her beliefs are irrelevant so long as it is on her website. She still makes the exact same contribution.
I agree with both of you. I'm just pointing out that most likely she deliberately set herself up in a position where she is knowingly courting anti-science supporters while simultaneously being ambiguous enough that non-anti-science supporters can defend her (hence why GH even has an argument at all).
On August 18 2016 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: @Ticklish, she's not hedging as much as being consistent. She doesn't think we should trust test results from people who have a financial interest in certain results, have to say the alternative sounds a lot crazier to me.
Then she should recognize that the debunked Wakefield paper, which is the root of the anti-vaxx hysteria, is guilty of precisely that.
But I'm sure she knows that, and she's just pandering to those people to get their votes.
And perhaps she could recognize the NSF as well as individual universities have their own funding. Pesticides and genetic modification does not rely on industry for funding. Some funding is provided to some studies, but it is incredibly easy to find a study done by a university that got the money from their sports programs.
wait universities are using football money to fund studies on GMOs? can you find me an exampme
Oregon State University profits from its football program and uses money generated to fund research. Oregon State studies GMOs extensively.
can you provide a link please? this oregonstate.edu seems to indicate a lot of private contracts and grants. i dont have find on my phone that im aware of to search for football or athletics but in a quick read i didnt spot it anywhere
Not really sure what to link. Being a professor at a university entitles you to a certain level of funding for research. PhD students get their paycheck and money for buying equipment and supplies from the university. The money made from various sources funds that. The football program is a notable income generator.
On August 18 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote: Pandering to a crowd that is willingly endangering the life of their child and those of all children they come in contact with makes you a horrible person. I don't give a F*** if it is convenient or not.
On August 18 2016 06:11 Mohdoo wrote: Were we not convinced this must be the case for Trump 6 months ago? A politician's job is to advocate for and push for policy. Whether she believes it in her heart or not, her purpose with respect to GMOs and pesticides is to take action which is in direct conflict with scientific consensus. Her beliefs are irrelevant so long as it is on her website. She still makes the exact same contribution.
I agree with both of you. I'm just pointing out that most likely she deliberately set herself up in a position where she is knowingly courting anti-science supporters while simultaneously being ambiguous enough that non-anti-science supporters can defend her (hence why GH even has an argument at all).
He would make one even if he didnt, thats been the trend anyway. I dont think shes been ambiguous at all tbh.
EPT
