|
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. |
Sen. Rand Paul gave a fiery speech on the senate floor Wednesday, blasting his own party for wanting to pass a budget that would add trillions to the national debt all in the name of repealing Obamacare.
“The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. Republicans won the White House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control the House,” Paul began.
“And what will the first order of business be for the new Republican majority? To pass a budget that never balances […] To pass a budget that will add $9.7 trillion dollars of new debt over ten years,” Paul said.
http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-blasts-republicans-for-trying-to-add-9-7-trillion-to-the-debt-in-the-name-of-repealing-obamacare/
|
On January 05 2017 09:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:American history being lost rapidly, in the South no less. Show nested quote +Louisiana is losing its coast at a rapid rate because of rising sea levels, development and sinking marshland. Officials are trying to rebuild those marshes and the wetlands, but much of the coast can't be saved. This makes Louisiana's history an unwitting victim. As land disappears and the water creeps inland, ancient archaeology sites are washing away, too.
Richie Blink was born and raised in Plaquemines Parish, La. — way down south of New Orleans along the Mississippi River. Now he works for the National Wildlife Federation.
When he was a kid, his dad showed him a special place in Adams Bay, where they'd go fishing.
"We would come out of the floodgates and my dad would say 'Head for the Lemon Trees!'" Blink says.
What's locally known as the "Lemon Trees" is a stand of weathered old trees on a grassy tuft of land. It's a well-known landmark for fishermen, but Blink says they would rarely stop there to hunt or fish because it's a sacred Native American site.
"The legend goes that you were always to bring some kind of sacrifice, so somebody left some lemons for the ancestors," Blink says.
And those grew into big trees with grapefruit-sized lemons. But as land was lost to the Gulf of Mexico, saltwater made its way into the freshwater marsh, killing off the trees and other plants.
The trees stand like skeletons on the edge of this scrappy, wind-beaten island. Waves beat against the dirt, washing it away, exposing shards of ancient pottery.
"You can see, it's just everywhere ... there's just shards of it all over the place," Blink says. "This is earthen pottery made by natives. This site is in the process of being destroyed. It only has a few more years left."
This ancient Native American site is an important archaeological find. It's one of many historic sites being forever lost to the Gulf as rising seas and saltwater intrusion eat away at Louisiana's fragile marshes. Two sites like this are lost each year. Source
I know that rising water levels are a real problem, but i am wondering: Don't you have dykes on the waterlines? My standard expectation from living in northern Germany is that everywhere where there is a coast that isn't cliffs there are either dykes or dunes protecting the inside land from the seawater in case of a large (Or even normal) flood. Don't you have that in the US?
|
In all likelihood China is headed for significant economic troubles. Problem is we don't really know how bad it will be. It might be a garden variety recession, it might be a prolonged slump. There is also good reason to think their economic numbers are falsified but it's hard to know how falsified they are.
The relative negotiating power of China in the future is hard to gauge. They might be the next superpower, they might pewter out somewhere along the road. It's hard to tell right now. All I can say for sure is that they have a lot of money to throw around in the hopes of cementing their strength.
|
On January 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 10:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 05 2017 10:21 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." that some fools think hillary is uniquely terrible, rather than ordinarily terrible, is on the fools. especially since hillary remains many many times more fit for the office than trump, and sadly many people aren't able to vote that intelligently. also, you still hating on hillary sooo much, seriously, what's up with that? sure we all would've liked a better candidate, and a wider field with more options, but we don't get what we want sometimes, and we should fix that too. but why not point to something constructive for that instead of harping on hillary so much? Your "you just hate Hillary so much" cliche is getting tiresome. It's a pointless ad hominem deflection and you know it. It just so happens to be directly relevant to Trump winning that his opponent was highly unpopular. Not even as a matter of my opinion but as a matter of fact. it's not a pointless ad hominem deflection. it's a pointful ad hominem. the point is i'm asking you to please stop it. as have others in the thread. it's not helpful or productive in the slightest. and it's not a deflection cuz it's on topic. we know. WE KNOW already. you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help. you're being like CNN when they cover the same event 24/7 for 6 months repeating the same stuff over and over. why not try discussing solutions instead of harping on it over and over? or at least harp on it less often, like no more than once a day. why do you insist on repeating it so much? anger? disgust at the situation?
It may come as a shock, but despite your attempts to the contrary, criticism on Hillary is grounded on her conduct and that of her campaign. Trump criticism has a great following, very popular among conservatives and liberals. But history gave us a great opportunity to also come together to acknowledge a wide range of Hillary campaign missteps and failures that went unacknowledged before the election. People like you are taking the easy way out. Period. The 2016 presidential election was somewhat unique and the anyone-but-Hillary and anyone-but-Trump factions were yuuuuge compared to previous top-2 contests. Deal with it.
I didn't support Trump in the primary and there's a good chance I'll oppose him in his actions as president more often than not. I can still take things as they come without being reduced to whining about haters. It wasn't Trump vs Plucky Progressive Crusader with a heart of gold. It was Trump vs Clinton and the nature of that matchup will continue to have relevance time and again so best get used to it.
|
On January 05 2017 10:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On January 05 2017 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2017 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I honestly think the quickest way China could punish Trump is fuck him over economically. What would China do that wouldn't fuck themselves over even worse at this point? Push Asia into the RCEP and the US out of the region which is very possible now that Trump has ditched TPP. Very silly and ignorant idea considering the decades of Chinese agression over the SSC. Expecially considering the fragility of the Chinese economy and the competition the rest of the region is benefiting from. Not to mention the historical and religious problems other nations in the reason have. Dali lama is gona die some day.
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/with-tpp-unlikely-japan-turns-to-asian-trade-pact
Japan has signalled that they're willing to strengthen relationships if TPP isn't happening, they're not going to be economically squeezed between China and the US if they can avoid it and they need the trade anyway given their situation. If Japan falls in line everybody else will to. Chinese led "One Belt One Road" trade zone has been in the works for a long time anyway.
If the US falls back to isolationism and protectionism under Trump this really is the only logical conclusion, China is simply going to be the dominating state in the region.
|
On January 05 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:46 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? I think he's doing a sort of tu quoque on centrist Democrats not supporting universal healthcare as a justification for more extreme liberals not supporting Hillary Clinton. It doesn't really land here though, since you'd probably criticize both groups for not falling in line with the party consensus, which is a perfectly consistent position. It was Mag I was thinking of, which is why it didn't ring any bells for Kwiz. Mag thinks Bernie was the bad guy during the ACA for not wanting to cave into centrists holding healthcare hostage.
ACA was presented, some people needed a middle ground, middle ground was met, then independents like Bernie forced what should have taken a few weeks into a debate lasting a few months. Political capital then got wasted because old white men didn't like the idea of putting reform on the books to be improved upon later. Especially in order to protect dems who were in states that disliked the ACA. Instead it dragged on for months and the GOP painted DEMs as incompetent because people like Bernie in a safe state didn't want to protect Dems in unsafe states.
But leave it to GH to only think about his pride instead of long term goals.
|
I would say I agree with the Constitutional amendment introduced by Ted Cruz today to impose term limits for Congress.
|
On January 05 2017 10:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:American history being lost rapidly, in the South no less. Louisiana is losing its coast at a rapid rate because of rising sea levels, development and sinking marshland. Officials are trying to rebuild those marshes and the wetlands, but much of the coast can't be saved. This makes Louisiana's history an unwitting victim. As land disappears and the water creeps inland, ancient archaeology sites are washing away, too.
Richie Blink was born and raised in Plaquemines Parish, La. — way down south of New Orleans along the Mississippi River. Now he works for the National Wildlife Federation.
When he was a kid, his dad showed him a special place in Adams Bay, where they'd go fishing.
"We would come out of the floodgates and my dad would say 'Head for the Lemon Trees!'" Blink says.
What's locally known as the "Lemon Trees" is a stand of weathered old trees on a grassy tuft of land. It's a well-known landmark for fishermen, but Blink says they would rarely stop there to hunt or fish because it's a sacred Native American site.
"The legend goes that you were always to bring some kind of sacrifice, so somebody left some lemons for the ancestors," Blink says.
And those grew into big trees with grapefruit-sized lemons. But as land was lost to the Gulf of Mexico, saltwater made its way into the freshwater marsh, killing off the trees and other plants.
The trees stand like skeletons on the edge of this scrappy, wind-beaten island. Waves beat against the dirt, washing it away, exposing shards of ancient pottery.
"You can see, it's just everywhere ... there's just shards of it all over the place," Blink says. "This is earthen pottery made by natives. This site is in the process of being destroyed. It only has a few more years left."
This ancient Native American site is an important archaeological find. It's one of many historic sites being forever lost to the Gulf as rising seas and saltwater intrusion eat away at Louisiana's fragile marshes. Two sites like this are lost each year. Source I know that rising water levels are a real problem, but i am wondering: Don't you have dykes on the waterlines? My standard expectation from living in northern Germany is that everywhere where there is a coast that isn't cliffs there are either dykes or dunes protecting the inside land from the seawater in case of a large (Or even normal) flood. Don't you have that in the US?
With the US you always have to remember just how big it is.
The estimate I could find for Germany's entire border/perimeter is ~6100Km. The estimate for USA's coastline is ~19900km (11000km if you ignore Alaska). Basically building Dykes on all of the US's waterlines would be like building a wall around the entirety of Germany three times (or 2 great walls of China long). Well that's going off of coastline estimates, if you were to look at shorelines there's something like 153,000km of it.
|
On January 05 2017 11:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 09:46 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? I think he's doing a sort of tu quoque on centrist Democrats not supporting universal healthcare as a justification for more extreme liberals not supporting Hillary Clinton. It doesn't really land here though, since you'd probably criticize both groups for not falling in line with the party consensus, which is a perfectly consistent position. It was Mag I was thinking of, which is why it didn't ring any bells for Kwiz. Mag thinks Bernie was the bad guy during the ACA for not wanting to cave into centrists holding healthcare hostage. ACA was presented, some people needed a middle ground, middle ground was met, then independents like Bernie forced what should have taken a few weeks into a debate lasting a few months. Political capital then got wasted because old white men didn't like the idea of putting reform on the books to be improved upon later. Especially in order to protect dems who were in states that disliked the ACA. Instead it dragged on for months and the GOP painted DEMs as incompetent because people like Bernie in a safe state didn't want to protect Dems in unsafe states.
But leave it to GH to only think about his pride instead of long term goals.
Because they didn't go and run away from the ACA and Obama then lose anyway.
|
China's One Belt One Road strategy is not without its faults, many of which are analyzed quite well here: http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-trouble-with-the-chinese-marshall-plan-strategy/
It ties strongly into what I was trying to say earlier: China hopes to buy its way out of some very troubling internal issues. I am not sure it will work as planned. I have my suspicions it would not. Same is true for Tee-Pee-Pee for that matter, but at the very least I do see its merits as a counter to Chinese expansion (but I don't think it's worth it).
|
I really wonder if it would have been better to scale down Obamacare after the public option failed, into something of a patch job. The way it happened, the ACA turned into the best friend of Congressional Republican candidates.
|
On January 05 2017 11:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 10:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 05 2017 10:21 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." that some fools think hillary is uniquely terrible, rather than ordinarily terrible, is on the fools. especially since hillary remains many many times more fit for the office than trump, and sadly many people aren't able to vote that intelligently. also, you still hating on hillary sooo much, seriously, what's up with that? sure we all would've liked a better candidate, and a wider field with more options, but we don't get what we want sometimes, and we should fix that too. but why not point to something constructive for that instead of harping on hillary so much? Your "you just hate Hillary so much" cliche is getting tiresome. It's a pointless ad hominem deflection and you know it. It just so happens to be directly relevant to Trump winning that his opponent was highly unpopular. Not even as a matter of my opinion but as a matter of fact. it's not a pointless ad hominem deflection. it's a pointful ad hominem. the point is i'm asking you to please stop it. as have others in the thread. it's not helpful or productive in the slightest. and it's not a deflection cuz it's on topic. we know. WE KNOW already. you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help. you're being like CNN when they cover the same event 24/7 for 6 months repeating the same stuff over and over. why not try discussing solutions instead of harping on it over and over? or at least harp on it less often, like no more than once a day. why do you insist on repeating it so much? anger? disgust at the situation? It may come as a shock, but despite your attempts to the contrary, criticism on Hillary is grounded on her conduct and that of her campaign. Trump criticism has a great following, very popular among conservatives and liberals. But history gave us a great opportunity to also come together to acknowledge a wide range of Hillary campaign missteps and failures that went unacknowledged before the election. People like you are taking the easy way out. Period. The 2016 presidential election was somewhat unique and the anyone-but-Hillary and anyone-but-Trump factions were yuuuuge compared to previous top-2 contests. Deal with it. I didn't support Trump in the primary and there's a good chance I'll oppose him in his actions as president more often than not. I can still take things as they come without being reduced to whining about haters. It wasn't Trump vs Plucky Progressive Crusader with a heart of gold. It was Trump vs Clinton and the nature of that matchup will continue to have relevance time and again so best get used to it.
you are lying.
i've repeatedly pointed out hillary mistakes during the whole election. as have many others.
so it has been acknowledged, and you misrepresent that to feed your own narrative.
thus, we have established you are lying, and not really worth talking to.
And i'm not whining about haters cuz trump won, i'm doing it because it's tiresome in thread. i'm willing to put up with a fairly large amount of hate, but there are limits.
we already know the nature of the matchup, and we all know that it wasn't decided on things like policy or decision-making capability. Which is why i'd prefer to make systemic changes so that sounder decisions are made, and better candidates put forth.
and it's well-proven that while there is a fair bit of valid criticism about hillary, there is also much invalid criticism, so your point that i've ignored the valid criticism is unfounded and another lie. so you've added nothing useful to the conversation, and lied and strawmanned.
And I do try to cut down on my own harping, if people have specific objections to points that i'm harping on excessively. but that hasn't by and large happened (that people ask me, in a reasonable manner, to tone down specific harping points).
PS your post didn't even intelligently respond to what I actually siad in my post, but was just you putting in your own nonsensical harping.
nor is there a way in which what I'm truly doing is "taking the easy way out." that's just you ignoring what I actually did in favor of your own biased interpretation of what some have done.
|
On January 05 2017 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
I really wonder if it would have been better to scale down Obamacare after the public option failed, into something of a patch job. The way it happened, the ACA turned into the best friend of Congressional Republican candidates.
Shipping off a minimal aca in the hundred days window would have cemented democratic control and muzzled any tea party wave before it started.
|
The motivation here is pretty clear, and it's all sorts of despicable. This decision is not motivated by what's best for the country.
|
The CIA has long been in need of an overhaul. Even if his motivations are all wrong, that organization has had all sorts of issues since its inception and has a history of being incompetent to the point of ludicrousness. I'll be amazed if he actually gets it done though, as no president since it was created has actually been able to do it.
|
The CIA should release its evidence so we know it can put its money where its mouth is. Being willing to leak to WaPo and then refusing to brief Congress is at the very least unsettling.
Of course, they apparently are briefing Obama tomorrow, so perhaps it will trickle down soon enough (Edit: unclassified version to be released Monday).
On January 05 2017 12:51 Nevuk wrote:
The CIA has long been in need of an overhaul. Even if his motivations are all wrong, that organization has had all sorts of issues since its inception and has a history of being incompetent to the point of ludicrousness. I'll be amazed if he actually gets it done though, as no president since it was created has actually been able to do it.
What kind of overhaul, though?
Also, Democrats seemed quite content to bash it for the WMD issue until they said Russia helped Trump, which makes this a politicized issue yet again.
|
On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent."
That seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful."
|
On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." That seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful."
I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote."
|
On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." That seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote."
I've never understood voters who vote to feel good as if elections have no effect on the lives of people around them. I mean, yeah, I understand why stupid people do it, but it still doesn't make sense to actively hurt people just to get off on feeling good.
|
On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." That seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote."
You forego the natural conclusion, which is that you've never heard of an election in which a protest vote was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
